I have to report another weekend sneak attack by the bloody Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm beginning to realise why they always turn up on Saturday morning: it's because at that time I am least likely to argue and/or bring up well-chosen arguments against their religious bullshit. Basically, on Saturday mornings I am completely out of touch with reality, having usually stayed up until the small hours and, like this morning, only got out of bed at all because I was desperate for a pee.

Today all they wanted was to give me one of their leaflets, the cover of which looks a lot like the poster for a low budget 80s sci-fi movie. This one is called 'Will this world survive?' and like Oil of Olay's seven signs of aging, it gives a list of signs (five in this case) which foretell the end of the world. Let's dissect these nuggets of excrement and see if we can dig out any kernels of sweetcorn, er, truth, shall we?

1. Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom (Matthew 24:7)
   War in modern times has been of greater magnitude than ever before. One historian noted: "The First World War [beginning in 1914] was the first 'total' war." Yet, the second world war was much more destructive. And war continues to ravage the earth. Yes, Jesus' words have undergone fulfillment in a dramatic way!

This one is partially covered in my blog of 2 March 2008, End Times alert - are there really more wars? In essence, there are now far fewer wars than was the case in most of pre-20th century history. What has changed is the scale of war. There is no denying that it's now far easier to kill more people, simply because the technology is more advanced. And let's not forget that there are simply more people to kill, so obviously more people are going to die. But is that any reason to play the numbers game and use this as a sign that Jesus is about to make a comeback?

No, of course it isn't. World War I was the biggest ever war, certainly... until World War II came along of course. But then before WWI there were other wars which were, at the time, the 'biggest ever wars'. So shouldn't the words of Jesus have applied to the end of the 15th century, after the Hundred Years' War? I see no mention of it in the Jehovah's Witnesses' literature at all. Surely a war which lasted 116 years was actually bigger, by some measurement, than ones which lasted for relatively short periods of time (1914-18 and 1939-45). Yet that was over 500 years ago, and the world didn't end. Life went on. Wars went on.

Wars are almost invariably of greater magnitude than previous wars, but why does the scale of the war even matter? Let's go back to the Bible quote cited by the JW leaflet: 'Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom'. Come on, that is so ludicrously non-specific that it can apply to every moment in history at some point in the world. You would struggle to find a year, perhaps not even a day, when there has not been a war somewhere, and the preceding passage, Matthew 24:6, extends the scope even beyond that, saying 'ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars'. Rumours of war? Just rumours are enough?

This so-called prophecy is as general, and therefore useless, as they get, and can be safely ignored as a tool for prediction, simply because during every day in human history there was guaranteed to be an ongoing war, or at the very least the rumour of a war. It is an utterly worthless 'sign'. Moreover, the spin given to the quote by the Jehovah's Witnesses is entirely invalid. Of course wars are of greater magnitude as time goes by - more people are alive to fight and die, and more destructive weapons are available. But that can be said when you look at the difference between Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars and the Crusades, or between American War of Independence the and the Vietnam War. What does it prove? Nothing.

And by the way, the Gallic Wars were responsible for one million deaths even before the time of Jesus. That's a million people out of a vastly smaller world population - approximately 200 million at the time. In modern terms that would be 30 million (given the current population, 6 billion, which is 30 times larger). Sounds big to me, particularly compared to the 20 million who died in World War I. Granted, WWII deaths were 72 million, but all we're saying here is that 'some wars are bigger than others'. How do we know that World War II was not, in fact, the peak of war deaths, and that all subsequent wars will have many fewer casualties? In fact, since no other war has been bigger, can we not now say that wars are getting smaller? The evidence says as much - wars still go on, but now fewer people die.

Let's further inspect the 'magnitude' claim. There are wars now waging around the world. Is there a war in progress which can be said to be of the same magnitude as World War I? No. WWII? No. Are there even rumours of an impending Third World War? Since the end of the Cold War, absolutely not. How did the once very real threat of nuclear war come to an end if things are actually getting worse? Surely the rumours of wars should include rumours of bigger and bigger wars. They do not. As has always been the case, some wars are big, some are not so big. And anyone, anyone at all, could make the startlingly obvious statement that 'nation will rise against nation'. You may as well say 'someone will eat cheese' and use that as a sign for the return of Speedy Gonzales.

---

I'm going to split this blog up into sections, so check back for more. The increasing prevalence of of food shortages is the next JW prediction, so watch out for that soon.