another bloody blood question!

Originally posted by FMF
Sometimes violence is the necessary response to violence.

Is this a broad principle you and I can agree on?

Man it's like banging your head against a brick wall LOL




Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Man it's like banging your head against a brick wall LOL




Manny

haters gonna hate.

Originally posted by menace71
Man it's like banging your head against a brick wall LOL

On one hand he talks of people from his denomination being persecuted and murdered for their principles down through history, something that commands respect and reflection, and yet here he is - in a danger-free message board environment - unable talk about the application of his principles in this matter without coming across as furtive and vain, and peppering his responses with petty ad hominems. Whatever way one looks at it, there is a pretty obvious dignity deficit.

Originally posted by FMF
Sometimes violence is the necessary response to violence.

Is this a broad principle you and I can agree on?

no i don't think it does, the only person who has tried to introduce violence is you, but if you want to see faith in action may i suggest you view this rather horrendous piece of persecution on a kingdom hall in Bulgaria, attacked by a frenzied mob, in which the brothers simply defended themselves by warding off the blows and simply tried to remain calm until the police were called, not once did they retaliate with violence but simply warded off the blows, but then again perhaps a frenzied mob throwing smoke bombs, fire extinguishers and kicking your door off its hinges, punching and kicking you is not violent enough,

YouTube

Originally posted by FMF
On one hand he talks of people from his denomination being persecuted and murdered for their principles down through history, something that commands respect and reflection, and yet here he is - in a danger-free message board environment - unable talk about the application of his principles in this matter without coming across as furtive and vain, and peppering ...[text shortened]... with petty ad hominems. Whatever way one looks at it, there is a pretty obvious dignity deficit.

please see the above text and video footage and next time, try producing empirical evidence otherwise you are going to look silly again and again and again. Neeeext.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...not once did they retaliate with violence but simply warded off the blows, but then again perhaps a frenzied mob throwing smoke bombs, fire extinguishers and kicking your door off its hinges, punching and kicking you is not violent enough,...

What about a situation where children or elderly people were murdered as a result of a refusal to meet violence with violence in order to protect them from harm?

Originally posted by FMF
What about a situation where children or elderly people were murdered as a result of a refusal to meet violence with violence in order to protect them from harm?

what about the video that i posted, there were elderly people and children in the building.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please see the above text and video footage and next time, try producing empirical evidence otherwise you are going to look silly again and again and again. Neeeext.

So your principle is that violence is never an acceptable response to violence?

I don't need "empirical evidence" to ask you to say something unequivocal on this matter. You have both alluded to using violence and also alluded to never using violence. galveston75 has produced literature from your organization that appears to condone meeting violence with violence in certain situations. You seem to asserting that it's not so. One would be forgiven for thinking you are obfuscating on purpose.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about the video that i posted, there were elderly people and children in the building.

I am not asking Bulgarian JWs what they think. I am asking you to explain your own views on using violence when violence is necessary or appropriate, if at all. You have been evasive and ambiguous on this thread. But it is an interesting topic so I am pressing you on it.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not asking Bulgarian JWs what they think. I am asking you to explain your own views on using violence when violence is necessary or appropriate, if at all. You have been evasive and ambiguous on this thread. But it is an interesting topic so I am pressing you on it.

I provided a real life example of our stance in action, you have no answer to it because it demonstrates the reality and no amount of hypothetical imaginary scenarios can diminish this reality. The brothers defended themselves, their wives, children and elderly persons against an angry mob without resorting to violence, a sterling example of our principles at work.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I provided a real life example of our stance in action, you have no answer to it because it demonstrates the reality and no amount of hypothetical imaginary scenarios can diminish this reality. The brothers defended themselves, their wives, children and elderly persons against an angry mob without resorting to violence, a sterling example of our principles at work.

I am not talking about Bulgarians. I am asking you to explain your contradictory and/or ambiguous statements on this thread. A YouTube clip does not explain your unclear statements on this thread.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not talking about Bulgarians. I am asking you to explain your contradictory and/or ambiguous statements on this thread. A YouTube clip does not explain your unclear statements on this thread.

They are Jehovahs Witnesses and our brothers and live by the same standards that you can find in any Kingdom hall anywhere in the world, a sterling example of our principles and faith in action and not only does it explain our stance, it demonstrates and illustrates it with empirical evidence, you have no answers, thank you, good evening and good bye.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They are Jehovahs Witnesses and our brothers and live by the same standards that you can find in any Kingdom hall anywhere in the world, a sterling example of our principles and faith in action and not only does it explain our stance, it demonstrates and illustrates it with empirical evidence, you have no answers, thank you, good evening and good bye.

Good evening? It's quarter to six in the morning in the U.K. robbie.

galveston75 came up with this a couple of pages ago on this thread:

The Bible thus indicates that a person may defend himself or his family if physically assaulted. He may ward off blows, restrain the attacker, or even strike a blow to stun or incapacitate him. The intention would be to neutralize the aggression or stop the attack. This being the case, if the aggressor was seriously harmed or killed in such a situation, his death would be accidental and not deliberate.

So galveston75 believes you can strike blows to incapacitate an attacker even if this inadvertently causes death. Restraining and striking blows against someone is violence, and it seems to me to be appropriate. Do you agree or disagree with galveston75's quotation about meeting an attacker's violence with violence if needs be?

Originally posted by galveston75
What if a person’s life is threatened by an assailant?

A law that God gave to ancient Israel sheds light on this. If a thief was caught in the daytime and was killed, the assailant would be charged with murder. This was evidently because thievery did not carry the death penalty and the thief could have been identified and brought to justice. However ...[text shortened]... in ones mind and heart when this death of another was committed, Jehovah will judge accordingly.

thanks, that answers a lot for me. if you dont mind me asking more questions, its fine if you dont want to (i get the feeling you and robbie feel the questioning your beliefs is a form of attack).

i understand that if the householder feels threatened he may use physical violence to protect himself and his family. so my question if the intruder was on t.v. before the attack and warned he was coming with violent intent, would the householder be able to attack first before the intruder reached the house, or would the householder need to wait until the intruder had actually got in the house?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They are Jehovahs Witnesses and our brothers and live by the same standards that you can find in any Kingdom hall anywhere in the world, a sterling example of our principles and faith in action and not only does it explain our stance, it demonstrates and illustrates it with empirical evidence, you have no answers, thank you, good evening and good bye.

blimey, scary stuff and a good example of how j.w's use their non violent approach. i wonder if the men would have remained so passive if the aggressors had got inside of the church and started beating the women and children?

what would you do if they got inside and started hitting women and children? galveston gives the opinion that it is fine to fight back in this situation. is he wrong or correct?