KILLER JWs NOT LIKELY BUT.............

by Liberty 6 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Liberty

  I find it highly unlikely that the Watchtower Society would ever demand that their followers start Armageddon by killing their/God's "enemies". Such a move would quickly spell the death of the JW movement as they are such a tiny minority of the general population and such crazed behaviour would be met with swift and complete irradication of the Society by even the most tolerant governments. The cowards who run the Society would never risk such an assured loss of comfort, position, and money since any accomplishment gained from this desparate(irrational)action would be very short-lived.

  From the way the Society has always invested in the future, as if they believed that the big "A" was infinitely postponed, I would say with certainty that they would never concieve of such a plan since they have proven by every action that they are faithless hypocrits more akin to saavy business men than faith-crazed fanatics like Jim Jones or David Koresh. I hate the Watchtower leadership all the more for their fake faith in Armageddon while they pushed the rest of us into believing in its reality along with the individual sacrifices this entailed. At least Koresh and Jones died with their followers for their beliefs no matter how crazy we might think them. The Watchtower leadership has never shown this kind of conviction or self sacrifice if it trickeled down to them.

  I bring all this up however, to ask if others might remember some Watchtower publications which did have some disturbing articles arguing that JWs were NOT pacifists as some believed due to our stand on military service but that we would, in fact, be willing to take up arms at a moments notice if Jehovah asked us to? This was years ago and I suspect these were written by Fred Franz but I remember these points being discussed seriously in the congregation and I was wondering if anyone else remembered this or if they had the direct quotes? I was reminded of this by the post about JWs killing apostates and was curious about the accuracy of my memory and to get my 2 cents in on the whole "killer JW" theme.
• 

  SYN

  There are already killer JWs...they're called the GOVERNING BODY. They've killed many, many people through their flip-flopping policies on blood and organ transplants (amongst other things).

  The situation you describe is unlikely in the extreme, although no doubt a small fraction of Dubs would do it (the highly programmed ones). It would be like the Dub Taliban!

  Seven006: "Have you tried drugs? Shooting up a little heroin might do the trick, it's hard to type when your stoned out of your mind. I don't know how TR does it!"
• 

  Liberty

  Hi SYN,

  I agree that the G.B. are guilty of many deaths and much suffering among the R&F JWs around the World but their responsibility for this is morally but, unfortunately, not legally wrong. They hide behind the right of freedom of religion in order to escape their guilt for the "voluntary" suicides, tortures, and imprisonments of their deluded followers due to their flipflopping and extra-biblical rules.

  Luckily they haven't tried to force these things on non-JWs yet so they can appear reasonable to most tolerant governments. This is no accident. By not appearing to be as crazy as they really are these Watchtower cult leaders can continue their comfortable lives. My point wasn't that they don't have the power to get some JWs to kill, I think they do, but rather that they won't use this power because of the consequences this would bring upon them. They are very willing to let the R&F JWs suffer in some foriegn country for the propoganda benifits (Malawi) but if they must face any negative results for themselves at Headquarters (Mexico) they want no part of it.
• 

  Bang

  The JWs nearest to us think nothing of breaking laws if they can upset their Catholic neighbors. I've seen them and their 'friends' at vandalism in order to further their hatefilled way. They desire the death of their 'enemies'.
  As a group they will generally withold their worldly goods from their 'brothers'. To my mind they are murderers and no amount of daring on their part would suprise me - only courage.

  Bang
• 

  petespal2002

  Where do you get this strange notion from? The Governing Body foist there personal beliefs on NO-ONE. There teachings on blood have been definate and clear-cut from the start, and as medical science increases they are willing to use any method possible as long as no components of whole blood are involved. The industry of organ transplants is a relatively new field of medicine, and JW's are more than willing to make use of it as long as no blood is involved. True, some members may feel that their conscience will not allow them to have a transplant, but that is a totally personal decision! The G B live by there own standards also and do not expect others to do something they would not. They do not have cushy lifestyles, unlike some Mormon leaders. It also depends a lot on your belief for a future life beyond this one. If you don't have it you won't understand. JW's are not brainwashed indoctrinated idiots, and fyi neither are Mormons. They have free will to do and act as they please, and if the choose to act in such a fashion that you find personally offensive, too bad. I don't suppose your lifestyle is above reproach either, but it's not a problem, or shouldn't be to open-minded people.
  Just as a matter of interest I would love to know how many people using this site take drugs, cos some things I've seen seem to eminate from a drug fuelled imagination. I particularly liked the idea concerning the Borg, lets vote for Captain Janeway for president and then we all may be happy.
• 

  LB

  I cant imagine such a thought. I think little of the society but the average JW is lawabiding.

  but
  

  There teachings on blood have been definate and clear-cut from the start

  oh this isn't true, their teachings on blood have been as clear as mud. You need to do a little research.

  
  Never Squat With Yer Spurs On
• 

  petespal2002

  ok show me what you mean by 'clear as mud'.
  I mean clear cut in that the stance is anti-blood and that is it, however blood is being used. One doesn't use it in one situation and accept it in another. There are no grey areas on this issue and, as far as I know, never have been. Ad in the first centuary so today. Tertullian wrote "At the trials of christains you (Romans) offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood."
  As medical knowledge and use of blood/transplants advances, the GB are bound to update the understanding of the average witness who is probably unaware of such advances. However, when the interdict is NO BLOOD, then no blood it is and always has been.
  Correct me.