Killing In Self Defense

by Cold Steel 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Gregor

  Can't resist a straight line.
• 

  Apognophos

  By the way, I've duly noted the info you guys gave me about Rutherford's bodyguards, especially TD. I learned something new.
• 

  3rdgen

  Just to lend support to the fact that the WTBT$ not only left self defense issues up to the individual concience, but prepared themselves for confrontation. I have two firsthand accounts. As most of us know, in the WWII years J Rutherford had purposely incited hatred for JW's by his articles, speeches and prohibition of ANY service in the military. Not to mention the lambasting of any and all religion- especially RC. He then could use persecution as being evidence of being "true Christians". During those turbulant years my father was a "Company Servant" and special Pioneer who drove a "Sound Car" blasting the Judges bombastic sermons in residential neighborhoods. Nils Jansma's father related to him that my dad was given a baseball bat to cary with him in the car to be used should trouble arise. Dad asked the brother in charge "HOW HARD SHOULD I HIT SOMEONE? Do I hit to KILL or just wound? The answer? "Use YOUR best judgement". Sure enough a man attacked my dad. I'll bet he was surprised when he got wholloped with the bat. The man took off after the beating. Nills said I guess **** decided not to kill him! LOL
• 

  3rdgen

  Sorry I can't make paragraphs so here is another account. A close friend of mine was a little born in JW boy during those same war years. He recently related to me what he personally witnessed. One Sunday while the witnesses were having their meeting in a rented building in Klamouth Falls Ore. a flashmob showed up. The entrance to the building had one of those long wooden crossbars. When the brothers heard the angry shouts outside they quickly latched it and started to DISMANTLE the wooden benches they had been sitting on in order to make CLUBS for EACH of the brothers. My friend was terrified as he saw the door repetedly buckle as the mob used part of a telephone pole for a battering ram. Somehow they didn't break the door and eventually left. Of course, the cong thought Jehovah had saved them. The point though, is JW's were ready and willing to arm themselves with WHATEVER was available. There was no debate, no hesitation. It wasn't until realatively recently that self defense was even questioned.
• 

  Terry

  This question faced the Early Christian church, of course.

  Using Jesus' surrendering ethos of 'turn the other cheek' many followers felt you had to lie down and die rather than strike a blow.

  Others, viewing life as a sacred gift from God, drew a distinction between an evil life and a Christian one!

  By the time Constantine had come along, it was clear to generations of Christians that Jesus wasn't going to return "quickly," and more prudent measures of a self-sustaining nature were in order.

  One of the two most brilliant philosophers of the Church, Augustine, crafted THE JUST WAR theory.

  If certain parameters were in place which justified a reprisal, Christians were perfectly moral in putting down lethal aggressors.

  This was under the guidelines of Romans 13: 1,2 which clarified secular authorities (Emperors, kings, etc.) stood in place BECAUSE God had put them there. Being "in subjection" to these Superior Authorities mean fighting at their behest against enemies of the state.

  ______________________________

  Until the advent of Protestantism, which switched responsibility around from listening to the Church and secular leaders, personal conscience--was unnecesary. Obedience to superior authority was the only obligation to true believers.

  Under Protestant "conscience" each person decided for themselves (in prayer, of course!)

  Modern denominations were often divided by passive resistance, pacifist sentiment, and conscientious objection.

  It took a long time for the U.S. Government to allow a set-aside (alternate service) for legal remedy to persons of religious conscience.

  Eventually, this softened to conscience only (without regard to religion)!
• 

  Cold Steel

  The reason Jesus did not resist at first was because he was able to use the power of God to escape. When he was arrested, he did not resist because he had a destiny. He voluntarily partook of the bitter cup and brought salvation to the children of men. He was atypical of people in our positions because he could have saved himself without deadly force had he chosen and when he returns he will destroy an incredibly powerful army with the "brightness of his glory."

  Since God does not change, why should his laws change? Much earlier he commanded: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." (GEN. 6:9) This law was given before the Mosaic Law, so the argument cannot reasonably be made that it was replaced by the gospel law.

  Another aspect in all this is that at least 90 percent of all confrontations (and probably more) in which armed citizens successfully defend themselves from assailants end up NOT killing them. The mere presence of a gun is enough to stop the assault. Thus, an armed woman who stops a rapist isn't going to gun him down in cold blood because she's not a killer. I bought one magazine years ago because the cover story was about a drop-dead gorgeous woman who stopped an intruder who had a long history of rapes, attempted rapes and armed assaults. I didn't buy the magazine because she was a beauty. I bought it because in the cover photo, she was brandishing a stainless steel Ruger Security-Six .357 revolver with a 6-inch barrel (my favorite revolver). The combination of the two was more than I could resist.

  The intruder first attempted a physical attack with a knife, snarling and carrying on in an attempt to intimidate her. But when she produced the .357, he changed instantly (and isn't encouraging positive changes in people what the gospel promotes?). Now he was a guy who lost his job and had been unemployed for a long time. He was only trying to get enough money to support his wife and kids. Naturally, she didn't buy a word of it and she next forced him to do the greatest indignity imaginable -- she made him call the police and tell them the address and what had happened. The police arrived a short time later and he was promptly arrested. She made the local news and then made the cover of this magazine. Beautiful...just beautiful...gun. As for the blonde, what does she look like these many years later? Who knows? But the gun, what of it? Just as gorgeous as ever! Mine never changes, and undoubtedly not many years hence it will most likely belong to someone else...and his kids and grandkids after that.

  In the woman's case and many, many others, the gun prevented an assault -- a potentially bloody one. I don't know if any of you guys reading this have been badly cut, but it's a horribe experience. The sensation of the bite of the steel and the blood that follows; very difficult to stop unless you know what you're doing. Then there's the violation of the assault and the possibility of having your throat cut. Which, according to the elders, is preferable to Jehovah? Is it better to let such criminals back on the streets where they can vicimize someone else (maybe a family man with kids)? Heck, the courts may do that, but people have the right to self defense. Call on Jehovah?? Maybe you can sit at your dining room table and he can get you a steak, baked potato, salad and some wine. Or perhaps you can call on him to fill your gas tank and keep your car mechanically tuned.

  The WTBTS policy is potentially more dangerous than its blood policy. (How do you think you'd fare if the guy sliced into you with a knife because you are prevented from defending yourself, and you bled out and now needed blood? That's one hell of a predicament!)
• 

  Caedes

  The fetishization of violence on this thread is sickening.
• 

  Apognophos

  I think some people are having Walter Mitty-style fantasies of being Dirty Harry. It's not unusual. They'd probably feel pretty bad once they actually shot someone and watched them die/squirm in agony while not dying. It usually ain't like in the movies!
• 

  TD

  I think that might be true in some cases, but also think there is an inherent contradiction in JW idealogy that irritates some people more than others.

  In the early 1960's a young woman was stabbed to death at a bus stop in broad daylight and nobody lifted a finger to help her or even to call the police. Since then, there have been hundreds of such crimes. A young boy was sodomized on the shoulder of an interstate with hundreds of cars driving by and again, nobody could be troubled to even stop.

  JW literature has at times condemned this sort of apathy and rightly so, but at the same time has preached an idealogy that although not technically pacifism, is very close to it.

  I understand that some people embrace philosophical pacifism and can respect that, but it's impossible to respect any person or organization that limps on two different opinions.

  For example, JW literature for years and years told women that they absolutely must scream if they were sexually assualted. What is the value of a scream though except for the fact that it's a call for help? If nobody is willing to help either because they're unwilling to or because the most direct, immediate help they could offer is morally objectionable, then a woman is probably better off not screaming because it will only invite further and more serious injury. (And experts on this subject agree.)

  But actually thinking things through and integrating abstract philosophy with real world morality was apparently beyond JW leaders and policy makers.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  To your point TD, I knew an elder years ago that so bought into WT's take on not incurring "bloodguilt" Re: self-defense, he actually said that if a man broke into his home and began raping his wife, he wouldn't do anything to stop it- because he wouldn't want to be "bloodguilty" by killing, or much less, even harming the rapist.

  Or, another elder who was outspokenly anti-gun because WT is anti-gun, who said he keeps a large, heavy-duty Maglite flashlight next to his nightstand specifically for self-defense. If an intruder came into his home, he'd have no problem "beating him to death" with the flashlight. Which takes more intention? Shooting an intruder and maybe killing them? Or, beating them to death with a Maglite? The elder could not in 'good conscience' shoot someone in self-defense but could beat him to death (which at a certain point is no longer self-defense).

  This is the absurdity of WT "reasoning" that gets in the way of common sense.