Arizona massacre -- Where does JW line of self defense get crossed? (page 2)

TheLoveDoctor

Im a fading jw and im still the same person inside besides the fact that the blinders are off. so although i would not call myself a hero i'd like to think I would do something. However nobody can really speak the truth untill their confronted with a situation. Talk is cheap

TD

A little older than Blondie's quote, but about the same thing:

"But even if he finds it necessary to defend himself or his loved ones by whatever is at hand, he should not use firearms. Nor would he take the law into his own hands. In many countries it is illegal even to possess firearms for self-defense.—Matthew 22:21; compare Exodus 22:2.

However, for private self-defense, might not the Christian take training in the martial arts, such as the Chinese Kung fu? Let it be noted that this most lethal of the Oriental arts was developed more than 1,400 years ago by Zen Buddhist monks of the Shaolin Monastery on the slopes of Songshan, one of China’s sacred mountains. From this religious source came also the martial arts of Japan—Bushido, meaning, literally, “The Way of the Warrior.” Many experts in the arts of judo, kendo and karate still draw inspiration from religious meditation. Karate has as its objective incapacitating the victim, which could result in serious injury or death. Surely, those who trust in Jehovah would not turn to the martial arts for defense!—Proverbs 3:31." (The Watchtower July 15, 1983 pp. 24,25)

TD

Contrast the more recent quotes above with this:

Do the Scriptures approve of a Christian's defending himself against an unlawful assault and using force to repel such assault? Self-defense is the right of every man to ward off an attack and to use such force as to him appears to be necessary to safeguard himslf from personal injury or injury to his property. The same right of self-defense may be exercised by him for the prtection of his near relations or close friends, his bretheren. Such is the law of the nations or states, but that law does not rest upon tradition, nor upon the conclusions of men alone, but finds complete support in the Word of God (Religion p. 291 1940)

Lion Cask

Put all this into the context of the OT massacres and genocides at the hands of God's chosen people. Hypocrisy.

FatFreek 2005

Thanks, all, for digging deep on this one. I was amused by this WT publication quote (Thanks, TD, though he says it is quite old): The same right of self-defense may be exercised by him for the protection of his near relations or close friends, his brethren.

I can just picture that 61 year old woman and that 74 year old man, who among some others, took action. "Hmmm ... let's see -- are these people near (whatever that means: see above original posting) relations? Are they close friends? Are they brethren?"

I'm quite certain they didn't pause to go through a legalistic checklist provided by some corporate publisher, in some of its infamous progressive and regressive dictates -- effectively paralyzing its flock into turning their heads under such situations. These heroes followed their god-given instinct to value and preserve the life and health of whoever may be nearby -- relation, friend, or spiritual brother.

Len

TD

The book Judging Jehovah's Witnesses - Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution describes one occasion where Witnesses defended themselves against a mob from the rooftop of a Kingdom Hall with hunting rifles.

Sometimes I wonder if incidents like that are what prompted the about face from the stance advocated in 1940.

Lion Cask

Sounds like an interesting book, TD. What's the premise of it - exposé, apology, defense or documentary?

TD

Lion Cask,

Mostly historical -- Revolves around the flag salute and the two Supreme Court cases (Gobitis and Barnett) --especially the aftermath of the Gobitis case.

Very objective and almost completely neutral. (The author did observe that Witnesses are not willing to afford their members the same freedoms they've fought for.)

agonus

It is a very good book. Ironically, it was published in 2000 - the beginning of a decade of possibly the most underhandedly judgmental and hypocritical behavior the WT has exhibited in probably the better part of a century - or at least the public exposure thereof. The UN NGO, Barbara Anderson and Dateline, RandCam, the public and study editions, the "overlap"... the list goes on and on. Could it be "Judging Jehovah's Witnesses" marked the start of Jehovah's Judgment on the Watchtower?

The new decade has started and it's already shaping up to be a helluva ride!

agonus

That reminds me... I've always said the book would make a fantastic screenplay...

I've an idea brewing...

Arizona massacre -- Where does JW line of self defense get crossed?

Share this