• 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
When a person joins the military is he not abdicating his moral agency? Is he not ceding moral agency to another?

Is it actually possible to abdicate moral responsibility? Aren't we all individually responsible for our actions? When we stand before our maker, is "I was just following orders" going to cut it?
According to the Christians, there's only one person with the ability to take another's sins upon Himself -- and He died two thousand years ago.

I doubt God would look kindly on a person abdicating moral responsibility. I doubt He'd be down with someone willing to kill perfect strangers on orders from another; who thinks he won't be held to account.
Abdicate moral responsibility and you abdicate your humanity, you become just another animal.
A soldier still retains the right to disobey illegal orders.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The fact that you heard it doesn't necessarily make it true....does it??
I have been told many stories about the JW's, even shown evidence, after some research i found that it was fabricated lies.
I believe there is plenty of proof that the Watchtower Corporation owns stock.
Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses are linked.
They say a believer is to be no part of the world.
But, they own stock in the world. How is that "no part"?
 

newone

Member
I believe there is plenty of proof that the Watchtower Corporation owns stock.
Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses are linked.
They say a believer is to be no part of the world.
But, they own stock in the world. How is that "no part"?
I never said that they don't own stock....i was referring to the other assumptions....
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why am I a bug in their ears? They call themselves "the truth". I find that offensive.
I don't call myself the truth. I don't call anyone or anything the truth except Jesus.
By the way, even when I was a hard working Jehovah's Witness it bothered me that they
call the Watchtower that. I suffered it for many years. I compared it to fingernails on a blackboard at the time.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Is it ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?

If it is part of their sincerely held religious beliefs, then IMHO, Yes. This is also true of groups such as the Amish who are pacifist as well.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
If they are a citizen of that country, they are entitled to all the benefits of that citizenship.
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?

.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I am curious, does your govt require everybody to do military service??
Not at present, but in the past it has, of every "able bodied male." And it's during these times that JWs have refused to serve in the military and, unlike other conscientious objectors, assist in any civilian capacity that supports the military effort."

.

.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
If it is part of their sincerely held religious beliefs, then IMHO, Yes.
So, if a group's sincerely held religious beliefs include the killing of one's first born within a week of conception you'd feel it's ethically right. Gotcha.
facepalm.gif


.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So, if a group's sincerely held religious beliefs include the killing of one's first born within a week of conception you'd feel it's ethically right. Gotcha.
facepalm.gif


.
I was under the impression that you were specifically talking about military service. If you mean in general across the board ,that would depend on the subject matter.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Didn't think you would make it worth my time to indulge you when you clearly haven't done any research, because you're just looking for any shallow reason to take a dig at JWs just like you do with Christians all the time? Yeah, I didn't think you would either.

Bingo!
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I was under the impression that you were specifically talking about military service. If you mean in general across the board ,that would depend on the subject matter.
I am, but your statement implies that if it's part of any sincerely held religious belief then it's ethical:

"If it is part of their sincerely held religious beliefs, then IMHO, Yes."​

.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I am, but your statement implies that if it's part of any sincerely held religious belief then it's ethical:

"If it is part of their sincerely held religious beliefs, then IMHO, Yes."​

.
My reply was specifically in response to the question of military service if your faith forbids the taking of human life. Nothing more.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known 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?

.
Yes, it is ethical.

Soldiers fight for everyone. Not only those they like or agree with.

If you are a citizen of that country you are entitled to all the benefits of said citizenship.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A soldier still retains the right to disobey illegal orders.
I didn't have any.
But I can think of some.....
- Murder everyone in that village.
- Torture that prisoner.
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?
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The position Jw's take to not participate in war is based on their understanding of Jesus words to "love your neighbor." There are many kinds of sacrifice. The witnesses in Nazi Germany refused to join Hitler's armed forces, and many were imprisoned and executed for their stand. Meanwhile, thousands in the Allied countries were imprisoned for their refusal to support war. The same happens to this day in many other countries. IMO, Jw's support their country by paying taxes, obeying the laws, and tirelessly volunteering to help others in the best way possible; to know the truth about God and his Son.
 
Top