Posts by Defender

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

Defender

aChristian

1- At one point in our discussion you were disagreeing with my view that Christians should not bear arms in a national conflict as being judgmental on my part. Yet, you condone Christians that have and are bearing arms in national conflicts as not being judgmental against their own brothers who happened to be on the other side of the front, to the point of pulling the trigger and KILLING them.

This is done in the name of fighting aggressors like Hitler and righting wrongs committed by totalitarian regimes.

2- Your assertion that Rome always persecuted Christians and thus it was normal that Christians did not join the Roman army is false. Again, the biblical record at Acts 21:32 clearly shows that Roman soldiers actually saved Paul from persecution from his Jewish countrymen. Also, the precedent of 66-70 AD is another example that while the Roman army came down crushingly hard on the Jewish revolt, Christians who fled Jerusalem were found in Pella and the surrounding regions which were under Roman control where they received no harm. This proves that at least until 70 AD there was no viable Roman persecution against Christians.

3- The fact that 1st and 2nd century Christian writers did not mention the ethical implications for Christians to be involved in war is rather moot. Most war conflicts of that era were between Rome and one or more of its renegade provinces. If Christians were to be involved in any of these fights, they had to find themselves either marching in Roman legions or members of the resistance on the other side. Both of which were absolutely futile positions for any sincere Christian to find himself in.

4- The fact that after Constantine, many “Christians” joined because there was no persecution or allegiance to false emperor worship is another irrelevant point, for the simple reason that Constantine’s Rome was as no more Christian than the Vatican is today. The idea that a nation as a state can become Christian is absurd. Christianity is an INDIVIDUAL conversion and personal faith. Anything else is a perversion.

5- The Somalia affair shows the futility of the US “armed” effort to try to help those who were starving there while at the same time ignores the homeless, sick, elderly, starving children, racial tensions in its own back yard where these could have been helped without sending a single marine or firing a single bullet. The Somalia affair is a typical example of why nations or states are not and actually cannot be “Christians”. If they were, we can easily see Christ condemning them with words like; ”Hypocrites! Ought you not correct your own paths first before setting out to correct others?”

6- The reference to Jesus action in clearing the temple is out of context. There Jesus, with the use of a whip, was symbolically showing God’s Zeal for pure worship and you are applying it to Christians correcting national wrongs. Jesus had no such intentions. Those very same merchants had set up shop at the same place the very next day after Jesus’ incident, clearly showing that Jesus was not merely CORRECTING what was wrong.

Additionally, and even if went with your argument, I really cannot understand how you can equate the use of the whip with the dropping of the A bomb on unsuspecting Hiroshima in order to correct the totalitarian wrongs committed by the Empire of Japan.

7- You said:
This does not mean, however, that we are to consistently allow evil people to use us for their own ends (Prov. 25:26).

The operative word here is us or I, individually. I will not allow evil people to use me by trying to be cautious, and if attacked personally I will try to defend myself. But above all, I would be found praying hard for the one that can really save me.

If we are aware of evil intentions on their part that will bring harm to others, we would not logically seek "peace" by giving in to their demands. You do not turn over your child to a child molester just to "keep peace." By the same token, many Christians feel that the Free World is not to disarm so that totalitarian countries can take over and destroy the lives of millions. They see it as the same kind of issue, one of self-defense.

You are mixing two separate arguments and assigning them to the same token. They are not. The first involves personal choice and personal wellbeing and the other is national defense.

Peace isn't always maintained by giving in to deliberate evil. Is it really a manifestation of goodness to furnish no opposition to evil? I don't think so.

Christians must oppose evil with goodness, long suffering, forgiveness, even dying as blameless innocents the same way their Lord was. This is what it means to be Christian.

Here is a hypothetical example on the futility of opposing evil by the use of force:

Let us assume that Hitler’s Germany was allowed to march all over Europe where no resistance was offered whatsoever. Not a single shot. What would be the result? Just think about it for a second. Are they going to start rounding up people and shooting them? Well you might say they did that. That is true, but only when they faced local resistance. Let us try again and think about this where there is NO resistance whatsoever.

Well, what about the Jews and other “undesirables”? Where they not rounded up and gassed? That is very true. So, then that would constitute evil and thus it behooves Christian nations “Free World” to do something and stop it. Well they did, not because Jews were being gassed, for they became aware of this atrocity much later in the war, and what the result was? While Nazi Germany gassed and killed over 6 million innocent Jews and other “undesirables”, the Free World was not able to help a single one of them. Furthermore, and presumably, to save the Free World, 50-100 million civilian innocent people had to die and an entire continent had to be ravaged in order to correct this wrong. If Germany had been left to its malicious vices and let us assume that they ended up killing over 50 million innocent people, so then what wrong had really been corrected? Can you see the futility of all this?

National defense is not self defense. It is national pride. You cannot equate the right of self defense of a Christian individual with that of a state. A nation state cannot be Christian in the sense of the word and history had proved that.

Individual Christians are to be prayerfully dependant on the one that died for us, keeping close to him at all times, and he promised that he will be with us always. No matter what difficulty a Christian is faced with, he or she are assured that Christ had died for them and will resurrect them.

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

Defender

aChristian

By that last statement you seem to be saying that, though we should not judge our brothers who are members of the military or police whose jobs never involve the actual use of deadly force, we may judge them if their jobs may at times require the use of such force.

If your read carefully my post, you will note that I did not bring up the issue of judgment against anyone. I simply stated that based on biblical precedent, Christians were not involved in national conflicts for the simple reason that their kingdom is not of this world. And based on that precedent, Jesus' example, the apostles' example and early Christians examples, we can safely deduce that they did not engage in military conflicts of any sort.

With such things in mind many Christians believe it is quite "Christian" to forcefully defend people living in other parts of their own country, and even people living in other counties, against those who are unjustly attacking them.

I think you are really straining it here. In your analogy, the Samaritan should not have only offered HUMANITARIAN assistance to the one in need, but that he should also have pusued the robbers and beat them into submission, even killing them if he had to in order to protect the neighborhood from their menace.

You are taking the Samaritan example and applying it to beyond what Jesus had intended.

The fairly recent actions of the US military in defending the people of Somalia come to mind as being a military action in which some Christians felt it was quite "Christian" for them to be involved in. Many people were then starving and in need of medical attention. Food and medicine that was being sent by the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups was not being allowed through. US troops were sent in to stop those who were interfering with those deliveries. I can also understand how many Christians felt it was right to do what they could during World War II to bring an end to Hitler's attempts to conquer Germany's neighbors and his attempts to exterminate the entire Jewish race.

In your view, it is ok to kill someone just because he is greedy and not allowing food to be rationed out to those in need. Every Christian should do his part in helping to alleviate the suffering and the needs of his fellow man in any way they can, but not at the expense of breaking a major Godly principle of "DO NOT KILL".

There is practically no difference between the aggression that ancient Rome manifested towards all that opposed it and the one that Hitler showed to his neighbors in WWII. And therefore, there should be no difference in the stand that early Christians took then from Christians who lived in nations that were in Hitler's sight.

With such things in mind, I continue to believe that it is wrong for us to judge our brothers who choose to be members of their country's military and police forces, even those who "pull the trigger," "release bombs," and "are engaged in bullet wizzing hot pursuits."

While I agree on that overall judging should best be left in Jesus hands, however, sincere Christians walk by the spirit and are focused on things above and not on things on earth and follow the lamb wherever he goes and truly consider that their kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

Defender

dungbeetle

you said:

The problem is two things:
1)Do certain activities such as growing vegetables and mending clothes for soldiers constitute 'bearing arms' (Watchtower says/said it does).
2)And if such activiites ARE a compromise of neutrality, what is the rganizational remedy? Expulsion? Shunning? Death?

You are talking about alternative service and I feel that this is entirely the prerogative of personal conscience.

Neomadman

I feel that that lack of information is informative in itself. If some change had occurred which reflected an important principle.

I agree in that there is NO principle that dictates what a Christian should or should not do concerning membership in an armed service or indeed holding political office. However, there is some historical backing that Christians of the 1st and 2nd century did not ACTIVELY seek to join the Roman or any other Army. This is quite indicative, while many existing Roman soldiers, even including members of the Pretorian Guards did become Christians. What these converted soldiers did afterwards, the Bible is silent. I think that it became a matter of conscience of where they did draw a line as to how far they were going in be engaged in any armed conflict.

If you argue that Cornelius, as a centurion, was not truly the equivalent of a soldier, but more like the modern policeman, I think you are splitting hairs. When does a policeman, through his actions, become a soldier? Are you saying that it is all right for a Christian to employ violence, if necessary, to maintain order domestically, but cannot become involved if a foreign power is in the picture? Many policemen 'live by the sword' every bit as much as soldiers do, especially those working in violent, high-crime areas. If it is wrong for a Christian to serve as a soldier, then it would be very inconsistent to say that it is not just as wrong for him to serve as a policeman

Cornelius was a soldier by all the definitions of one. However, my argument was that at the time of his conversion he probably MAY have been egaged more in policing duties and thus did not feel compelled to abandon his position.

Concerning policework and whether a Christian can serve as a policeman, only his or her conscience can decide that and if it allows it, then only his or her conscience would dictate as to how much and how far they are prepared to go.

think that statement makes my case. Soldiers are not generally engaged in fighting because they are Christians. As you point out, if attacked by robbers and criminals, Christians are to defend themselves. Should this principle not apply on a national basis as well as individually?

I do not believe so. Criminal gangs and robbers hardly ever attack nations, they attack individuals. Whereas, only nations can attack other nations, albeit for whatever reasons, and thus becomes a national conflict and no longer mere self defense.

Jesus knew that the Roman force would be overwhelming, that there would be no possibility of making a successful stand against it, and that if the Christians had tried to do so, they would have been wiped out to a man. He told them to flee because, without instruction, they might have tried to defend the city, and he knew that that would be both hopeless and fatal for them.

What you say is that had Jesus followers been more numerous and well trained and equipped, then Jesus would have allowed them to make a stand against the invading Roman army. I hardly can envisage Jesus making such military strategic calculations on behalf of his followers. This is just out of character for Jesus. He is the one that said that he could have asked his father to send several legions of angels to protect him, would surely not be depending on any human strength and he had encouraged his followers not to do so.

aChristian

Jesus specifically told his followers to "get out of" Jerusalem when they saw it "being surrounded by armies." (Luke 21:20,21) If they had stayed and fought against Rome in that instance they would have been disobeying a direct command from their Lord. Christ made it clear that it was God's will for Jerusalem to be completely destroyed. He said, "This is a time of punishement in fulfillment of all that has been written." (verse 23) Thus if Christians had fought against Rome they they would not only have been disobeying Christ, they would have been fighting against the clearly expressed will of God himself.

That is very true. However, we can learn from Jesus own example of being completely neutral, even in a nation that was awaiting a messianic King and HE WAS THAT KING. He disappointed his countrymen time and again in refusing to take any part in the national debate of the time and that was "Obedience to Rome."

So, when Jesus followers abandoned Jerusalem and the surrounding, they were not simply obeying Jesus command, but they were aslo demonstrating the fact that their Kingdom is not of this world and therefore would not take any part in any armed national conflict.

Jesus Christ has given Christians no direct command against defendeing themselves, their neighbors or their homelands against violent agressors today, comparable to the command he gave to Christians living in Jerusalem at the time Roman armies besieged that city. Because he has not, it is not fair to use the way in which those Christians behaved as a pattern which all "sincere Christians" must follow.

Jesus did not give specific commands on many issues like homosexuality for example. Of course, we are in agreement as to how he viewed such practice. Clearly then, the context of Jesus message was emphasis on the kingdom. While Jesus followers were and still are living in the world, they would be no part of it.

Jesus did ask his disciples to carry swords on their first missionary journey for the explicit reason of defending themselves against highway robbers or criminals. However, he did admonish Peter not to depend on the power of the very same swords in defending himself or even his Lord for that matter, when the cause of the aggression is an attack on the Word.

I believe we should not judge our brothers who choose to serve in the military. I believe that saying what "sincere Christians" would or "would not find it in themselves to" do in this area of Christian conscience amounts to judging our brothers, something which Christ did give Christians a direct command not to do.

Not all members of the armed forces pull the trigger or release bombs, and not all members of the police are engaged in bullet wizzing hot pursuits.

I totally agree with you in that we should not judge our brothers for simply being "members" of the armed forces or the police. Every Christian should work out his or her own salvation in whatever circumstance they happen to find themselves in.

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

Defender

While there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of Cornelius and others, I believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest Christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.
Cornelius’ example is brought out to show that Peter did not demand that Cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his Christian faith and anointing of the Holy Spirit.

1- The record does not show what Cornelius did after his conversion.

2- We have to remember that after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ that would direct the actions of Cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what Peter or others say.

3- Roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied. Cornelius was probably more likely involved in “policing” duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position. By the way, this same condition applies to the “soldiers” that John the Baptist admonished. Jewish soldiers during Herod’s time were most of the time used as local police and that is why John had asked them to be content and fair and not falsely accuse someone, something that a war fighting soldier would not have to contend with.

In today’s modern states, there are armies which are strictly used in fighting wars, and there are separate forces that act as local police. Such distinction was not that obvious in ancient nations and as a matter of fact, it is not that obvious in some modern third world countries as well.

Self Defense

While it is biblically clear that a person should take necessary precautions and actions in defending himself and his family or household from criminals, robbers, etc, even wild animals, it also shows some remarkable differentiation and limits in this aspect.

1- Jesus had initially instructed his disciples to carry swords in their ministry for the purpose of defending themselves against highway robbers and criminals. However, when the issue was that they are being attacked BECAUSE they are Christians or carrying out the Lord’s work, then the record show that they DID NOT defend themselves. This is in line with Jesus’ own experience the night he was delivered.

2- The experience of the Apostles in Acts and the also the Apostle Paul and most early Christians indicate that when they were attacked because of the Word, they DID NOT defend themselves or their families.

3- What about the case of a malicious army invading the area or the country that a Christian is living in; should not the love of family and neighbor compel a Christian to take arms and fight in a group based self defense?

Again, the biblical precedent of the time of the attack and final destruction of Jerusalem 66-70 AD gives clear indication that Christians fled Jerusalem and the surrounding area and did not participate in any national defense against the invading Roman army which left complete destruction in its quake. Remembering also, that back then they did not have the luxury of the Geneva Convention, war crimes tribunals, etc. Those early Christians had left their countrymen and some presumably close friends and families that had not accepted faith in Jesus to be starved and killed in the hundreds of thousands without lifting a sword in their defense. Does this show that they had no love? Definitely not! For they were simply following their Master’s counsel to abandon the area and also his admonition that “My kingdom is not of this world.” In fact, had they participated in any defense action against the Roman army, they too would have perished. Thus, by following Jesus’ counsel, they have acted most successfully in actually defending themselves.

If there is a national reason to defend ones country against naked aggression, it is the Roman invasion of the Palestine and Judea area which was for no other reason than the gratification of the Roman Empire in its quest for global conquest. Yet, here we find that Christians DID NOT participate in any action to stop, limit or defeat this aggression. In line with this, then sincere Christians would not find it in themselves to lift up arms to fight against national aggression, whether it is Nazism, Communism, Americanism, Islamist or any other form for the simple reason that “Our kingdom is not of this world.”

7

Roman Empire Still Alive and Kicking

by Defender in

jw
friends

there has been a lot of discussion here about the succession of world powers and where we are now in the timeline of things especially when compared to scriptural prophecies.. of interest is daniel's interpretation of the dream that king nebuchadnezzar had of a large image recorded in chapter 2:40.

"and as for the fourth kingdom, it will prove to be strong like iron.

forasmuch as iron is crushing and grinding everything else, so like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these.

Defender

Moxy

It is not just in our language. I used that just as ONE example.

Notice however, that when Persia defeated Babylon, it was a swift takeover where much of the Babylonain institutions were replaced with Persian ones. The same thing happened when Greece defeated Persia. The remarkable thing is that although the initial Roman Empire lasted until the 4th-5th century AD, and that is close to 1500 years ago, many of its institutions are still in existence today.

7

Roman Empire Still Alive and Kicking

by Defender in

jw
friends

there has been a lot of discussion here about the succession of world powers and where we are now in the timeline of things especially when compared to scriptural prophecies.. of interest is daniel's interpretation of the dream that king nebuchadnezzar had of a large image recorded in chapter 2:40.

"and as for the fourth kingdom, it will prove to be strong like iron.

forasmuch as iron is crushing and grinding everything else, so like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these.

Defender

There has been a lot of discussion here about the succession of world powers and where we are now in the timeline of things especially when compared to scriptural prophecies.

Of interest is Daniel's interpretation of the dream that King Nebuchadnezzar had of a large image recorded in Chapter 2:40

"And as for the fourth kingdom, it will prove to be strong like iron. Forasmuch as iron is crushing and grinding everything else, so like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these. 41 And whereas you beheld the feet and the toes to be partly of molded clay of a potter and partly of iron, the kingdom itself will prove to be divided, but somewhat of the hardness of iron will prove to be in it, forasmuch as you beheld the iron mixed with moist clay. 42 And as for the toes of the feet being partly of iron and partly of molded clay, the kingdom will partly prove to be strong and will partly prove to be fragile. 43 Whereas you beheld iron mixed with moist clay, they will come to be mixed with the offspring of mankind, but they will not prove to be sticking together, this one to that one, just as iron is not mixing with molded clay."

Those few verses prove to be quite insightful.

1- The fourth beast (legs of iron of the image) was non other than Rome.

2- The feet and toes were of iron and molded clay. Notice that the same metal "iron" still runs in the feet, as opposed to the previous powers that were represented by different metals, ie gold, silver and copper. Also Daniel states in Dan 2:41 that the kingdom itself will prove to be divided, thus it is Rome that will end up being divided.

That actually did happen when Rome split into two empires the western part had Rome as its capital and the eastern part that had Constantinople as its capital. Then Rome was sacked and later Constatinople fell to the Turks. After that a long succession of lesser Roman Empires began to emerge starting with the Holy Roman Empire under Charelmegne in France.

3- The kingdom is strong and fragile represents the many nation states that sprung from the domain of the Roman Empire, yet still retaining many Roman characteristics, such in their language, laws, government and armies. If we look at the history of Europe post the initial Roman Empire, we find states such as France, Holland, England, Germany, Austria/Hungary, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal etc. where at one time or another, they proved to be strong and sometimes fragile. Today, the USA which is an offshoot from european powers, and considered by many geopolitical analysts as a current "european" power, can be compared to iron versus Holland, Belgium, Portugal compared to clay as an example.

4- Clay repesented mixture with the offspring of mankind, can be an indication that the modern states are increasingly governed by democratic (public) process as opposed to kings, Emperors and Ceasars.

5- Iron not mixing with Clay. Eurpean history is proof positive, that all attempts, so far, to reunite Europe had met with disaster, not to mention a couple of world wars.

6- Of course, we are now awaiting the final part and that is the cutting out of the stone without hand and the destruction of the whole image.

Those who question the extent to which Roman characteristics still permeates our western world need not look further than the use of latin in our everyday language. Here is an interesting article from the Independent http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/miles_kington/story.jsp?story=132625.

Those living in the US can go and check the many local and federal government and military insignia, emblems and flags and see the amount of latin used. The very government institutions such as the legislative bodies such as Congress and the Senate, the Judicial and the executive branches show clear Roman influence. Those who study law become acutely aware of the influence of the Roman Empire.

Yes, the Roman Empire is still alive and well in our language, our culture and our institutions.

Nevermind the many critics who question the authenticity of the book of Daniel, for anyone to write, centuries in advance, about such developments is quite remarkable.

5

WT Time Keeping

by Defender in

jw
friends

the society boasts about the billions of hours spent in the ministry worldwide.

but, when one asks how many of those hours were spent visiting one sick or needy sister?

the answer is zero.

Defender

The Society boasts about the Billions of hours spent in the ministry worldwide. But, when one asks how many of those hours were spent visiting one sick or needy sister? The answer is ZERO. Why? Because of the system. The system says only hours spent talking to or being with un-baptized persons can be counted. So, if the sick sister is baptized then the time spent visiting her is not to be counted. This is not to say that JWs do not visit their sick. But, since they are urged to maintain a certain monthly average of countable hours, one can see where they are going to invest most of their energies. Elders, Ministerial Servants, and Pioneers are extra sensitive towards maintaining their averages in order to safeguard their privileges.

Those billions of hours are presumably spent each year in doing the following; (I am sure I left out a method or two!)

- All time spent in attempting to reach a non-witness by traveling to their location and knocking on their door or by phone, or a letter, or nowadays email. The person need not be present or respond in any way. This tends to foster a preference for distant territories, as time spent in traveling quickly adds up. It is not unusual for a witness to spend a whole day in the service and not talk to a single person and yet count the entire time.

- All time spent conversing, placing literature or studying with a non-witness about JW doctrines. By habit, most witnesses will check their watches the minute they end their conversation or visit with a non-witness and count the minutes or hours spent.

- Parents can count time spent in teaching their childern about JW doctrine. Also JWs can count time spent in teaching the siblings of other witnesses.

- Car Groups. After a service group, the conductor pairs the witnesses in twos and assigns those without transportation to car groups. Since the Society encourages only one pair to approach a non witness or knock on a door then that leaves another pair or more waiting in the car or a van. The pair that is knocking on the door or conversing with a non-witness will count their time as well as those waiting in the car will also count their time.

- Phone witnessing. When two or more witnesses gather around a phone and take turns to place calls to people on a list. While one witness is conversing on the phone and counting his time, the others too can also count their time while waiting for their turn.

- Partial time spent with a non-witness, where JW teachings were not initially discussed, but the topic was later broached. This is called “informal witnessing”. Some witnesses will count all the time spent regardless of how much was entirely devoted to discussing doctrine, some other witnesses will only count the exact time, down to the minute.

- Caring for a non-witness. All time spent in caring for a non-witness can be counted. Like helping in personal needs and chores etc. A JW can also count time inviting a non-witness to a JW meeting and including the entire time spent at the meetings, although very little discussion can take place at such meetings. Also, if a JW accompanies a non-witness to an assembly, the travel time back and forth, the assembly time, and any other time spent with them whether in a restaurant or in the hotel can also be counted.

- Giving a public talk. Elders and ministerial servants that give public talks can count the time spent in traveling to the Kingdom Hall and delivering the talk.

- Pioneers can also count their time spent in their training school, special projects, assembly responsibilities and parts and other Organization approved activities that are allowed to be counted.

In light of the above, one wonders when Jesus Christ finally comes and sits on his Judgment seat, of which is he going to be impressed the most; a boastful record of billions of hours spent in the above “qualified” service, or a discreet one hour visit to a sick or needy sister?

5

Anglo- American world power?

by crownboy in

jw
friends

as any jw/ ex-jw knows, the society has declared for many years now that we are living during the reign of the final great world power, the anglo-american world power.

however, is it just me or does it seem like we are simply living with the american world power?

if you are to believe the society, wouldn't it mean that the u.s. and britain are equals in the world arena?

Defender

The interpretation of the two horned beast from Revelations is what the Society ascribes to be the Anglo-American power. Although I have some doubts concerning this interpretation, however, there is a precedent that the Society bases its view on and that is based on Daniel's vision recorded in Daniel 8:3 "I saw, and look! a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns. And the two horns were tall, but the one was taller than the other, and the taller was the one that came up afterward."

This ram represents Medo-Persia, where initially, it was an alliance between Medea and Persia, where the Medes were prominent at first, then later the Persians became more powerful. A two horned beast need not mean a co-equal powers ruling at the same time.

So, if we are to buy the Society's view concerning the two horned beast, then Britain was the first horn, and later the US comes up as another horn, though much more powerful. But this is why I have problems with this, because Revelations does not specify this takeover the way Daniel did.

16

Jonah, was he a false prophet?

by HenryP in

jw
friends

i was reading this week the book of jonah and it got me thinking.

was he a false prophet?

he prophesied that jehovah would destroy nineveh and it did not come true.

Defender

HenryP

I will only say that I'm glad he did not listen or at least did not act to please JWs.

You do realise that what you just said indicates that you do agree JWs are false prophets after all. That is exactly what the Society says about false Prophets, namely that Jehovah will not listen to them and that he will not act according to what they prophesied.

...just like he did not act according to what Jonah believed.

I beg to differ in that Jonah did not go warn Nineveh, then waited outside for God to act just because "he believed". He was directly "TOLD" to do so. The onus now is to prove that Jehovah TOLD JWs to preach about 1914,1915 etc...

16

Jonah, was he a false prophet?

by HenryP in

jw
friends

i was reading this week the book of jonah and it got me thinking.

was he a false prophet?

he prophesied that jehovah would destroy nineveh and it did not come true.

Defender

HenryP

In that case, do you consider that Jehovah relented from destroying the world in 1914 and again in 1915 and 1920 and 1925 and 1940s and 1975 and 1995, all because of JW witnessing?

If He did, then by all means, we can say that JWs are not false prophets. If He did not...