by Cold Steel 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Leaving,
I haven't, either. My understanding from what I read was that you could own guns but not for protection or sport hunting that's not for food. There's the bloodguilt if someone broke into your house and was ready to attack you if you shot that person and he died. The Castle Doctrine says you can drop 'em dead if it happens like that, but the society would rather you get dropped instead in order to make the cong. look good.
There are articles that counsel against hunting though they did allow for those who hunted for necessity/food...in print. In person, talks by traveling brothers were more pointed. One line of thinking was that most people in "civilized" societies had no reason to hunt for food, thus eliminating the need to hunt therein eliminating the need to own firearms in general.
I knew brothers who rationalized that they couldn't go out and buy deer meat, so they had to hunt for it, while a more fundie minded JW would counter that they didn't need deer meat to survive. Other kinds of meat were available at the grocers/butchers. I knew one brother who claimed poverty so bad they had to go kill their own meat. He managed to say this with a straight face while sitting in his brand new pick-up truck.
I've seen brothers argue quite heatedly about this subject. I myself argued over it. I was one that rationalized owning guns, both handguns and rifles, though I lived, at the time, in a fairly suburban setting.
I've heard COs give scathing talks about hunting and owning firearms, not just pistols or handguns. It was made quite clear to us that we didn't need to own firearms or other weapons of killing.
Notice that the 84 article didn't limit defending oneself to firearms. It mentiones knives as well. The Society takes a pacifist stand on violence against your person. "Beat swords into plowshares", "do not seek harm to fellowman", "Be peacable to all men". That is some idealistic bullshit right there. Try being peacable when a guy breaks into your house or assults your wife. Better yet just click your heels three times and say, "Jehovah" outloud. It'll work about as well.
The Society takes a pacifist stand on violence against your person.
UC,
I disagree and I would kindly ask you to produce a quote to support this. There is no direction in WT publications, to allow yourself to be killed, if you're in a self-defense situation.
Here in the Deep South, and during my seven years at Bethel, I never heard anyone speak against hunting rifles and shotguns. "Hunting" was purely a conscience matter and not to be looked down upon by those engaging in it.
-LWT
"...other weapons of killing" ?
Dude, now there is a can od worms !!
get rid of all the knives and forks kids !
Spoons and chop sticks too !!
Pencils and pens? Well, didn't you watch Casino ??
LOL !!
I disagree and I would kindly ask you to produce a quote to support this. There is no direction in WT publications, to allow yourself to be killed, if you're in a self-defense situation.
I think that maybe we're splitting hairs here. The Society is against using weapons for self defense. I argue that stance as pacifism, you don't accept that notion. I can accept that the Society will say to fight for your life but if they deny you the oppurtunity to own the tools to help you defend yourself, it's self-defeating.
It's kinda like the blood doctrine. They're all for medical science to preserve life, except don't use blood. Too bad that you'll die in some cases....blood law comes first, your life second.
The same with their position on weapons for self-defense. Sure, defend yourself against attackers, just don't use a weapon. They also don't want you taking self-defense classes or martial arts. Their very position of denying yourself these things is pacifistic in my eyes, though some may not agree with me, which is fine.
Here in the Deep South, and during my seven years at Bethel, I never heard anyone speak against hunting rifles and shotguns. "Hunting" was purely a conscience matter and not to be looked down upon by those engaging in it.
I live in the South, though not as deep as you, and I have heard traveling brothers and transplanted brothers speak against firearms in general. It was met with derision and argument for the most part. I've owned guns most of my life, along with knives, swords, bayonets and other implements of destruction. And the whole time I was a JW, I knew I was not adhering to the counsel of not owning weapons.
I will concede that in print they were ambivelant towards hunting for necessity. It was the traveling brothers who made big deals about it.
Maybe our generation difference has seen a change in how this is viewed. My experiences with those brothers who took a hardline stand against firearms was from the late 60s and early 70s. I admit that in the 80s and 90s, it didn't seem to be as big a deal.
There was a QFR in the May 15, 1990 Watchtower on hunting. It acknowledged that hunting was no different in principle than a farmer slaughtering an animal; that animals could be killed for reasons other than meat and that no one was to be judged for it. (The picture showed two men with Remington 1100's which struck me as humorous because at the time, they weren't legal in all 50 states.)
I also have a copy of a letter from the Society a first cousin recieved in response to his request for clarification regarding the 1984 articles Blondie quoted from. It was worded even more stongly than the articles: A JW's options in a violent situation basically are either running away or praying. JW's are not philosophical pacifists, but functionally, they surely are.
I think a pretty good hint at the true WTS feelings were the constant admonitions that no real JW could be an armed cop - you might have to use the gun and this would be bloodguilt. Now, if you make the mental leap of faith that good cops (and a JW cop would have to be a good cop) would only use their sidearm in self-defense or defense of another innocent citizen...you see where I am going.
And, as very little real food hunting has EVER been done with a handgun, this also would be problematical - even if it were only pistol range practice, you would have trouble explaining to the committee WHY you needed to do this.
JW's are not philosophical pacifists, but functionally, they surely are.
Good way of putting it...
Thanks for the reference in the 90 WT. I wonder if the Society softened on their approach to hunting over time? I can remember a time when anyone who hunted was compared to Nimrod. It created quite the furor at times in our area when someone dared counsel brothers on their hunting.
Where I lived, they wouldn't discipline you for it, but you would never get any privileges if you owned a gun.
UC,
I apologize for my confrontational tone. I should have worded my response differently. I see what you're saying. No doubt, some individual speakers and CO's have interjected their opinions into the discussion in public formats.
-LWT
