• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Deserve to Benefit From the Freedoms Others Have Paid For?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Great point, R, in fact, I think I heard that it was a soldier's duty to refuse illegal orders. But, in application, this would be entirely impracticable.

As I understand it, despite the fact that this is covered in training classes, the rest of a soldier's training involves teaching him to obey instantly, without stopping to consider the legal implications of the order. Any tendency to hesitation is quickly weeded out.
I'm sure any soldier who actually had the temerity to question an order would not be happy with the results.

There's also the larger picture. For a war to be legal it must be sanctioned by the UN. The US is a signatory to this treaty. Therefore, wouldn't an order to deploy to an unsanctioned war zone be illegal?
Wouldn't a soldier have a duty to refuse to go to an illegal war?
I never said disobeying orders would be easy or common.
It is nonetheless a right to refuse.
 
Consider

"Jehovah's Witnesses are an international association of Christians who have been confronted with the issue of compulsory military service in many lands.

In the past, the Congress of the United States has provided exemption to registrants who entertain sincerely-held, religious objections to military service. Jehovah's Witnesses are conscientiously opposed to war and to their participation in such in any form whatsoever. For this reason they inform officials of the government that they conscientiously object to serving in the military, or in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military. Moreover, they are willing to accept the consequences of their Bible-based, conscientious position."
source



"The Watchtower Files
A Blog For Jehovah's Witnesses And Those Who Love Them"

"It is a well known fact to those who are familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses that they forbid military service. They even forbid non-combat military service which has been a suitable alternative to conscientious objectors for many decades in this country. While they can’t actually disfellowship someone for joining the military the Watchtower can and does disassociate them and treats them as if they were disfellowshipped. Apparently the illegality of discriminating against someone who chooses to serve their country in military service directly affects what the Watchtower will and won’t do to their members."
source

Yearbook 1991 p. 166
…attempts have been made (in Sweden) to have us substitute compulsory work for military service. In the early 1970's, a governmental committee was appointed to review the handling of conscientious objectors. For the sake of uniformity, the authorities wanted Jehovah's Witnesses to serve on terms similar to those for other religious groups and do compulsory work as a substitute.

Representatives of the branch office appeared before the committee, explaining that the Witnesses could not accept any substitute for military service whatsoever, no matter how praiseworthy the task.
source
My question, put as simply as I can: Is it ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?
j%20w%20watching%20war_zpsaojoyfxq.png



Please note that this is not presented to make fun of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a look at the position they've chosen to take and its ethics.

.


Like those in the Watchtower, this relies on a misinterpretation of the Scriptures. We must keep things in context. While the commandments in the Old Testament tell us to love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart, soul and body and to love thy neighbor as thy self, the Israelites launched their military campaigns into the Land of Canaan when they came out of bondage in Egypt. They committed genocide at the command of God. (Deuteronomy 10:12; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-39). Likewise King David and many other Kings of Israel engaged in wars against pagan nations and subdued them.
When we come to the New Testament, we are told to love your enemies. Here is one rule, but there is another rule which we find in Romans 13:4:-
Romans 13:4 (KJV)
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Generally speaking, we are to love your enemies, but there are times of national emergency, when your loving enemies are not an option, nor practical. Anyone who sits at home while your neighbors go to war to protect the country from evil, is not loving. Certainty for eternity.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Like those in the Watchtower, this relies on a misinterpretation of the Scriptures. We must keep things in context. While the commandments in the Old Testament tell us to love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart, soul and body and to love thy neighbor as thy self, the Israelites launched their military campaigns into the Land of Canaan when they came out of bondage in Egypt. They committed genocide at the command of God. (Deuteronomy 10:12; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-39). Likewise King David and many other Kings of Israel engaged in wars against pagan nations and subdued them.

God never sanctioned a war for Christians. Read your Bible. Once the Jews no longer occupied the Promised Land, ( when they were dispersed into other nations) there were no wars sanctioned by God for Israel because there was no longer a land to defend. That is the only time they fought a war. If God was not backing them when they chose to fight an enemy, they were defeated.

When we come to the New Testament, we are told to love your enemies. Here is one rule, but there is another rule which we find in Romans 13:4:-
Romans 13:4 (KJV)
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Generally speaking, we are to love your enemies, but there are times of national emergency, when your loving enemies are not an option, nor practical. Anyone who sits at home while your neighbors go to war to protect the country from evil, is not loving. Certainty for eternity.

You seriously say that JW's misinterpret scripture and then go ahead and misinterpret one yourself.

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the Christian scriptures understands what it means to "love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you"...it's a bit hard to do that with a gun or a bomb. :rolleyes:

You quote Paul as saying that "for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Lets look at that scripture in context....Romans 13:1-4:

"Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad."

This is about law breakers, and those who oppose the rulers of their nation.....it's not talking about fighting in a war. Political squabbles especially over oil or land are nothing to do with God.

What is a "minister"? Is it not a servant? That is the political and religious meaning of the word. Ministers in a government serve the interests of the people. Those in government are under the authority of the leader of that government....to serve the interests of the people and to protect their citizens from evildoers. God protects his own in that arrangement.

Those who "bear the sword" are not the Christians but "the rulers"....those who hold governmental authority over them. (Romans 13:1)

No Christian in the first century held political office or were part of the military forces...their Christian conscience would not let them. (John 18:36)

The authorities at times arrested the Christians and made life hard for them. But this gave them no license to rebel, nor did it give them license to make a better government for themselves. They were to obey the governing authority in everything except when they were told to do things God had forbidden...or were told not to do the things God commanded. (Acts 5:29)

Perhaps you should temper Paul's words with what he said in the previous chapter?

"Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good." (Romans 12:17-21)

It doesn't say to conquer evil with weapons....it says to conquer evil with good. Do you need an interpreter? o_O
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I never said disobeying orders would be easy or common.
It is nonetheless a right to refuse.
Fair point. Nonetheless, that reminds me of how questionable the idea of a "right" is.

After all, you could just as easily say that political regimes have a right to oppress. You might even add that they have that right as long as they accept the consequences. An ellegant claim, perhaps, but not very meaningful when push comes to shove: it is inherent to the idea of consequences that they can't really be avoided.

I don't think people have or even could conceivably come to have rights as such. Instead, we enjoy benefits that are sustained or even created outright by the effort and good will from other people.

Calling those benefits "rights" is ultimately a bad idea. It lends them the appearance of a spontaneous gift from existence itself and discourages their maintenance and improvement.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
After all, you could just as easily say that political regimes have a right to oppress. You might even add that they have that right as long as they accept the consequences. An ellegant claim, perhaps, but not very meaningful when push comes to shove: it is inherent to the idea of consequences that they can't really be avoided.

I don't think people have or even could conceivably come to have rights as such. Instead, we enjoy benefits that are sustained or even created outright by the effort and good will from other people.

Calling those benefits "rights" is ultimately a bad idea. It lends them the appearance of a spontaneous gift from existence itself and discourages their maintenance and improvement.
Anyone can claim anything is a right.
I can only tell you which I want recognized.
But under our law, to disobey illegal orders is a right.

Note to anyone looking for moral absolutes.....
Talking to me is a waste of time.
(More so than usual.)
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Anyone can claim anything is a right.
I can only tell you which I want recognized.
But under our law, to disobey illegal orders is a right.

Note to anyone looking for moral absolutes.....
Talking to me is a waste of time.
(More so than usual.)
I didn't see the thread, Revoltingest hits 100,000.
 

Vaderecta

Active Member
But when was the last time the military was used to defend the nation? Speaking as a US resident, I'd say that the only existential threat to the US is the growth of our own corporate-police-surveillance state.

The military maintains The Empire and the economic interests of the 0.1%. It does not defend the country -- (the security and prosperity of the people).

This is a pretty fair point. I have nothing to offer in my life to refute your conclusion. The point I was making is this is a really complicated existence and we enjoy so many tenuous freedoms and are as citizens really out of touch with how those are preserved.

It's not exactly unique. Lots of other countries have freedom. It's a big world though and our country for some reason elected Trump to represent them. On top of that the US has the highest percentage of incarcerated citizens compared with well... all the other countries that have freedom. Then we have the fact that more of our soldiers died from suicide than from enemy soldiers shooting them and I won't even try to defend that. Just look it up and consult your sources and come to your own conclusions. I will offer wikipedia as a starting point: United States military veteran suicide - Wikipedia

I realize this all falls on your side of the argument. However I can't banish that idea that sometimes we need to defend ourselves and we need people capable of doing that and its fairly complicated. I referenced Joe Rogan's podcast before for a Jocko reference but he was also recently on Sam Harris's podcast and I would invite you to consider that as well:

The Logic of Violence
 
Last edited:
Consider

"Jehovah's Witnesses are an international association of Christians who have been confronted with the issue of compulsory military service in many lands.

In the past, the Congress of the United States has provided exemption to registrants who entertain sincerely-held, religious objections to military service. Jehovah's Witnesses are conscientiously opposed to war and to their participation in such in any form whatsoever. For this reason they inform officials of the government that they conscientiously object to serving in the military, or in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military. Moreover, they are willing to accept the consequences of their Bible-based, conscientious position."
source



"The Watchtower Files
A Blog For Jehovah's Witnesses And Those Who Love Them"

"It is a well known fact to those who are familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses that they forbid military service. They even forbid non-combat military service which has been a suitable alternative to conscientious objectors for many decades in this country. While they can’t actually disfellowship someone for joining the military the Watchtower can and does disassociate them and treats them as if they were disfellowshipped. Apparently the illegality of discriminating against someone who chooses to serve their country in military service directly affects what the Watchtower will and won’t do to their members."
source

Yearbook 1991 p. 166
…attempts have been made (in Sweden) to have us substitute compulsory work for military service. In the early 1970's, a governmental committee was appointed to review the handling of conscientious objectors. For the sake of uniformity, the authorities wanted Jehovah's Witnesses to serve on terms similar to those for other religious groups and do compulsory work as a substitute.

Representatives of the branch office appeared before the committee, explaining that the Witnesses could not accept any substitute for military service whatsoever, no matter how praiseworthy the task.
source
My question, put as simply as I can: Is it ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?
j%20w%20watching%20war_zpsaojoyfxq.png



Please note that this is not presented to make fun of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a look at the position they've chosen to take and its ethics.

.



Like those in the Watchtower, this relies on a misinterpretation of the Scriptures. We must keep things in context. While the commandments in the Old Testament tell us to love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart, soul and body and to love thy neighbor as thy self, the Israelites launched their military campaigns into the Land of Canaan when they came out of bondage in Egypt. They committed genocide at the command of God. (Deuteronomy 10:12; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-39). Likewise King David and many other Kings of Israel engaged in wars against pagan nations and subdued them.
When we come to the New Testament, we are told to love your enemies. Here is one rule, but there is another rule which we find in Romans 13:4:-
Romans 13:4 (KJV)
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Generally speaking, we are to love your enemies, but there are times of national emergency, when your loving enemies are not an option, nor practical. Anyone who sits at home while your neighbors go to war to protect the country from evil, is not loving. Certainty for eternity.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
One more thing I'll add.

When a person joins the military on his own free will, he may be misguided, but at least he is trying to do a good thing. Right or wrong, I could see God looking kindly on this person, as having a good heart.

When a person is forced to join the military, he is showing God and us, that he is more willing to kill other people than he is willing suffer a little himself to save the lives of other people. This, I see as a bad person. Is your freedom, as in avoiding jail, worth more than other man's life? Does this not show a bad person?

You seem to be saying that if I enlist, I'm a good person, but if I don't resist being drafted under threat of incarceration, I am a bad person.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What part of 2 Cor 10:3,4 don't you get? Know this true Christians do not fight 2 Tim 2:24

capumetu @yours.com

What does this mean to you? :

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

Virtually any position or its opposite can be supported using scripture. Two Christians with different psychologies and different dispositions read the same book and each comes away feeling vindicated that his militancy or pacifism is justified by scripture, and that the other Christian is misinterpreting it. That's how both the Quakes and Klan can hold up the same Bible in support of their radically disparate communities and beliefs.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
God never sanctioned a war for Christians. Read your Bible.
Since this thread is about JWs...

Back during the lead up to the Iraq invasion I was beside myself. I was vehemently opposed to that war. I did everything I knew to oppose it.
One of the most frustrating aspects was the level of support for that horrible war amongst the Christians! They were mostly all about bombing the crap out of Iraqis in their own country. We got a bunch of Catholics because the Pope declared it a "crime against humanity".

So my question is:" What did the Jehovahs Witnesses do to actively support peace before that invasion? "
I was never aware of anything.
Tom
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yup, and subject to its laws. But of course this isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not it's ethical to benefit from the sacrifices made by others one's behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?

.

Assuming that people actually benefit from the military service of others, how can a conscientious objector not benefit from those sacrifices? Even if he chooses to move to another country so as not to benefit from them, he's doing the same thing in his new country unless he moves to a place that does not have people making such sacrifices.

That's a different issue from whether such a person can serve in other ways, which would be covered if the question were, "Is it ethical for a conscientious objector to refuse to serve in a noncombative capacity," and that should be qualified to indicate that he has been drafted and refused. If there is no draft, you've got most of the nation doing the same thing.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Assuming that people actually benefit from the military service of others, how can a conscientious objector not benefit from those sacrifices? Even if he chooses to move to another country so as not to benefit from them, he's doing the same thing in his new country unless he moves to a place that does not have people making such sacrifices.

That's a different issue from whether such a person can serve in other ways, which would be covered if the question were, "Is it ethical for a conscientious objector to refuse to serve in a noncombative capacity," and that should be qualified to indicate that he has been drafted and refused. If there is no draft, you've got most of the nation doing the same thing.
My hope was that people would answer the question IN my post:

"My question, put as simply as I can: Is it ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?"

which honed the question in the title.
.

.
 
Last edited:
Consider

"Jehovah's Witnesses are an international association of Christians who have been confronted with the issue of compulsory military service in many lands.

In the past, the Congress of the United States has provided exemption to registrants who entertain sincerely-held, religious objections to military service. Jehovah's Witnesses are conscientiously opposed to war and to their participation in such in any form whatsoever. For this reason they inform officials of the government that they conscientiously object to serving in the military, or in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military. Moreover, they are willing to accept the consequences of their Bible-based, conscientious position."
source



"The Watchtower Files
A Blog For Jehovah's Witnesses And Those Who Love Them"

"It is a well known fact to those who are familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses that they forbid military service. They even forbid non-combat military service which has been a suitable alternative to conscientious objectors for many decades in this country. While they can’t actually disfellowship someone for joining the military the Watchtower can and does disassociate them and treats them as if they were disfellowshipped. Apparently the illegality of discriminating against someone who chooses to serve their country in military service directly affects what the Watchtower will and won’t do to their members."
source

Yearbook 1991 p. 166
…attempts have been made (in Sweden) to have us substitute compulsory work for military service. In the early 1970's, a governmental committee was appointed to review the handling of conscientious objectors. For the sake of uniformity, the authorities wanted Jehovah's Witnesses to serve on terms similar to those for other religious groups and do compulsory work as a substitute.

Representatives of the branch office appeared before the committee, explaining that the Witnesses could not accept any substitute for military service whatsoever, no matter how praiseworthy the task.
source
My question, put as simply as I can: Is it ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?
j%20w%20watching%20war_zpsaojoyfxq.png



Please note that this is not presented to make fun of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a look at the position they've chosen to take and its ethics.

.



As long as they're a citizen, obey the laws of the land and pay their taxes than they are entitled to the same benefits as other Americans.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Since this thread is about JWs...

Back during the lead up to the Iraq invasion I was beside myself. I was vehemently opposed to that war. I did everything I knew to oppose it.
One of the most frustrating aspects was the level of support for that horrible war amongst the Christians! They were mostly all about bombing the crap out of Iraqis in their own country. We got a bunch of Catholics because the Pope declared it a "crime against humanity".

So my question is:" What did the Jehovahs Witnesses do to actively support peace before that invasion? "
I was never aware of anything.
Tom

Do you have any idea of the content of our message to the world Tom?

It is "the good news of God's Kingdom".(Matthew 24:14).....which is the best government that the world could ever have. It is a government of peace that has no connection to any government in this world. (John 18:36) It therefore has no connection to any acts of violence that worldly governments undertake.

We are citizens of that kingdom and promote its interests in all the world, showing others how to achieve citizenship too.
Becoming a citizen, means also becoming an ambassador. As representatives of that heavenly kingdom, we cannot pledge allegiance to any other government.
But we respect the rules of the governments under which we live in whatever nation we find ourselves. But we will never support their wars or armed invasions. Political agendas have nothing to do God's agenda.....

Teaching people to be moral, law abiding citizens who are separated from any violent acts is how we actively support peace.
It takes place one heart at a time. This is why God sends us to search for those who have the potential to become useful citizens of God's kingdom, even now. (Matthew 10:11-15)

If the Pope declared the Iraq war a "crime against humanity", don't we have to ask how many Catholics have fought in that war....and ask why they were there? We all have choices...to obey our authorities or to obey God. Tell me what God would have wanted all Christians to do? (Romans 12:17-21; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
 
Top