Posts by drew sagan

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

Would you say this is an accurate statement:

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe there is a scriptural basis for not fighting in wars."

I'm not asking whether they interpret the scriptures correctly.

I just want to know if you think the statement in quotes is true or false.

I am assuming that by "accurate" you mean in the sense that it represents a complete picture of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe on this issue, but then again it could not. You're going to have to specify (i've typed out a full answer but then deleted it because I realized that the way you have worded it is much to vague).

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

Thanks for posting that jwfacts

One of the most ignored problems faced by those who want to advocate total neutrality or pacifism is the concept that there needs to be defense of the innocent.

It is one thing to criticize people for engaging in acts of war and violence to advance their own agendas, but what happens when people who are innocent need defended? Is it a moral sin to sit back and let the innocent be terrorized? As the article you quoted says,:

However, Pacifism and Neutrality are untenable positions. We cannot overlook the constant rise of political despots, and Pacifism simply allows thugs to dominate our world. Pacifism and Neutrality can only work for smaller religions, which need to be grateful for the protection afforded them by national armies and police forces, without which they would not exist. When a religion grows to the point of becoming the state religion it is required to defend itself militarily.

and

But for as long as tyrannts start war, there will be the need for armies to defend themselves and their countries inhabitants.

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

proplog2,
You are are oversimplifying a very complex issue in order to turn it into a black and white debate. You ignore any of the dynamics that make this issue complex. It's rather obvious that you want to believe that this issue has a simple answer and will continue to resist any discussion on the complexities.

Your latest addition to this thread is nothing more than an attempt to get this discussion moving into a theological debate. I've made it very clear that the interpretation of Biblical texts (what it means to be "Christian") where not what my argument was about. Only one comment you have made touches on my arguments, and I will comment on them. You said:

Majorities that are called "Christian" have become majorities by giving up their piety.
They have compromised Christian principles on the altar of convenience and popularity. They have chosen to become friends of the world.

In this extremely narrow minded and ignorant comment you continue to ignore anything that will show this situation to be a complex one. Again your argument fails when put up against what I have been saying over and over again. A group cannot claim to be morally superior in all respects unless you have been tested in the same ways.

My point was never about how moral or "Christian" war is. It is about the limits a religion (or group) has in the claims it can make about its own primacy. You have not once commented on this.

You have failed to accomplish the mission stated in your threads title.

The Watchtowers War argument is simply that followers of Christ don't go to war.

You can assert whatever you like but your continued insistence on distorting my arguments and trying to change the subject show it is you that have failed to make a point.

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

Now tell me how else can you take this statement? You make a claim that IF the JW's became the majority then their arguments would somehow be proven wrong. How is this not a hypothetical?

It is because they have no philosophical model built on how to deal with such a situation. If such a situation did eventually come up their current model would be proved wrong because it would be inadequate.

If the JW's want to claim total moral primacy on the issue, their reasoning has to be universal. The hypothetical shows that their reasoning is not universal. It's not about what would happen, but instead what they are not taking into consideration when making their comparisons to other religions. It is limited to minority groups.

Also all this would have to work if the Dubs changed their stance on running for office . You can be the majority and still have a ruling minority.

This is not about how such situations would work out!

I.E. - If the Watchtower wants to compare itself to the Catholic Church, at the very least they would have to give us a philosophy that would tell us what should and would have occurred if they where in that position. And even at that it would all be total conjecture. Unless the JWs ever held such power we never would know how they would deal with it.

The fact that we never would know what would happen is key. Because of these unknowables comparisons made between the two groups are incomplete. How can a group automatically claim they are superior when there is no way of really knowing if they really are in all respects?

I like to think of it as a country where there is two political parties. One has been in the minority for many years. The reason it is in the minority is because it never runs for office and never offers any ideas on how the situation of the country can be made better. Instead it simply claims it is better because it never has made the decisions the ruling party has made.

It's easy to talk how much better you are when you have never been tested. It's even worse when you talk a big talk and then never even offer a solution. That's what the JWs do.

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

proplog2
You continue to ignore everything I write. You refuse to even accept what my argument is so you create entirely differant arguments that are not related.

At this point I am beginning to feel that you simply want to discuss this point ad nauseum in order to wear me out and declare victory in reasoning. All you do it complain, but you offer nothing that actually addresses the issues I raise.

Why do you bring up a hypothetical case at all? Just drop it. The best you can say is that if JW’s were a majority they just might possibly behave in a non-Christian war-like manner. You may even be able to say that as a minority they might suddenly go crazy and start a jihad. Anything is possible. But not all things are equally probable.

The hypotheticals are brought up to show how limited the Watchtowers reasonings are to minority groups. It has nothing to do with what would happen in such situations. You continue to bring up the same tired argument and in every post I have pointed out that you are misreading the argument.

Why should I believe that JW’s NECESSARILY would behave like majority religions?

That does not matter. My argument is about the limits a minority group has in claiming primacy over majority groups. They hypotheticials show the limits of the minority groups. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN! STOP SAYING THAT IT IS!

How can I respond at this point when there is no solid evidence for your claim. How can you say that you are absolutely sure JW’s would be warmongers if they become a majority.

How can I respond to somebody that repeatedly ignores every single argument I make and instead creates his own distorted version to tear down (straw man).

If two religions believe that the Bible says Christians should not participate in war and then one of the religions carries on warfare against other fellow Christians wouldn’t you say that one appears to be following Christ and the other one isn’t? Wouldn’t you say it is preferable for a religion to follow the teachings of its founder?

And here you use the over generalized thinking of the Watchtower society. You ignore all dynamics and try to make a complex issue a rather simple on. In doing so you tilt the argument unfairly to one side. You can never make a complete comparison between a minority and a majority.

You can assert all you like that one group is "more Christian" but if that group has never been tested in the same situations the other group has faced the comparisons will never be complete. That is my argument. The Watchtowers reasoning is incomplete and thus can never claim primacy.

I'm sure you will ignore everything I say and make arguments against things I never said.

6

Baghad Burning ..

by sammielee24 in

jw
friends

i just starting reading her blog - going back to the start of 2003 when the occupation was still pretty fresh.

it certainly puts a different spin on things - an iraqi company puts in an offer to rebuild one of the bridges and his offer is $300,000 but the project goes to an american company whose contract is $50,000,000.

her blog is different from layla anwar who rails against all the american people.

drew sagan

Don't know if you guys have got this far or not, but Riverbend (the blogs author) has posted that she has left the country. Because the blog was published pseudonymously there has been discussion regarding whether or not her story is completely factual.

I've followed the blog for quite some time and still don't know what to make out of it. The blog has recieved so much attention that I simply can't imagine the author keeping her identiy secret all this time and not coming out. But who knows.

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

proplog2,
You continue to ignore the basic premise for the argument I have puth forth. You said:

SINCE JW's have never been in the majority THEREFORE: They shouldn't bring accusation against those who are?????????????? Who says? Is that a universal a priori rule?

Being in the Majority is never an excuse or justification for moral wrong.

Pointing out what you feel to be moral wrong is a fine thing. JWs are more than welcome to bring any accusation they like against those in the majority. I never said they couldn't! Quit drawing conclusions from my arguments that are not there.

To be clear, I am not talking about the exposure of moral wrong. We are instead talking about the limits a minority religion has in asserting their own moral superiority over majority religions.

Tell me just what are the limits of what a religion (or an organization) can claim about itself?

The Watchtower always puts forth their Christian neutrality doctrine as if it is a complete defining doctrine that should be accepted by all people worldwide. But their doctrine has limits. It does not take into consideration many (if not all) of the complexities faced by majorities regarding war, protection of the innocent, self-defense, rule of law, ect. Because their are limits to their teaching it is not all encompassing. Therefore how can the Watchtower claim total moral superiority on this issue when their own teachings are not in themselves complete?. That is the issue.

The Watchtower can make a case that they act better than other religions that share the same dynamics (mainly being a minority), but because of the dynamics of this issue, any comparison to major religions where the members are in the majority is a faulty comparison.

Burgertime, you said:

will not and will probably never know how JW's would react having to govern themselves. Either way both your arguments are good arguments. It's just splitting hairs.

I suggest you read again what I wrote as well as TD. We are not talking about hypotheticals. If you believe the thrust of the argument I have put forward to be about hypotheticals then you have not fully considered it.

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

Early Christianity spread like wildfire around the known Roman world , with no printing or Internet

But they did not spread globally as I stated in my comments. There were still major limitations for early Christianity and geography played a huge role in that. Now an organization can sprout up in a developed country and as soon as it gathers enough funds can begin to set up missionary bases globally. C. T. Russell was a success in part to his strategic use of newspapers, something that simple wasn't possible 2,000 years prior. In essence, with modern technology minor groups have a much bigger chance of gaining an audience then they did in the past. They also have the ability to create many small minorities of believers globally. So while a religion may be in small minority in every geographical religion on earth, now more than ever before does it have the ability to have high membership numbers. A little bit in every place adds up. They are always the minority, but still are impressive because of the "global organization".

It is not unfair, If you are a Witness then you cannot remain one if you join up, That is a prerequisite of joining the dubs and any who do so, cannot be counted any longer.

It's not unfair that they get removed from the religion. I agree with you on that. What I believe to be unfair is how JWs will slyly say that "there is no Jehovah's Witness that chooses to go to war" when in reality the exact opposite is true. There are members of the Jehovah's Witness religion that join the military (got to war), but they are not allowed to remain members because of the rules. The important thing to understand is that they are removed after they have already made the decision. Thus they made the decision as a Jehovah's Witness.

Ray Franz in his book In Search of Christian Freedom talks about the same thing in reference to other common "sins" that JWs criticize the world for being involved in. While Watchtower literature is filled with condemnation for "the world" and how it is filled with immorality, drugs, and other things it glosses over the fact that many people while active members of the Jehovah's Witness religion have done the same things. Just because somebody is removed from membership after they have done something doesn't make them less of a member. The way the WTS and JWs in general talk about members of their religion who make decisions they do not like is what I feel is unfair.

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

Yes. A closely related scenario is where modern Protestant sects, like the JW's and Mormons, elevate themselves through criticism of the abuses of the Catholic church during the middle ages.

Perfect example. Thanks for pointing it out.

66

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan in

from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

drew sagan

When you are arguing a point - hypothetical situations are NOT statements of FACT. Maybe you don't realize that when you make a hypothetical situation the centerpiece of your argument you are grasping at straws

You continue to ignore the basic premise of my argument. It is not based upon a hypotheticial situation. The hypothetical situations I have given are the result of what needs to be added to the Watchtowers arguments in order for their arguments to become fair. It does not matter what would happen in the hypotheticials or if they ever even happened at all.

Empirical evidence for claims about nonexistent events is obviously not available therefore any alleged "evidence" is just part of your imagined construct. By treating a hypothetical situation as "fact" you are violating one of the most important criteria in argumentation, namely, having sufficient grounds for your conclusions.

You are ignoring the thrust of my argument. The essential point I'm making is that the Watchtower is using an faulty comparison. Faulty comparisons are fallacies! The Watchtower compares itself to other groups, movements, ect that are similar in some respects, but are certainly not similar in all respects. They then exploit the general similarities in order to make a case that they are better. Problem is that they can only claim such a position by being a minority, while many they criticize are majorities.

There is another assumption that you are making that I will deal with later.

I can't wait.

In review of your objections you have yet to actually prove anything. All you have done is accused my arguments of being faulty without actually showing how they are. It's one thing to say something is wrong, it's another thing to prove it. While my original post may have used a few terms that sounded a bit grandiose (my bad) the original argument stays.

I suspect you will continue to want to argue about hypotheticials, but the problem is my argument is not based on them. My argument is based upon the basic facts that members of the Watchtower remain untested in the realm of self governance, rule of law, ect. Any comparisons they make to other groups and religions that have faced such issues is a poor one. As the old proverb states:

You Can’t Judge A Man Until You’ve Walked A Mile In His Shoes