Jump to content
The World News Media

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Pacifists?


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts


  • Views 2k
  • Replies 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Some Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists ... what my Mother saw as a Navy Nurse in WWII made her into a pacifist .. and then, later, she became one of Jehovah's Witnesses.   There are probably as many g

Most of us think we are pacifists, even if we remember that we have been told otherwise. So it's a good question and we should figure out why. *** w03 1/15 p. 26 “Zealous Kingdom Proclaimers” Joy

Posted Images

  • Member

Some Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists ... what my Mother saw as a Navy Nurse in WWII made her into a pacifist .. and then, later, she became one of Jehovah's Witnesses.   There are probably as many gradations of "pacifist" as there are different personalities.

The thing to remember is that Jehovah God is NOT a Pacifist ... remember Armageddon?

Also, his Field Commander, Jesus Christ is not a pacifist .... he will be LEADING the slaughter.

And although I spent 17 years as a pacifist, having been taught by my Mother, I learned the REAL ISSUE is Neutrality.... NOT pacifism ... although if you are so inclined, there is absolutely NO scriptural sanction AGAINST becoming a professional victim.

There is where "freedom of conscience" comes into play.

WAR is, among the affairs of men, and also with God and his Christ, is ALWAYS a political conflict ... where parties war, and the winner makes the loser obey.

Personal self defense, divorced from politics, is NOT war.

Personal self defense is ALSO one of those subjects where "freedom of conscience" comes into play.

Unfortunately, people bend the Scriptures to make it follow their distorted view of being peaceable with all men ... when the Scripture says (paraphrased?) 'As far as possible, as much as it DEPENDS ON YOU, be peaceable with all men ..", and it is then that the sheep get sheared and eaten.

.

 

Clowns and Jokers.jpg

Bethel Food Service Crew.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Some Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists

Most of us think we are pacifists, even if we remember that we have been told otherwise. So it's a good question and we should figure out why.

*** w03 1/15 p. 26 “Zealous Kingdom Proclaimers” Joyfully Assemble ***
Early Christians were not pacifists, but they recognized that their prime allegiance was to God. Likewise today, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold firmly to the principle: “You are no part of the world.” (John 15:19) Since tests of our neutrality can arise quickly, families ought to make time to review the Bible’s guidelines on this subject.

*** w79 11/1 p. 4 Neutrality in a Mixed-up World ***
These neutrals of World War II were no pacifists. They were fighters in a spiritual sense, well trained in the use of “the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word.” (Eph. 6:17) They were integrity-keepers. And often they sealed their integrity with their lifeblood. They were not afraid to die for a righteous cause.

*** w64 8/15 p. 484 Those Who Pursue Peace ***
Actually, Jehovah’s witnesses are not in “rebellion” against the activities of any government, but they do maintain uncompromising neutrality as to the world’s political and military affairs, as they follow the Scriptural injunction to ‘seek peace and pursue it.’ They are not pacifists. They do not oppose any government’s program of military conscription or demonstrate against it, but they submit themselves to God’s arrangement of things. Of them the Bible says: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly.”—2 Cor. 10:3-5.

*** w55 8/1 p. 478 Questions From Readers ***
Jesus said: “Whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other also to him.” How does this harmonize with the right of self-defense that Jehovah’s witnesses believe in?—K. K., United States.
Jesus did not say if someone hit you with a club or with a clenched fist you should allow him to strike you again. If an attacker wants to hurt you physically he uses a weapon or at least doubles up his fist when he hits you. On the other hand, if he wants to insult or humiliate you or provoke you into a fight he may slap you with his open hand. A slap is not an attack with intent to injure or kill, but is to insult the one struck. Such personal insults or attempts to provoke one into a fight should not stir the Christian to retaliate. If the blow is struck and the striker then waits to see the result, the Christian will not retaliate and thus be drawn into a brawl.
However, this refusal to pay back insult for insult does not mean Christians are to be pacifists or that they must never resort to self-defense. Christ Jesus himself will go forth to fight Jehovah’s battle of Armageddon, at the head of heavenly armies. Christians resurrected as spirit creatures will serve with him in that war. In ancient times Jehovah’s people fought at his direction and with his help. Today Christians rightfully defend the Kingdom interests, their meeting places, their right to assemble, their property, their brothers and sisters and their own persons. They do not arm in advance, in anticipation of trouble. But when attacked they may ward off blows and strike in defense, though not in offense. If attacked on public property they will call on officers of the law or withdraw, if possible, but in their homes or at their meeting places they need not retreat. They have Scriptural and legal rights to take defensive action. They are not thereby violating Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:39, for those words pertain to personal insults, not to attacks designed to do serious physical damage to one’s person.

*** w51 2/1 pp. 67-68 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists ***
Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists
“Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.”—Ex. 15:3, AS; Yg.
. . . . We are not pacifists. . . . To charge that we are extreme pacifists is a lie.”
3 As defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d edition, unabridged, of 1943) pacifism means: “Opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose; especially, an attitude of mind opposing all war, emphasizing the defects of military training and cost of war, and advocating settlement of international disputes entirely by arbitration.” Such pacifism not even the Bible itself can be charged with teaching, and neither can Jehovah’s witnesses, who stick most scrupulously to the Bible.
4 When expressing a judgment upon Jehovah’s witnesses people are inclined to think of them as a religious body less than a century old. True, this unique name came into the limelight in 1931, when, by public acclamation, these faithful Christians all over the earth adopted resolutions rejecting the contemptuous names the enemies had tagged onto them and accepting the Scriptural name “Jehovah’s witnesses”. But their history is much longer than a century. Already in the eighth century before Christ the prophecy declared to God’s chosen people: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; . . . I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.” (Isa. 43:10-12, AS) In fact, the history of Jehovah’s witnesses runs all the way back to Adam’s son Abel, whom his brother Cain killed because Abel had received favorable witness from Jehovah God. The apostle Paul, in chapters 11 and 12 of his letter to the Hebrews, shows that fact. In all that history of almost six thousand years the record fails to show Jehovah’s witnesses accusable of “opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose”, which is the definition of pacifism.
5 We could go through the list of Jehovah’s witnesses from Abraham onward to show they were not pacifists. The apostle Paul tells us about Abraham “returning from the slaughter of the kings” and receiving the blessing of King Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:1-4; Gen. 14:14-21) He tells of Moses who led the Israelites to the borders of the Promised Land. Then he mentions one high light in Joshua’s war to purge the Promised Land of the immoral pagan inhabitants, and adds: “And what more shall I say? For the time will fail me if I go on to relate about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David as well as Samuel and the other prophets, who through faith defeated kingdoms in conflict, effected righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, stayed the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from a weak state were made powerful, became valiant in war, routed the armies of foreigners.” (Heb. 11:30-34, NW) Every one that Paul there names was a fighter.

*** w51 2/1 p. 70 par. 13 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists ***
13 Were Jehovah’s witnesses today to claim to be pacifists, it would mean for them to denounce all the pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who took up arms to uphold Jehovah’s universal sovereignty and his theocratic nation of Israel. But this denunciation we cannot make. Jesus Christ never did so, and he is Jehovah’s greatest witness, who has earned the title “The faithful and true witness”. (Rev. 3:14) Jehovah himself is no pacifist. Neither are his witnesses such, although they are conscientious objectors.

*** g97 5/8 p. 22 Should Christians Be Pacifists? ***
Is it Scripturally correct, however, to describe Jehovah’s Witnesses as pacifists? To clarify the matter, it may depend on what is meant by the word “pacifist.” Butler used the term to commend the Witnesses for their bravery in refusing, at great personal cost, to take up arms in warfare. Sadly, though, many people who are caught up in the fever of war see a pacifist only as “a coward or a traitor, who [is] anxious to shirk his responsibility to his nation.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Most of us think we are pacifists,

Probably a true statement, or would many be more accurate? The term pacifism (Emile Arnaud) is a fairly recent one, but, like most humanly defined attitudes, has developed a range of meaning depending on the individual.

JTR expresses this very well.

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

There are probably as many gradations of "pacifist" as there are different personalities.

In fact, due to this, the terms absolute, conditional, and selective pacifism (among others) have been coined.

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d edition, unabridged, of 1943) pacifism means: “Opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose; especially, an attitude of mind opposing all war, emphasizing the defects of military training and cost of war, and advocating settlement of international disputes entirely by arbitration.” Such pacifism not even the Bible itself can be charged with teaching, and neither can Jehovah’s witnesses, who stick most scrupulously to the Bible.

@JWInsider quotes here from the 1951 Watchtower and (my bold) is still the nearest thing I have read to a statement on the matter as far as Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned. Although Webster lacks definity in it's defininition, as the quote appears to combine the principles of absolute and pragmatic pacifism in a single statement, the answer is correct in that it addresses both.

So it would appear the original question cannot not be handled simply as a polar (yes/no) question, because it cannot be answered by a mere Yes or No. It requires a qualification of the term pacifist.

I have seen the use of polar questions as a debating tool to force a responder into a corner on a controversial issue. Because the question appears to demand a Yes/No response, an attempt by the responder to explain appears shifty and unsound.

A classic example of this appeared recently in a British TV studio debate involving the UK politician Jeremy Corbyn. Known to favor a nuclear-free world, opposing party voters pressed him on the question: Would you, as PM, use a nuclear strike option if the UK was under attack? This created a conflict between personal values and pragmatic policy to which a Yes or No answer was impossible. His attempts to explain made him look as if he was dodging the question.  

It is a clever live debating technique, but less effective in a forum setting like this which allows for a considered response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Folks, as you know, what JWs historically and presently do or don't do regarding war pales in comparison to what the WTS teaches they will do at the end of the thousand years when they all have acquired the same perfection Adam had before he sinned.  They are said to have met Jehovah's standards physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually.  They have lived in peace and harmony in paradise on earth for a thousand years, some more, some less, and studied new WT publications (Rev. 20:12) published during the thousand years and engaged in a world-wide educational program with those books.

And yet they will be persuaded by the devil (in numbers so vast as to be uncountable) to go to war against fellow Jehovah's Witnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Ronf73

      Ronf73 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stephwat

      stephwat 3

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BTK59

      BTK59 139

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • larryjohnson

      larryjohnson 42

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.