jehovah witnesses

  • Thread starter Thread starter pr35120
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another false argument. Joining the army and being Christian are not mutually exclusive, though the JWs teach it is.
Here is an interesting link.

Also I found this from a book “Index of Watchtower Errors”. I have the book at home but found this link:
From WT 7/1/1898 "If, therefore, we were drafted, and if the government refused to accept our conscientious scruples against warfare…we should request to be assigned…to some other non-combatant place of usefulness…If not, and we ever got into battle, we might help to terrify the enemy. (I thought this was funny—:D)
From WT 8/1/1898: “no command in the Scriptures against military service”
From WT 4/15/1903:“nothing against our consciences in going into the army”
From WT 6/1/1918: “A narrow-minded Christian during wartime might object to service with the Red Cross of buying government bonds, but a scripturally informed Christian sees it as proper to do both”
But then watch this!!: WT 2/1/1951 “due to conscience, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse military service”
Back and forth, back and forth.

BTW I know that they refuse blood transfusions because “It says so in the bible” and many have died for refusing, However, those JW’s in Bulgaria, are allow to use their conscience whether to accept blood or not. HUH!!!

Talk about being :whacky:
 
I disagree.
Historians show the early Christians would not serve in the army, (I have quoted some below) and soldiers who became Christians did not remain in military service.
Not wanting to serve in the army, or in a specific army is NOT the same as serving being absolutely forbidden and/or incompatible with Christianity.
As would surely have been the case with Cornelius and the un-named Centurion Jesus helped (assuming he was later baptised as a Christian)
Ah, but here is where I stay faithful to Scripture. If your position were correct, we would expect these men to be immediately rebuked, but they are not. So your idea of “as would surely have been the case” is without Scriptural warrant.
I’m striving to be faithful to Scripture here.
Your quote of the Christian referred to as a “fellow soldier” must be figurative. he would have no more been a literal soldier than Paul was who called him such.
The spiritual armour in Ephesians is also figurtive as we see in the intro at Eph 6:12. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against… spiritual darkness.”
I don’t recall using the term “fellow soldier,” but IF you are saying Cornelius and the other Army officers were “figurative” then that is false. Also, I’m not confusing the spiritual war which St Paul talked about in places like Eph 6.
Jesus said: “A new command i give you, that ye love one another… By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:33,34) Imagine if Chrisitans had gone to war in WW2. They would have killed other followers of Jesus! Hardly the remarkable love Jesus prophesied his followers would show each other.
That’s playing on emotions and ignoring the Scriptural fact good Christians were also in the army. Pointing to any given war does not discredit or deny the Scriptural evidence I mentioned (eg Lk 3:14; Mat 8:8-10; Acts 10). So not only do you lack any Scriptural evidence forbidding Christians to serve, there is evidence those in the army became Christians without the slightest scuffle.
“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E.W. Barnes)
“It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165
A.D. is exceedingly slight; .
.. up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C.J. Cadoux)
“The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans.
.
.. Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N.Platt and M.J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125)
“While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire.
.
.
. It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.
In my experience, the JWs have often cut and pasted passages, without really looking into the actual source themself. I am especially uneasy when I see “…” in quotes. None the less, Scripture trumps history every time, and Scripture is on my side in this case. On top of that, JWs believe the early Christians went apostate, so it is wrong to look to see what the historical account says when true Christians did not exist.

Two points need to be reiterated: (1) The refusal to serve in any given army at any given time does not mean it is doctrinally forbidden. (2) Those faithful to Scripture see good Christians serving in the army without the slightest uproar in the Scriptures.
And remember what jesus reply was to Pilate when he asked if jesus was a king:
“My Kingdom is no part of this world. If it was, my attendants would have fought…” (John 18:36)
If Christians weren’t to fight, even to defend the son of God, would we expect them to fight for whichever worldly kingdom an accident of geography drops them in?
You are confusing things here. Jesus did not come as a military warrior, that’s what that is saying, but that has nothing to do with individual Christians serving any any given office. Cornelius was a Roman general, and was a solid believer in God and good Christian. The Scriptural evidence in this case is overwhelmingly in my favor, and that is why I stick with Scripture and believe true and genuine Christians would accept the plain teaching of Scripture as well…
Here is an interesting link.

Also I found this from a book “Index of Watchtower Errors”. I have the book at home but found this link:
From WT 7/1/1898 "If, therefore, we were drafted, and if the government refused to accept our conscientious scruples against warfare…we should request to be assigned…to some other non-combatant place of usefulness…If not, and we ever got into battle, we might help to terrify the enemy. (I thought this was funny—:D)
From WT 8/1/1898: “no command in the Scriptures against military service”
From WT 4/15/1903:“nothing against our consciences in going into the army”
From WT 6/1/1918: “A narrow-minded Christian during wartime might object to service with the Red Cross of buying government bonds, but a scripturally informed Christian sees it as proper to do both”
But then watch this!!: WT 2/1/1951 “due to conscience, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse military service”
Back and forth, back and forth.

BTW I know that they refuse blood transfusions because “It says so in the bible” and many have died for refusing, However, those JW’s in Bulgaria, are allow to use their conscience whether to accept blood or not. HUH!!!

Talk about being :whacky:
Interesting, so they did at one time allow serving? I did not know that.
 
Regarless, Welcome to the board and hope you enjoy it here,can I please ask you one question,Are you a Christian or are you a Jw…your profile does not say so I was just asking,well enjoy and have a great day and may Our Lord bless you.
Hi Bill Pick.
I’m one of Jehovahs Witnesses, so therefore a Christian too.
I left reference to my religion off my profile since i thought some might be bias against my opinion.
Nice to hear of you again. I remember you from an earlier thread.
And I pray God blesses you my friend. 🙂
Regardless
 
Hi Bill Pick.
I’m one of Jehovahs Witnesses, so therefore a Christian too.
I left reference to my religion off my profile since i thought some might be bias against my opinion.
Nice to hear of you again. I remember you from an earlier thread.
And I pray God blesses you my friend. 🙂
Regardless
Thank You and again welcome
 
Not wanting to serve in the army, or in a specific army is NOT the same as serving being absolutely forbidden and/or incompatible with Christianity.

The Scriptural evidence in this case is overwhelmingly in my favor, and that is why I stick with Scripture and believe true and genuine Christians would accept the plain teaching of Scripture as well…
.
Heres a tricky question for you Catholic Dude.
(Or anyone else interested in this JW and holocaust subject)

Do you wish:

A.) Jehovah’s Witnesses had supported the Nazi regime.

B.) The Catholic Church and it’s members had also refused to support the Nazi regime.

C.) Neither. How history turned out was acceptable.

I think those are the three realistic possibilities. A, B, or C. With your reasons if you wish.
This isn’t a trap. I’m genuinely interested. 👍
I have no idea how you will answer.
 
Heres a tricky question for you Catholic Dude.
(Or anyone else interested in this JW and holocaust subject)

Do you wish:

A.) Jehovah’s Witnesses had supported the Nazi regime.

B.) The Catholic Church and it’s members had also refused to support the Nazi regime.

C.) Neither. How history turned out was acceptable.

I think those are the three realistic possibilities. A, B, or C. With your reasons if you wish.
This isn’t a trap. I’m genuinely interested. 👍
I have no idea how you will answer.
A-No
B-Yes, and the Church did refuse
C-No

The problem with your question is that it assumes all armies are Nazis, do you believe that? If yes, then that means the Bible in three clear instances winked at Christians being Nazi soldiers.

But even what I said was way oversimplified, because the German army was huge and I don’t believe most soldiers knew what was going on in concentration camps hidden out in the middle of nowhere. So even being an unaware soldier was not in itself sinful. It was no more sinful than the bakers, farmers, tailors, engineers, who were not part of the army but none the less had to make goods to support them.
 
A-No
B-Yes, and the Church did refuse
C-No

The problem with your question is that it assumes all armies are Nazis, do you believe that?
Interesting. Thanks mate. 👍

No, I don’t think all armies are Nazis.

I think saying “the church did refuse” is debatable though. Some courageous Catholics certainly did as individuals. But not the church as an organisation.

I agree that most did not know what was happening with the “final solution” and all, or even if they heard, (London and NY newspapers were reporting it by 1942) they probably didn’t believe it.
It still seems unbelievable today that such a genocide happened in a civilised society.
As we know, some even deny the holocaust happened! I knew a guy at university who believed the Death camps were just propaganda. I asked him if the battalions of British, American and Russian soldiers who liberated them were all in on it too, but he sidestepped that question.

The JW’s didn’t know either of course. Nor were they out to become martyrs.
Their stand was because they had by then adopted a politically neutral stand based on the “My followers are no part of the world” statement. (John 15:19) and couldn’t give the Nazi govt the devotion it was demanding.
And the ‘Christians shouldn’t serve in the military’ idea we disagree on.

In hindsight, I think it was the best decision.

Does the Catholic Church still believe Satan the Devil is a person?
 
Does the Catholic Church still believe Satan the Devil is a person?
The Devil was nevar a person

Devil (Greek diabolos; Lat. diabolus).—The name commonly given to the fallen angels, who are also known as demons (see Demon; Demonology). With the article (6) it denotes Lucifer, their chief, as in Matthew, xxv, 41, “the Devil and his angels”. It may be said of this name, as St. Gregory says of the word angel, “nomen est officii, non naturae”—the designation of an office, not of a nature. For the Greek word (from diaballein, “to traduce”) means a slanderer, or accuser, and in this sense it is applied to him of whom it is written “the accuser [he kathegoros] of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night” (Apoc., xii, 10). It thus answers to the Hebrew name Satan (STN) which signifies an adversary, or an accuser.

Mention is made of the Devil in many passages of the Old and New Testaments, but there is no full account given in any one place, and the Scripture teaching on this topic can only be ascertained by combining a number of scattered notices from Genesis to Apocalypse, and reading them in the light of patristic and theological tradition. The authoritative teaching of the Church on this topic is set forth in the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council (cap. i, “Firmiter credimus”), wherein, after saying that God in the beginning had created together two creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is to say the angelic and the earthly, and lastly man, who was made of both spirit and body, the council continues: “Diabolus enim et alii dmmones a Deo quidem natures creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mall”. Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they became evil by their own act. It is added that man sinned by the suggestion of the Devil, and that in the next world the wicked shall suffer perpetual punishment with the Devil. The doctrine which may thus be set forth in a few words has furnished a fruitful theme for theological speculation for the Fathers and Schoolmen, as well as later theologians, some of whom, Suarez for example, have treated it very fully. On the other hand it has also been the subject of many heretical or erroneous opinions, some of which owe their origin to pre-Christian systems of demonolgy (see Demonology). In later years Rationalist writers have rejected the doctrine altogether, and seek to show that it has been borrowed by Judaism and Christianity from external systems of religion wherein it was a natural development of primitive Animism (q.v.).

As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil and the other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their natural powers do not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful (see Angel). Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and in their original state they are endowed with super-natural grace and placed in a condition of probation. It was only by their fall that they became devils. This was before the sin of our first parents, since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: “By the envy of the Devil, death came into the world” (Wisdom, ii, 24). Yet it is remarkable that for an account of the fall of the angels we must turn to the last Book of the Bible. For as such we may regard the vision in the Apocalypse, albeit the picture of the past is blended with prophecies of what shall be in the future! “And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: and they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Apocalypse, xii, 7-9). To this may be added the words of St. Jude: “And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude, i, 6; cf. II Peter, ii, 4). In the Old Testament we have a brief reference to the Fall in Job, iv, 18: “In his angels he found wickedness”. But to this must be added the two classic texts in the prophets: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit” (Isaias, xiv, 12-15). This parable of the prophet is expressly directed against the King of Babylon, but both the early Fathers and later Catholic commentators agree in understanding it as applying with deeper significance to the fall of the rebel angel. And the older commentators generally consider that this interpretation is confirmed by the words of Our Lord to His disciples: “I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven” (Luke, x, 18). For these words were regarded as a rebuke to the disciples, who were thus warned of the danger of pride by being reminded of the fall of Lucifer. But modern commentators take this text in a different sense, and refer it not to the original fall of Satan, but his overthrow by the faith of the disciples, who cast out devils in the name of their Master. And this new interpretation, as Schanz observes, is more in keeping with the context.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Devil

Never a person. 😉
 
A workmate of mine, whenever religion or God comes up, always retorts: “All the wars in history have been caused by religion! In WW2 people of the same religion were killing each other because they came from different countries! Etc etc…”
So first he says that all wars in history were caused by religion, and in the next breath he acknowledges that the Second World War was not? Way to contradict himself!
 
Interesting. Thanks mate. 👍

No, I don’t think all armies are Nazis.

I think saying “the church did refuse” is debatable though. Some courageous Catholics certainly did as individuals. But not the church as an organisation.

I agree that most did not know what was happening with the “final solution” and all, or even if they heard, (London and NY newspapers were reporting it by 1942) they probably didn’t believe it.
It still seems unbelievable today that such a genocide happened in a civilised society.
As we know, some even deny the holocaust happened! I knew a guy at university who believed the Death camps were just propaganda. I asked him if the battalions of British, American and Russian soldiers who liberated them were all in on it too, but he sidestepped that question.

The JW’s didn’t know either of course. Nor were they out to become martyrs.
Their stand was because they had by then adopted a politically neutral stand based on the “My followers are no part of the world” statement. (John 15:19) and couldn’t give the Nazi govt the devotion it was demanding.
And the ‘Christians shouldn’t serve in the military’ idea we disagree on.

In hindsight, I think it was the best decision.

Does the Catholic Church still believe Satan the Devil is a person?
It’s not of much value to argue on whether the Church “did enough,” because it’s really a no win discussion.

The real issue is whether a genuine Christian can also be enlisted as a soldier, and Scripture gives an affirmative answer.

Yes the Church teaches Satan is real, is a fallen angel, etc etc. While sometimes the Bible can be talking about demons in general, fallen angels, etc, there is also a “chief angel” named Satan.
 
Yes the Church teaches Satan is real, is a fallen angel, etc etc. While sometimes the Bible can be talking about demons in general, fallen angels, etc, there is also a “chief angel” named Satan.
Thanks for the reply.
Sounds like we agree on that one.
Some religions now say he is just a symbol of evil and stuff.
Hope you are enjoying your Easter weekend.
Regardless.
 
You needn’t get off this very site to find a refutation of that myth.
Thanks for the references on the Church and the Holocaust. I stand by the word “debatable.”

I saw no mention of the concordat concluded by the Vatican (and signed by the then-future Pope) with the Nazis in 1933. Hitlers first moral support from the outside world.

A lot is made of the Vatican assisting the immigration and escape of many (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of refugees, Jews and others trying to escape Europe during the war years.
The vatican was a neutral country after all, so, like Switzerland and Sweden would have been a goal for millions trying to escape the horrors. Any aid to those unfortunate, usually innocent people is most commendable. I respect the Church for that. Bravo.

In the “Time magazine” where German Bishops complained about the attrocities in occupied countries, it seems their stated reasons were, not moral, but mainly the bad name it was giving Germany, and the drying up of previous support. Hitlers generals also complained about that.
These would be the same bishops who The New York Times mentions on the same day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor,: “The Conference of German Catholic Bishops assembled in Fulda has recommended the introduction of a special war prayer which is to be read at the beginning and end of all divine services. The prayer implores Providence to bless German arms with victory and grant protection to the lives and health of all soldiers. The Bishops further instructed Catholic clergy to keep and remember in a special Sunday sermon at least once a month German soldiers ‘on land, on sea and in the air.’”

Your sources often paint the Pope as trapped and on his own. Unable to do anything. Any public protest would just make things worse. One article you recommended said: “Who then was to come to the aid of the Vatican? Pius XII, who had to insure the survival of the Church, was very much alone.”

What about God?
Was this not the one true church? Was not the Pope God’s minister on earth?

Perhaps that is the key to such a contrast. Who did God support?

One third of Germans were Catholic. But: “The German Catholic who looked to his religious superiors for spiritual guidance and direction regarding service in Hitler’s wars received virtually the same answers he would have received from the Nazi ruler himself.”- Roman Catholic professor Gordon Zahn (refer to the NY Times article above for proof of that.)

And on the Lutherian and Catholic churches:
*“Both churches, in the main, gave massive support to the regime. . . . Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long terms [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time. Of the Catholics, one bishop was expelled from his diocese, and another got a short term for currency offences.”
As to those who stuck to their principles, the writer continues: “The bravest were the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any cooperation with the Nazi state.” - History of Christianity by Paul Johnson *

32 million Catholics in Nazi Germany. 10,000 Jehovahs Witnesses.

Which would have felt the more isolated, alone and threatened in Nazi Germany? (And therefore more likely to cave?)

I read an experience (sorry, i have to quote from memory) where 400 JW’s in a concentration camp were made to watch the execution of a fellow Witness. The Commodant then announced: “This will be the fate of all who refuse to fight for Germany against France and England! (It must have been about 1940 then) Now who will sign this document?” (The document the JW’s could sign to refute their beliefs and leave the camp) Two men stepped forward. “Are you now willing to sign?” demanded the Commodant. “No. We have already signed. We want our names annulled.”

What a stand! Yet the Witnesses were just ordinary people. Not all courageous heros who didn’t fear death and torture. How could nobodys make such a stand?

Could it be, (as they claimed,) that they had the support of Jehovah God in their stand? With such a supporter, what could the Nazis do?

While the excuse the Church gives is: “Who then was to come to the aid of the Vatican? Pius XII, … was very much alone.”
 
Thanks for the references on the Church and the Holocaust. I stand by the word “debatable.”
Really? Pope PIUS XI and his German Bishops issued an encyclical condemning Nazism Sept. 27 1937.

Many Catholics were killed. How many is not known for unlike the Jehovah Witness the religion of those killed were not documented. At least 3 000 000 Polish Catholics were holocaust victims.

Catholic Martyrs of the Holocaust


Saint Maximilian Kolbe is an especially heroic man of that time in history.

You paint a picture of Jehovah Witnesses which like you said is debatable.
 
someone told me they were in the holucost.is their any truth in that.if not,set me straight.
Basically the JW should oppose to Hilter. So, there was a logical chance that there were JWs died during the holocaust.
 
Many Catholics were killed. How many is not known for unlike the Jehovah Witness the religion of those killed were not documented. At least 3 000 000 Polish Catholics were holocaust victims.
Saint Maximilian Kolbe is an especially heroic man of that time in history.
Thanks for your reply to my post. You quoted some interesting articles and gave me some good research material to work through. The Catholic Martyrs site will take me a while!

I think I saw a movie once on this Max Kolbe (saint now?) He was an impressive and courageous individual.
 
Hello 😃 Be gentle with me, as I’m a newbie.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim they were persecuted MORE than the Jews during the Holocaust, as the Jews didn’t have a choice (birth), but JWs only had to renounce their Faith, and they would be spared. In their own literature (in 1974) they claim only 203 JWs were executed, yet in the Holocaust Museum, they claim the figure was nearly 10,000 (which would have been ALL of those imprisoned). In 1999, the Watchtower applied for Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (basically asking for compensation which would have been awarded to victims’ families)

Also The Watchtower Society (Google ‘Watchtower Hitler letter’) wrote to Hitler in the 1930s offering ‘support’ and sympathy.
 
Heres a tricky question for you Catholic Dude.
(Or anyone else interested in this JW and holocaust subject)

Do you wish:

A.) Jehovah’s Witnesses had supported the Nazi regime.

B.) The Catholic Church and it’s members had also refused to support the Nazi regime.

C.) Neither. How history turned out was acceptable.

I think those are the three realistic possibilities. A, B, or C. With your reasons if you wish.
This isn’t a trap. I’m genuinely interested. 👍
I have no idea how you will answer.
A) Actually, the JWs initially DID support the Nazi regime…1933 Statement of Facts, here’s a lovely quote:
The greatest and most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: 'The Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills
Where was that much vaunted neutrality?

B) Many Catholics did oppose the Nazis…there were over 3000 Catholic priests murdered in Dachau alone…sure, I wish all Catholics would have oppossed him.

To be sure the JWs were persecuted…not worse than the Jews by any means…but still persecuted…
 
If Jesus would not operate a machine gun, why should anyone?
If Jesus wasn’t married, why should anyone be?

If Jesus didn’t operate computers why should anyone

It’s a ridiculous and false premise…Jesus had a specific mission…as long as Soldiers are moral in their conduct of war they incur no guilt from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top