You're asking quite a lot, but that's good! Perhaps I can help, though I'm sure someone else will have responded by now.
Do true Christians go to war?
Well, I can't see how loving one's enemies can be reconciled with killing one's enemies. JWs believe that taking up arms to go to war is wrong. Especially because JWs are an international religion, and going to war could mean killing their spiritual brothers. This would be unacceptable for them. Frankly, I can't argue with 'em, even if it does seem naive. Scriptural support: Matt. 5:38, 39; John 13:35; Romans 12:17-20.
I don't believe in taking life, so I agree with JWs--and thus my wife--on this matter. It becomes a slippery slope, and a lot of innocent people usually die in wars, not just soldiers. I don't see how anyone can live with that on their conscience. Is my safety more valuable than someone else's in another country? Maybe to me, but killing them, as the Mandinka warrior once said, means that their son is now my new enemy.
Is it right to take up arms?
In certain circumstances, for JWs self-defense is authorized--even striking a blow if needed to protect one's family. But no firearms. That's a no-no for JWs. I can't argue with that, either. Defending oneself while respecting life is a difficult balance, however. I don't exactly stand a chance in a fight with anyone above 100 pounds or someone with a weapon of some sort. But...my life isn't all that important in the end. I just move fast and hope that probability is in my favor.
Does it matter which is right? Can both be right?
For a JW, it matters more than anything that they are right in the most absolute sense. Even if another religion has a similar belief (the Christadelphians, for example, reject the Trinity, hellfire, and the immortality of the soul, and even believe in a Kingdom of God on earth), if they do not (1) teach everything that JWs teach, including the need for regular field ministry (ie. recruiting every month) and (2) submit to the direction of the 'faithful and discreet slave' (the Governing Body, which wields all the real authority), then they're a false religion. Both can be right on some small matters, but both cannot be 'the truth'. Only Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth, according to Jehovah's Witnesses.
This, I do not agree with, as Jehovah's Witnesses simply do not have the absolute truth. It is possible for others to have a measure of truth in the Christian sense, just as Jehovah's Witnesses have a measure of truth. Some religions have more truth than others, in my opinion. But ultimately, truth is what we can verify as beneficial for humanity, if you ask me. So I'd probably disagree with my wife on this, but I am careful to maintain the Christian perspective and not to needlessly challenge JW beliefs (at least I'm working on that....).
For me, it doesn't matter that much whether the Trinity or hellfire or Paradise earth are right or wrong. There are a number of different ways to look at it. What does matter is this: What can I verify as being factual, or true? The fact is, since none of us were there, none of us can directly verify any of the events of the Bible. Does that mean they didn't happen? Not necessarily; it just means we have no way of knowing for sure whether or not all of it happened, or if something LIKE those events happened and it got reinterpreted over time and then written down.
From the Christian perspective, however, it very much does matter what is true and what is not. The fact is, we are limited by our human nature and by the fact that the 66 books of the Bible probably are not the entirety of what the original Christians studied/believed/taught. Reading the Bible in its context is something JWs are encouraged to do, but still they're told how to interpret what they read. For someone with no such concerns, the Bible has a lot more answers that can be provided without any Watchtower-related help. Taking it for what it is, one can see certain scriptures that suggest that Jesus Christ is in a subordinate position, at least while on earth, and yet other scriptures seem to suggest that he has a level of authority that can only be equaled by God the Father--all authority in heaven and on earth, every knee bending to Him, attributing power, honor, glory and salvation to Him. The Father and Jesus both share most of the same titles. Holy spirit seems to have a very different role than the Father and the Son, at least in the New Testament. But establishing holy spirit as God as well? It gets to be a challenge for me.
I think it's clear that if the Hebrews--from whose culture Judaism and Christianity spawned--had a monotheistic system, logically both religions should've maintained that. Of course, by the time of Christianity, Greek culture was a major influence on everyone's thinking, so Christianity could very well have been a merging of monotheistic thought with Greek notions (a son of God walking amongst men? Greek mythology had that for awhile, you know...).
But historical objectivity aside, I know that the Father is God, and there's supposed to be only one God. Jesus is definitely not an archangel, but is like a grown son to his Father, sharing in the authority of the Father and standing as equal as an adult son would be to a human father on earth. Kind of like an adult son who is given authority over his aged father's house, you might say, with the father standing back a little to give his son a chance to prove himself, spread his wings, take the reins. Holy spirit may well be a powerful force, or it may be a person, or maybe both--a person with powerful force at his disposal.
The Bible does clearly speak of a 'new heavens and a new earth'. So does that mean planet Earth is toast and there'll be a new one to replace it, or does it just mean all the bad folks will be wiped away? Well, all the bad folks, according to Revelation 20, will have already received whatever fate they were going to get. The planet itself may get a face lift, so that it looks brand new, but the 1,000 years probably won't be what JWs claim they'll be, with elders acting as princes and the Society opening up 'new scrolls' for people. The scrolls are more than likely the record of people's actions. They'll be judged, not based on a second chance over 1,000 years, but on the things they did in their original life. Given that the Society's brand of God/Christ will not be doing the judging, I think people are going to fare pretty well, all things considered.
I think it's necessary to also be open to the other possibility: we are just another species in a universe we do not yet comprehend, struggling to survive and preserve ourselves and our collective knowledge. You and I will live so long as our bodies permit, then we will die and our remains will contribute to the continuation of some other species, all of it a part of the continuing process that was somehow set in motion ages ago by some unseen hand or some unknown event.
For me, I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong. For a JW, being wrong is either not an option or not really relevant, as they don't approach their existence from that perspective. God cannot be wrong, they reason, and since this is God's organization, it cannot be wrong, either. It may have imperfect men at the helm in its visible part, but since God is directing matters, His spirit is still with us. Being wrong is a concept that is carefully avoided in their vocabulary. There are only 'adjustments in understanding' that occur 'progressively' based on taking Proverbs 4:18 out of its context.
So...there are my thoughts on that. I hope this was helpful for you.
--sd-7
