-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christian Pacifism
- Thread starter MarciontheModerateBaptist
- Start date
Roy:
Thank you for the kind and respectful reply. Of course I don't agree with you that I have misintreperted the above scriptures wrongly.
First of all, I want to point out that you did not deal with ANY of the scriptures or points I was making in my several posts, which I think show what is really wrong with the whole nationalistic attitude.
But, let's look at the Luke passage. Jesus tells his disciples to find swords for the journey. After a short time they come to him and say we've only found two. He responds immediately, THAT'S ENOUGH!!!! Ok, what did he mean enough. If he told his disciples to get swords with the intention that they were to actually be USED for the totally foreign concept to the New Testament -- self-defense-- you have to say what do you mean enough? Two swords for 12 disciples to defend us against the Roman Army or whoever (which it is not stated) we are supposed to defend ourselves against? Now, my friend, that is a really, really weak argument to support the theory that Jesus was actually advocating self-defense or advocating that he wanted his disciples to even USE the swords.
Let Jesus answer why he asked them to get swords in the first place, and why he thought two would be enough: Let's turn to Luke 22:37 -- (not Luke 26)-- For I tell you that this which is WRITTEN MUST BE FULLFILLED. "And he was numbered with the transgressors; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." What was written that must be fulfilled? Why Is 53:12!!! So whether two swords or 5,000 swords, it did not make any difference. He didn't tell the disciples to get swords so they could actually USE them. He did it so prophecy would be fulfilled. In other places Jesus says turn the other cheek, and my kingdom is not of this world. Don't you know I could call down legions of angles to protect me, you silly people? Jesus is not contradicting himself here. Further, then, when one of the disciples doesn't understand what Jesus meant and pulls out his sword and cuts the soldiers ear off, Jesus rebukes him. PUT THAT SWORD away. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. He then heals the guys ear. Now, you can say that is teaching the concept of self-defense, but then I would say who do you think is misintreperting the scriptures? It's obvious what all that was about. Jesus is not going to contradict Himself and the entire New Testament on the day before the atonement by "defending" himself.
Now, I understand, like I've said before, that this is a touchy subject, but please read my reasoning for some of this and my other posts. From the world's point of view of course self-defense is rational. You knock me down, I chop your head off. You rape my daughter, I kill you. You invade my fatherland and we march off over hill and dale and kill the enemy on command.
However, I am talking from the CHRISTIAN point of view. I'm talking about the Born Again, regenerated, justified by faith Christian who's life has been radically transformed by the grace of the Sovereign God of the universe. He said my kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD or I would call angles down to fight for it. Believe me, the timing is off right now. My whole point is that sure we love life and family and country, but Jesus said you must give all that up to follow me (if called upon to do so). He said I didn't come to bring peace but division, even the splitting up of loved ones.
If your standard of value is this country, this life over and above obedience to Jesus Christ, then who is your God?
So, like I've said before, if a 7th century lunatic jumps out from behind a bush and kills me, I will be dead. I will not have died for the country, or money, or honor, or the fatherland, or the flag, but because of obedience to Jesus Christ, because he said to pray for our enemies and pray for those who persecute you for my name. Then I would enter the next stage of eternal life and be seeing Jesus face to face, not through a glass darkly. Not a bad option.
All I'm saying, is I wish people would look at the subject a little more carefully instead of just assuming that killing and revenge, and "self-defense" are the only options to bad choices. I don't expect most people to agree with me. I've been in the tiny minority on this issue for the past 40 years. But that makes no difference to me. I feel I am right on this and I can be a minority of one, and that would make no difference to me. Both of us can't be right.
Jesus left us an example to follow. He did not defend himself, when with a snap of the finger he could have destoryed the entire Roman Army and all those mocking him. He didn't. He told us to take up our cross and follow him. So pray for the enemy or kill the enemy. One is right and one is wrong.
I know what I think is right.
Respectfully,
James2
[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
Thank you for the kind and respectful reply. Of course I don't agree with you that I have misintreperted the above scriptures wrongly.
First of all, I want to point out that you did not deal with ANY of the scriptures or points I was making in my several posts, which I think show what is really wrong with the whole nationalistic attitude.
But, let's look at the Luke passage. Jesus tells his disciples to find swords for the journey. After a short time they come to him and say we've only found two. He responds immediately, THAT'S ENOUGH!!!! Ok, what did he mean enough. If he told his disciples to get swords with the intention that they were to actually be USED for the totally foreign concept to the New Testament -- self-defense-- you have to say what do you mean enough? Two swords for 12 disciples to defend us against the Roman Army or whoever (which it is not stated) we are supposed to defend ourselves against? Now, my friend, that is a really, really weak argument to support the theory that Jesus was actually advocating self-defense or advocating that he wanted his disciples to even USE the swords.
Let Jesus answer why he asked them to get swords in the first place, and why he thought two would be enough: Let's turn to Luke 22:37 -- (not Luke 26)-- For I tell you that this which is WRITTEN MUST BE FULLFILLED. "And he was numbered with the transgressors; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." What was written that must be fulfilled? Why Is 53:12!!! So whether two swords or 5,000 swords, it did not make any difference. He didn't tell the disciples to get swords so they could actually USE them. He did it so prophecy would be fulfilled. In other places Jesus says turn the other cheek, and my kingdom is not of this world. Don't you know I could call down legions of angles to protect me, you silly people? Jesus is not contradicting himself here. Further, then, when one of the disciples doesn't understand what Jesus meant and pulls out his sword and cuts the soldiers ear off, Jesus rebukes him. PUT THAT SWORD away. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. He then heals the guys ear. Now, you can say that is teaching the concept of self-defense, but then I would say who do you think is misintreperting the scriptures? It's obvious what all that was about. Jesus is not going to contradict Himself and the entire New Testament on the day before the atonement by "defending" himself.
Now, I understand, like I've said before, that this is a touchy subject, but please read my reasoning for some of this and my other posts. From the world's point of view of course self-defense is rational. You knock me down, I chop your head off. You rape my daughter, I kill you. You invade my fatherland and we march off over hill and dale and kill the enemy on command.
However, I am talking from the CHRISTIAN point of view. I'm talking about the Born Again, regenerated, justified by faith Christian who's life has been radically transformed by the grace of the Sovereign God of the universe. He said my kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD or I would call angles down to fight for it. Believe me, the timing is off right now. My whole point is that sure we love life and family and country, but Jesus said you must give all that up to follow me (if called upon to do so). He said I didn't come to bring peace but division, even the splitting up of loved ones.
If your standard of value is this country, this life over and above obedience to Jesus Christ, then who is your God?
So, like I've said before, if a 7th century lunatic jumps out from behind a bush and kills me, I will be dead. I will not have died for the country, or money, or honor, or the fatherland, or the flag, but because of obedience to Jesus Christ, because he said to pray for our enemies and pray for those who persecute you for my name. Then I would enter the next stage of eternal life and be seeing Jesus face to face, not through a glass darkly. Not a bad option.
All I'm saying, is I wish people would look at the subject a little more carefully instead of just assuming that killing and revenge, and "self-defense" are the only options to bad choices. I don't expect most people to agree with me. I've been in the tiny minority on this issue for the past 40 years. But that makes no difference to me. I feel I am right on this and I can be a minority of one, and that would make no difference to me. Both of us can't be right.
Jesus left us an example to follow. He did not defend himself, when with a snap of the finger he could have destoryed the entire Roman Army and all those mocking him. He didn't. He told us to take up our cross and follow him. So pray for the enemy or kill the enemy. One is right and one is wrong.
I know what I think is right.
Respectfully,
James2
[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
JAMES2:
God bless you my friend. That reply took a lot of thought. I have been reading "New American" for about six years. I used to get it at the news stand until a year ago when my oldest son got me a gift subscription for Christmas. I wasn't reading it back when it was called American Opinion.
I can't agree with you on the pacifism issue but decline any further debate. I am curious though about your views on the attempted Islamic conquest of Europe centuries ago. If the Spanish people had been of such a passive nature as you feel that Christians should be, this land where we live would most likely have been conquered and and settled by Moslems. Also, the ancestors of those evil Serbs (the guys who aided downed U.S. pilots during WW2 and who are now are our enemies) are credited with halting the Islamic advance into Europe. Should those people have just stood idlely by and allowed that satanic culture to completely take over?
Roy
God bless you my friend. That reply took a lot of thought. I have been reading "New American" for about six years. I used to get it at the news stand until a year ago when my oldest son got me a gift subscription for Christmas. I wasn't reading it back when it was called American Opinion.
I can't agree with you on the pacifism issue but decline any further debate. I am curious though about your views on the attempted Islamic conquest of Europe centuries ago. If the Spanish people had been of such a passive nature as you feel that Christians should be, this land where we live would most likely have been conquered and and settled by Moslems. Also, the ancestors of those evil Serbs (the guys who aided downed U.S. pilots during WW2 and who are now are our enemies) are credited with halting the Islamic advance into Europe. Should those people have just stood idlely by and allowed that satanic culture to completely take over?
Roy
Seems to me we are ignoring a bunch of scripture about the powers given by God to Government. Although I would agree that it has been sadly misused.
Remember that the current "War" we are in is one against a Criminal organization that imitates an Army, not an Army in the truest sense.
I have no issues with Killing anyone who is involved in the destruction of innocent life, after a speedy and fair trial, or immediately and without trial if they resist.
Christian Cops
Christian Military Personnel
Christian Civilians defending themselves against Criminals
all IMO, are not living by the sword, but are excercising the authority given by God to uphold and protect moral behavior. Yet, Jesus statement is true, as many Cops and Military personnel are killed. It is the nature of their profession, yet, I do not think Jesus was impugning the character of those who rightly uphold Moral laws. And It is not very Biblical for you to attack those who do so either. Your issues with the Military are not dealing with the central issue. Your objections are based on misuses of the powers of Government, and with immorality in general, something that is not limited to the Military if I am not mistaken. You have a chip on your shoulder and use one statement by Jesus to prop up your house of cards. Are you saying that if a Military structure was in place that demanded righteous living, never harmed innocents, and never made any mistakes or errors in judgement, that service by Christians would be OK?
Remember that the current "War" we are in is one against a Criminal organization that imitates an Army, not an Army in the truest sense.
I have no issues with Killing anyone who is involved in the destruction of innocent life, after a speedy and fair trial, or immediately and without trial if they resist.
Christian Cops
Christian Military Personnel
Christian Civilians defending themselves against Criminals
all IMO, are not living by the sword, but are excercising the authority given by God to uphold and protect moral behavior. Yet, Jesus statement is true, as many Cops and Military personnel are killed. It is the nature of their profession, yet, I do not think Jesus was impugning the character of those who rightly uphold Moral laws. And It is not very Biblical for you to attack those who do so either. Your issues with the Military are not dealing with the central issue. Your objections are based on misuses of the powers of Government, and with immorality in general, something that is not limited to the Military if I am not mistaken. You have a chip on your shoulder and use one statement by Jesus to prop up your house of cards. Are you saying that if a Military structure was in place that demanded righteous living, never harmed innocents, and never made any mistakes or errors in judgement, that service by Christians would be OK?
James2 : “Chaplains, of course, are there, among other things, to tell the individual that "God is on his side" and if killed in battle he will go to heaven for dying for his country. “
This is a false statement.
James2:“Go into town, wear the uniform, and pick up what you can, because you deserve it, after all, you are fighting for freedom and you are just doing what comes naturally. I don't think anyone can deny this happens alot around the big bases, especially overseas.”
This does happen in the military, as well as in cities across America. It isn’t justified by the military, though. For example, we had a young man in our unit who was caught with another woman(other than his wife). (This is a crime, and is punishable in the military). He was discharged from the Army. The other woman,not being a soldier, lost command sponsorship.
We had another who got a DUI. He was a SSG (E-6) with over 12 years in the Army. He underwent treatment and counseling for alcohol abuse and was discharged with a general discharge (not a good thing).
James2: “It is the whole attitude that is a problem. From training, or boot camp all the way through, the attitude is one of killing the enemy”
True today only in the movies. Although knowing how to defeat the enemy is a part of defense, Army ethic and core values (as well as team work) are the focus of BASIC (boot camp). Soldiers must have the ability to know how and WHEN to use lethal force. In Bosnia we had people getting awards for not firing when attacked, for using non-lethal force.
As for as the “marching song” quoted, It’s a cadence. Used to keep in step. We can no longer use violent cadence, anything dealing with beer or alcohol, or anything that would offend anyone anywhere. (The above one, silly as it is, can still be used. Sorry PETA).
This is a false statement.
James2:“Go into town, wear the uniform, and pick up what you can, because you deserve it, after all, you are fighting for freedom and you are just doing what comes naturally. I don't think anyone can deny this happens alot around the big bases, especially overseas.”
This does happen in the military, as well as in cities across America. It isn’t justified by the military, though. For example, we had a young man in our unit who was caught with another woman(other than his wife). (This is a crime, and is punishable in the military). He was discharged from the Army. The other woman,not being a soldier, lost command sponsorship.
We had another who got a DUI. He was a SSG (E-6) with over 12 years in the Army. He underwent treatment and counseling for alcohol abuse and was discharged with a general discharge (not a good thing).
James2: “It is the whole attitude that is a problem. From training, or boot camp all the way through, the attitude is one of killing the enemy”
True today only in the movies. Although knowing how to defeat the enemy is a part of defense, Army ethic and core values (as well as team work) are the focus of BASIC (boot camp). Soldiers must have the ability to know how and WHEN to use lethal force. In Bosnia we had people getting awards for not firing when attacked, for using non-lethal force.
As for as the “marching song” quoted, It’s a cadence. Used to keep in step. We can no longer use violent cadence, anything dealing with beer or alcohol, or anything that would offend anyone anywhere. (The above one, silly as it is, can still be used. Sorry PETA).
James2: “I bring all this up to show the other side of what really goes on. Sure some think it is not disobedience to Christ to die for the "fatherland" or for the "country" or for whatever. But where in the world did anyone get the idea that it is a Christian's business to swear allegiance to a country instead of obedience to God?”
I heard that police officers take similar oaths. Where in the world did anyone get the idea that it is a Christian’s business to pledge allegiance to protect the citizens of his/her community? I also think lawyers take oaths to the law, and constitution. Do doctors take oaths placing man’s life/health over Gods will?
Our President took an oath to this country, as Christians should we support him? In supporting him are we not supporting the oath he took? If we vote for a President, we are electing a Commander and Chief for our military, one who will also take THE OATH! Would it not be a sin to actively vote into office a man who will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? If you think it wrong to take the oath below, and you voted , or will vote, for President to do so, you are a hypocrite.
If you feel convicted that in the performance of your duties in the Army, you’d be going against Gods will for your life, you can be discharged from the Army. The military never comes before God.
It’s not swearing allegiance to a country INSTEAD of obedience to God. (in fact, I did so in response to God) God comes before country. For a Christian, the affirmation is asking God to help you in your military obligations. GOD COMES FIRST.
I, John Caldwell, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND REGULATIONS. SO HELP ME GOD.
I took vows when I married, also. BUT I WAS NOT PUTTING MY WIFE, OR FAMILY ABOVE GOD EITHER. (although some people do)
I heard that police officers take similar oaths. Where in the world did anyone get the idea that it is a Christian’s business to pledge allegiance to protect the citizens of his/her community? I also think lawyers take oaths to the law, and constitution. Do doctors take oaths placing man’s life/health over Gods will?
Our President took an oath to this country, as Christians should we support him? In supporting him are we not supporting the oath he took? If we vote for a President, we are electing a Commander and Chief for our military, one who will also take THE OATH! Would it not be a sin to actively vote into office a man who will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? If you think it wrong to take the oath below, and you voted , or will vote, for President to do so, you are a hypocrite.
If you feel convicted that in the performance of your duties in the Army, you’d be going against Gods will for your life, you can be discharged from the Army. The military never comes before God.
It’s not swearing allegiance to a country INSTEAD of obedience to God. (in fact, I did so in response to God) God comes before country. For a Christian, the affirmation is asking God to help you in your military obligations. GOD COMES FIRST.
I, John Caldwell, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND REGULATIONS. SO HELP ME GOD.
I took vows when I married, also. BUT I WAS NOT PUTTING MY WIFE, OR FAMILY ABOVE GOD EITHER. (although some people do)
Roy and SuperDave:
Roy: Thank you so much for appreciating the fact that my reply REALL DID take a lot of thought. I used to aruge that position all the time, but not in recent years, so I had to really collect my thoughts. I'm glad that you took the time to read it. And I respect your position, and the debate on that subject with you is not ended.
As for the New American, I wish everyone would have the opportunity to read it. If you haven't read the issue on the UN Irecommended, please do. It is really a great, well documented article. The UN is a flat out EVIL, horrible, organization run by a bunch of 3-world country loonies. We need to get out of it immediately. I bet we agree on that!!
Superdave:
First of all I do not attack anyone in the military. I have stated that repeatedly. I am just stating how the Holy Spirit has led me through the years. My belief is that God is the Sovereign of the Universe and in completely control of EVERYTHING!! If He wanted me to be in the military, He would have put it into me to be there.
As for all the other scriptures dealing with the subject, I feel I can answer them all to support the idea that Jesus and the teachings of the gosepl do not support a CHRISTIAN fighting in a war, or even in self-defense. The subject has been debated extensively. However, I'm game.
It is true that all those vices, like picking up sluts, and the man being a slut, happens all over the world. That doesn't make it right tho. My point was that it seems to be very accepted, the thing to do, boys will be boys, etc. in the military bases and big cities around the world.
Please re-read my quotes in the above posts about condomns. It is that idiotic bragging about who uses the most condomns that just irked me. That person must have had an IQ to match his age.
By the way, Roy, to answer your question about Muslims during the time of the Crusades I have always maintained that it is impossible to not only judge, but to even understand actions that happened in other centuries. Times were so completely different than our own, it makes it difficult. I never said I didn't understand people fighting to defend their families, etc. I just maintain that Christians should not be involved in that nasty business. After all, if you are Justified by Faith and have radically become a new creature in Christ, then you glory in nothing but the Cross. It is not you, but Christ that lives in you, that is important. If the "enemy" kills you, then so be it. You will see the Sovereign God of the universe face to face, instead of prolonging your short life in this depraved, sin-filled world of God-hating, looney tune, fallen, depraved, miserable, pagan-worshipping, lost, selfish, self-centered, me-first, God-rejecting, atonement rejecting, salvation spurnning humans that are headed to hell. (wow, now don't say "you seem ANGRY," BECAUSE I'm not. I just wish everyone could see that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. But, sad to say, they can't).
Not to be mean, but Isalm was a violent, false god worshipping religion then, and it hasn't changed a bit. It is still a violent, false religion. Look what it teaches and look at the people in those countries were Islam has taken over. They are still living in the 7th century, turning over rocks hunting for food, drinking the oil instead of selling it (they should thank the US for buying that stuff from them, not trying to blackmail us and then sending their lunatic teenagers over here to fly planes into buildings in the name of their false god), making their women dress up in table cloths, denying them a education, keeping the people in abject poverty and total bondage to a work-for-salvation religion that only provides a one-way road to hell. It is really sad. Sorry, I got off the subject some. But I just watched the pope and people from other false religions get together for a world day of peace and mumble words to, I'm not sure who, since there were animal worshippers also participating, maybe to the great bear in the sky,or to something else just as inane and false. And people say there is no such thing as absolute truth!!!! God help them!!
God Bless
James2
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
Roy: Thank you so much for appreciating the fact that my reply REALL DID take a lot of thought. I used to aruge that position all the time, but not in recent years, so I had to really collect my thoughts. I'm glad that you took the time to read it. And I respect your position, and the debate on that subject with you is not ended.
As for the New American, I wish everyone would have the opportunity to read it. If you haven't read the issue on the UN Irecommended, please do. It is really a great, well documented article. The UN is a flat out EVIL, horrible, organization run by a bunch of 3-world country loonies. We need to get out of it immediately. I bet we agree on that!!
Superdave:
First of all I do not attack anyone in the military. I have stated that repeatedly. I am just stating how the Holy Spirit has led me through the years. My belief is that God is the Sovereign of the Universe and in completely control of EVERYTHING!! If He wanted me to be in the military, He would have put it into me to be there.
As for all the other scriptures dealing with the subject, I feel I can answer them all to support the idea that Jesus and the teachings of the gosepl do not support a CHRISTIAN fighting in a war, or even in self-defense. The subject has been debated extensively. However, I'm game.
It is true that all those vices, like picking up sluts, and the man being a slut, happens all over the world. That doesn't make it right tho. My point was that it seems to be very accepted, the thing to do, boys will be boys, etc. in the military bases and big cities around the world.
Please re-read my quotes in the above posts about condomns. It is that idiotic bragging about who uses the most condomns that just irked me. That person must have had an IQ to match his age.
By the way, Roy, to answer your question about Muslims during the time of the Crusades I have always maintained that it is impossible to not only judge, but to even understand actions that happened in other centuries. Times were so completely different than our own, it makes it difficult. I never said I didn't understand people fighting to defend their families, etc. I just maintain that Christians should not be involved in that nasty business. After all, if you are Justified by Faith and have radically become a new creature in Christ, then you glory in nothing but the Cross. It is not you, but Christ that lives in you, that is important. If the "enemy" kills you, then so be it. You will see the Sovereign God of the universe face to face, instead of prolonging your short life in this depraved, sin-filled world of God-hating, looney tune, fallen, depraved, miserable, pagan-worshipping, lost, selfish, self-centered, me-first, God-rejecting, atonement rejecting, salvation spurnning humans that are headed to hell. (wow, now don't say "you seem ANGRY," BECAUSE I'm not. I just wish everyone could see that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. But, sad to say, they can't).
Not to be mean, but Isalm was a violent, false god worshipping religion then, and it hasn't changed a bit. It is still a violent, false religion. Look what it teaches and look at the people in those countries were Islam has taken over. They are still living in the 7th century, turning over rocks hunting for food, drinking the oil instead of selling it (they should thank the US for buying that stuff from them, not trying to blackmail us and then sending their lunatic teenagers over here to fly planes into buildings in the name of their false god), making their women dress up in table cloths, denying them a education, keeping the people in abject poverty and total bondage to a work-for-salvation religion that only provides a one-way road to hell. It is really sad. Sorry, I got off the subject some. But I just watched the pope and people from other false religions get together for a world day of peace and mumble words to, I'm not sure who, since there were animal worshippers also participating, maybe to the great bear in the sky,or to something else just as inane and false. And people say there is no such thing as absolute truth!!!! God help them!!
God Bless
James2
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
JonC
You say it is a false statement to say that among other things, a chaplain is there to tell people that if they die for their country they will go to heaven. What's false about that. I have debated with some ot the chaplains from some of the biggest military bases and schools in the country and heard that very thing come from their statements. They most certainly are not there to say, Gee if you go into battle and are killed, you can look forward to going to hell. I'm not saying that is THIER ONLY reason, but it is one of them, absolutely without a doubt.
I also thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. I respectfully disagree with you on a point or two, however.
Look at the oath you swore, of course the bible says not to swear any oaths, just let your yes mean yes and your no, no, but that is another subject).
Police officers, the constitution, the President, your wife, everything or one you mentioned, takes back seat to obedience to Jesus Christ. I didn't see anything in that oath that says I swear absolute obedience to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and to His teachings of loving my enemy and praying for those who prescute me. I swear obedience and owe my allegiance to no one but the Sovereign God of the Universe, and I will do my duty to spread the gospel of salvation to everyone I come into contact with, not shoot them between the eyes or slit their throat.
You see, my friend, if you read the gospels without a biased eye, you can come to no other conclusion than the one I have come to. Of course, I admit readily, that the chaplains, bishops, "christian" ministers and all that have a stake, financial or otherwise, in supporing the military, will tell you differently, but that does not make it true.
Haven't you often wondered about the absurdity of one side praying to God for victory, which means the defeat of the side you are fighting, and the other side praying for victory over their enemies (which means your defeat)? Once again, that is how the Holy Spirit has convicted me FOR MY ENTIRE life. I have been against Christians fighting in war since I was 10 years old. (yes I was very concerned with all these issues since that young age, and have never ceased to study and pray about it)Here I am, much older and wiser and I have not changed my opinon, although I have been attacked by 99 per cent of the people I have attended church with for the last 50 years, but makes no difference to me. I feel I am right and the other 99.9999999999999999 per cent are wrong.
Please read my last several posts and you will see why I believe as I do, and you will also see that I'm not one to judge anyone elses salvation because they disagree with me. By the way, as a side bar let me say that my son was an Army Ranger, and even tho I did not agree with his decision, I felt he was saved and I prayed for him everyday.
And I pray for our government, police, fire and military everyday. I just don't think that is where a follower of Jesus Christ belongs.
God Bless
James2
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
You say it is a false statement to say that among other things, a chaplain is there to tell people that if they die for their country they will go to heaven. What's false about that. I have debated with some ot the chaplains from some of the biggest military bases and schools in the country and heard that very thing come from their statements. They most certainly are not there to say, Gee if you go into battle and are killed, you can look forward to going to hell. I'm not saying that is THIER ONLY reason, but it is one of them, absolutely without a doubt.
I also thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. I respectfully disagree with you on a point or two, however.
Look at the oath you swore, of course the bible says not to swear any oaths, just let your yes mean yes and your no, no, but that is another subject).
Police officers, the constitution, the President, your wife, everything or one you mentioned, takes back seat to obedience to Jesus Christ. I didn't see anything in that oath that says I swear absolute obedience to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and to His teachings of loving my enemy and praying for those who prescute me. I swear obedience and owe my allegiance to no one but the Sovereign God of the Universe, and I will do my duty to spread the gospel of salvation to everyone I come into contact with, not shoot them between the eyes or slit their throat.
You see, my friend, if you read the gospels without a biased eye, you can come to no other conclusion than the one I have come to. Of course, I admit readily, that the chaplains, bishops, "christian" ministers and all that have a stake, financial or otherwise, in supporing the military, will tell you differently, but that does not make it true.
Haven't you often wondered about the absurdity of one side praying to God for victory, which means the defeat of the side you are fighting, and the other side praying for victory over their enemies (which means your defeat)? Once again, that is how the Holy Spirit has convicted me FOR MY ENTIRE life. I have been against Christians fighting in war since I was 10 years old. (yes I was very concerned with all these issues since that young age, and have never ceased to study and pray about it)Here I am, much older and wiser and I have not changed my opinon, although I have been attacked by 99 per cent of the people I have attended church with for the last 50 years, but makes no difference to me. I feel I am right and the other 99.9999999999999999 per cent are wrong.
Please read my last several posts and you will see why I believe as I do, and you will also see that I'm not one to judge anyone elses salvation because they disagree with me. By the way, as a side bar let me say that my son was an Army Ranger, and even tho I did not agree with his decision, I felt he was saved and I prayed for him everyday.
And I pray for our government, police, fire and military everyday. I just don't think that is where a follower of Jesus Christ belongs.
God Bless
James2
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
James,
Sorry for the lengthy posts. I usually just read and research here, not replying to things with which I may have some issues. (It’s the one mouth, two ears thing).
But the first thing I read while skimming this post was :
“Should there be chaplains in whorehouses, gambling establishments, drug dealers houses, etc. I don't know, but I don't see what service to Christ that would be rendering.”
This is in the paragraph about chaplains in the military, and it was comparing the military to “whorehouses, gambling establishments, drug dealers housing, etc.”
In doing so, you are comparing me, as a soldier (and fellow Christian), to a whore, gambler, drug dealer/user, etc.
I don’t know you, and I don’t wear my feelings on my sleeve. But this really bothered me.
While we disagree on many of those points (and agree on many), I'm not challenging your views. I feel the military, police, politics, etc need Christians. If I ever felt God leading me away from the military, I'm outa here. (If we, as a nation, went to war with Isreal, I'm gone! KCM seperation!) In retrospect, I should have sent only this reply and left it alone. Instead I addressed my views on other points of your post. Sorry. God may lead you in one direction, me in another, but we (as God's children) end up in the same place at the end.
John
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JonC ]
Sorry for the lengthy posts. I usually just read and research here, not replying to things with which I may have some issues. (It’s the one mouth, two ears thing).
But the first thing I read while skimming this post was :
“Should there be chaplains in whorehouses, gambling establishments, drug dealers houses, etc. I don't know, but I don't see what service to Christ that would be rendering.”
This is in the paragraph about chaplains in the military, and it was comparing the military to “whorehouses, gambling establishments, drug dealers housing, etc.”
In doing so, you are comparing me, as a soldier (and fellow Christian), to a whore, gambler, drug dealer/user, etc.
I don’t know you, and I don’t wear my feelings on my sleeve. But this really bothered me.
While we disagree on many of those points (and agree on many), I'm not challenging your views. I feel the military, police, politics, etc need Christians. If I ever felt God leading me away from the military, I'm outa here. (If we, as a nation, went to war with Isreal, I'm gone! KCM seperation!) In retrospect, I should have sent only this reply and left it alone. Instead I addressed my views on other points of your post. Sorry. God may lead you in one direction, me in another, but we (as God's children) end up in the same place at the end.
John
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JonC ]
John:
I sincerely apologize for the chaplains in the whorehouse comment. That's just me being passionate about my beliefs. Actually, I wasn't comparing chaplains and whorehouses.
The question was should chaplains be in the military. Over the years, when that question came up, what most of the chaplains meant by that was well, I'm there to help bring people to Christ and I have to be where they are. So my comment was saying, basically, that the end does not justify the means. Would you think it proper to be a chaplain in a whorehouse so you can bring people to Christ?
So forgive me, I realize that was a stretch but I was trying to make a point, which is, once again, the end does not justify the means. I guess that WAS rather tasteless. Sorry!! I most certainly WAS NOT comparing people in the military to that other institution. Like I said, my son was a Army Ranger, even tho I didn't agree with that, and I know he behaved well -- at least he TOLD me he did.(Gosh, I never doubted him. He better have been good)
Anyway, I did not mean to offend you or anyone else. I'll try not to be so colorful in the future.
James2
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
I sincerely apologize for the chaplains in the whorehouse comment. That's just me being passionate about my beliefs. Actually, I wasn't comparing chaplains and whorehouses.
The question was should chaplains be in the military. Over the years, when that question came up, what most of the chaplains meant by that was well, I'm there to help bring people to Christ and I have to be where they are. So my comment was saying, basically, that the end does not justify the means. Would you think it proper to be a chaplain in a whorehouse so you can bring people to Christ?
So forgive me, I realize that was a stretch but I was trying to make a point, which is, once again, the end does not justify the means. I guess that WAS rather tasteless. Sorry!! I most certainly WAS NOT comparing people in the military to that other institution. Like I said, my son was a Army Ranger, even tho I didn't agree with that, and I know he behaved well -- at least he TOLD me he did.(Gosh, I never doubted him. He better have been good)
Anyway, I did not mean to offend you or anyone else. I'll try not to be so colorful in the future.
James2
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
I’ve been taking things the wrong way all week anyway. Cholesterol 314, medication and diet getting to me. 
Anyway, I am where God want’s me. Actually, I’m in transition. It’s time for me to get out of the Army, and become more involved in my hometown church (I’d rather stay in the Army, and am trying not to stress getting out. I almost re-enlisted, but I feel God calling me elsewhere, and I don't know to what).
But God did call me into military service. I have seen the good, and bad sides of the Army. It’s a microcosm of society (not Christian society, but American society as a whole). I have met wonderful Christians, as well as drunks, fornicators, and just about anything there is in America serving in the military. I resisted going into the Army for 6 years, joining when I was 23,and after A LOT of prayer.
Remember, people get free condoms at the health dept. They don’t pass them out in the Army, but they are available at the clinic. It scares me living in America when I see how America is falling. The military is going right down with it. (along with the schools, colleges and many churches)
Anyway, I would appreciate your prayers as I leave active duty. I've been in for 12 1/2 years. Anyway, I'm out April 1.
Thanks,
John
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JonC ]
Anyway, I am where God want’s me. Actually, I’m in transition. It’s time for me to get out of the Army, and become more involved in my hometown church (I’d rather stay in the Army, and am trying not to stress getting out. I almost re-enlisted, but I feel God calling me elsewhere, and I don't know to what).
But God did call me into military service. I have seen the good, and bad sides of the Army. It’s a microcosm of society (not Christian society, but American society as a whole). I have met wonderful Christians, as well as drunks, fornicators, and just about anything there is in America serving in the military. I resisted going into the Army for 6 years, joining when I was 23,and after A LOT of prayer.
Remember, people get free condoms at the health dept. They don’t pass them out in the Army, but they are available at the clinic. It scares me living in America when I see how America is falling. The military is going right down with it. (along with the schools, colleges and many churches)
Anyway, I would appreciate your prayers as I leave active duty. I've been in for 12 1/2 years. Anyway, I'm out April 1.
Thanks,
John
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: JonC ]
John:
You have my prayers, and God bless you in your new journey back to your hometown. Remember, All things work together FOR GOOD, to those who love God, and called according to His purpose. And since that includes you, put your trust in the Sovereign God of the universe. God is in control, trust in Him and everything will work out for you and your family.
God Bless
James2
You have my prayers, and God bless you in your new journey back to your hometown. Remember, All things work together FOR GOOD, to those who love God, and called according to His purpose. And since that includes you, put your trust in the Sovereign God of the universe. God is in control, trust in Him and everything will work out for you and your family.
God Bless
James2
MarciontheModerateBaptist
New Member
There has been a lot of talk in the last few months about violence, particularly violence
stemming from religious belief. I cannot speak for other religions, but I can add something to the discussion from a Christian viewpoint, specifically concerning the doctrine of atonement.
Violent images are deeply imbedded in the traditional interpretations of the atonement. The most popular evangelical interpretation is the substitutionary atonement model, which is based on the
sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Substitutionary atonement is the belief that God sent Christ to suffer die in our place so that God’s honor would be appeased. Something very interesting occurs,
though, when one reads some of what the Old Testament prophets had to say about the sacrificial system. Jeremiah 7:22, 23 states the following:
“For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them
out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I
commanded them, saying, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God...’.”
Some scholars have noted that Jeremiah was possibly using an idiomatic expression to make a point. Of course, that is possible, but how likely is it compared to voices of other minor prophets in the Old Testament concerning the sacrificial system? The most literal translations, including the New
American Standard Bible and the New American Bible, decide not to translate Jeremiah’s words according to an idiomatic statement. More free translations, such as the New International Version, have decided to incorporate the idiom into the English translation. Let’s see what other prophets have to say about the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.
In the midst of Israel’s rebellion against God and injustice toward others, the prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah offer the following opinions of sacrifice:
“I hate, I reject your festivals ... Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and
your grain offerings, I will not accept them; and I will not even look at the peace
offerings of your fatlings ... But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:21-24)
“For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
“What are your multiplied sacrifices to me? I have had enough of burnt offerings of
rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or
goats [Why would God take no pleasure in something he instituted?]. Learn to do
good: seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”
(Isaiah 1:11, 17)
“With what shall I come to the Lord and bow myself before the God on high? Shall I
come to him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the Lord take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my first-born for my
rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man,
what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:6-8)
David, the Psalmist, is not quiet on the issue of what God requires. He adds in Psalm 51:16-17,
“For thou dost not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; thou art not pleased with burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou will not despise.”
If the Old Testament prophets and David, a king of Israel after God’s own heart, recognize that sacrifices are what God despises, not what He initiated or accepts, why do most modern Christians have an understanding of the atonement rooted in violent images of Old Testament sacrifice? How, then, should we understand the death of Christ as a non-violent revolution?
Hebrews, a book commonly used as support for a substitutionary atonement, gives us a clue.
Hebrews 10:5-9 is a passage that explains what the death of Christ means, and what it effects.
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering Thou hast
not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me; in whole burnt offerings and
sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure.” The I said, “Behold, I have come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God ...” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
The writer explains that God has no desire for offerings and sacrifices. He does not have an offended honor that must be appeased by cruel death as substitutionary atonement teaches. Our God is not so human-like. God did not want a sacrifice, but an end of sacrifice. His “will” in verse 7 is explained as an end to sacrifice in verse 5. What does God take away in verse 9? The sacrificial system that He so despises. What is established? The abolishment of death (Hebrews 2:14).
Traditionally, the church has taught that God sent Christ to do in the place of sinners. I would suggest that Hebrews 10 teaches us that (1) God did not devise a plan in which his son would have to
die. God is bigger than that. A God who sacrificed His son would be tantamount to an abusive Heavenly Father. All who know him agree that He is not; (2) Christ did not die as a sacrifice to appease his Father’s honor. He died to end the violence of sacrifice. His purpose on earth was not to
die, but to bring the kingdom of God. Life was his purpose, not death. Institutional Evil (i.e. principalities, powers, rulers of the air, the Roman government, the levitical code, etc.) killed him because he actively opposed their way of thinking and operating -“the acquiescence to violence of his
enemies & voluntary death,”as Schwager puts it in Jesus in the Drama. This does not imply self-violence, but the ultimate result of passive protest; (3) Christ defeated violence and oppression in the power of his resurrection. In other words, the resurrection of Jesus spelled the ultimate, eventual defeat of Institutional Evil. He was the last needful (and needless) sacrifice, and through his death and
resurrection, we find life.
Ideas have consequences. An inherently destructive idea cannot exist without destructive actions soon following. This is obvious throughout church history, specifically in the Inquisition and the
Crusades. Arrogant assurance of the call of God to war (most assuredly a thought rooted in the violent images of Scripture) prompted action which was fatal for many innocent people. Our idea of the atonement also has consequences. For instance, a battered wife who sees Christ as one willingly bending to the ambivalent will of an abusive authority figure may feel that she is doing her “Christian duty” by staying in an abusive marriage.
What the atonement teaches us is that following Christ is a radical call against all forms of oppression, whether poverty, racism, sexism, etc. It is a call to take up our own crosses in purposeful and pacifist reaction to the evil systems of the world. A non-substitutionary view of the atonement does not strip away the significance of Christ’s suffering. It simply deepens the meaning. The death of Christ is our prime example of Christian operation in this world. We are called to be light and salt and
peacemakers all at the same time. This is only possible when the life and death of Christ are our examples.
Daniel Payne
stemming from religious belief. I cannot speak for other religions, but I can add something to the discussion from a Christian viewpoint, specifically concerning the doctrine of atonement.
Violent images are deeply imbedded in the traditional interpretations of the atonement. The most popular evangelical interpretation is the substitutionary atonement model, which is based on the
sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Substitutionary atonement is the belief that God sent Christ to suffer die in our place so that God’s honor would be appeased. Something very interesting occurs,
though, when one reads some of what the Old Testament prophets had to say about the sacrificial system. Jeremiah 7:22, 23 states the following:
“For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them
out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I
commanded them, saying, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God...’.”
Some scholars have noted that Jeremiah was possibly using an idiomatic expression to make a point. Of course, that is possible, but how likely is it compared to voices of other minor prophets in the Old Testament concerning the sacrificial system? The most literal translations, including the New
American Standard Bible and the New American Bible, decide not to translate Jeremiah’s words according to an idiomatic statement. More free translations, such as the New International Version, have decided to incorporate the idiom into the English translation. Let’s see what other prophets have to say about the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.
In the midst of Israel’s rebellion against God and injustice toward others, the prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah offer the following opinions of sacrifice:
“I hate, I reject your festivals ... Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and
your grain offerings, I will not accept them; and I will not even look at the peace
offerings of your fatlings ... But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:21-24)
“For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
“What are your multiplied sacrifices to me? I have had enough of burnt offerings of
rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or
goats [Why would God take no pleasure in something he instituted?]. Learn to do
good: seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”
(Isaiah 1:11, 17)
“With what shall I come to the Lord and bow myself before the God on high? Shall I
come to him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the Lord take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my first-born for my
rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man,
what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:6-8)
David, the Psalmist, is not quiet on the issue of what God requires. He adds in Psalm 51:16-17,
“For thou dost not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; thou art not pleased with burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou will not despise.”
If the Old Testament prophets and David, a king of Israel after God’s own heart, recognize that sacrifices are what God despises, not what He initiated or accepts, why do most modern Christians have an understanding of the atonement rooted in violent images of Old Testament sacrifice? How, then, should we understand the death of Christ as a non-violent revolution?
Hebrews, a book commonly used as support for a substitutionary atonement, gives us a clue.
Hebrews 10:5-9 is a passage that explains what the death of Christ means, and what it effects.
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering Thou hast
not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me; in whole burnt offerings and
sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure.” The I said, “Behold, I have come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God ...” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
The writer explains that God has no desire for offerings and sacrifices. He does not have an offended honor that must be appeased by cruel death as substitutionary atonement teaches. Our God is not so human-like. God did not want a sacrifice, but an end of sacrifice. His “will” in verse 7 is explained as an end to sacrifice in verse 5. What does God take away in verse 9? The sacrificial system that He so despises. What is established? The abolishment of death (Hebrews 2:14).
Traditionally, the church has taught that God sent Christ to do in the place of sinners. I would suggest that Hebrews 10 teaches us that (1) God did not devise a plan in which his son would have to
die. God is bigger than that. A God who sacrificed His son would be tantamount to an abusive Heavenly Father. All who know him agree that He is not; (2) Christ did not die as a sacrifice to appease his Father’s honor. He died to end the violence of sacrifice. His purpose on earth was not to
die, but to bring the kingdom of God. Life was his purpose, not death. Institutional Evil (i.e. principalities, powers, rulers of the air, the Roman government, the levitical code, etc.) killed him because he actively opposed their way of thinking and operating -“the acquiescence to violence of his
enemies & voluntary death,”as Schwager puts it in Jesus in the Drama. This does not imply self-violence, but the ultimate result of passive protest; (3) Christ defeated violence and oppression in the power of his resurrection. In other words, the resurrection of Jesus spelled the ultimate, eventual defeat of Institutional Evil. He was the last needful (and needless) sacrifice, and through his death and
resurrection, we find life.
Ideas have consequences. An inherently destructive idea cannot exist without destructive actions soon following. This is obvious throughout church history, specifically in the Inquisition and the
Crusades. Arrogant assurance of the call of God to war (most assuredly a thought rooted in the violent images of Scripture) prompted action which was fatal for many innocent people. Our idea of the atonement also has consequences. For instance, a battered wife who sees Christ as one willingly bending to the ambivalent will of an abusive authority figure may feel that she is doing her “Christian duty” by staying in an abusive marriage.
What the atonement teaches us is that following Christ is a radical call against all forms of oppression, whether poverty, racism, sexism, etc. It is a call to take up our own crosses in purposeful and pacifist reaction to the evil systems of the world. A non-substitutionary view of the atonement does not strip away the significance of Christ’s suffering. It simply deepens the meaning. The death of Christ is our prime example of Christian operation in this world. We are called to be light and salt and
peacemakers all at the same time. This is only possible when the life and death of Christ are our examples.
Daniel Payne
Bob Alkire
New Member
Daniel, I will say in a few words that what you said in alot of words, we are not getting the same message, from the bible!
MarciontheModerateBaptist
New Member
Bob,
Perhaps we are not getting the same message, but at least we are getting the same Savior.
Daniel
Perhaps we are not getting the same message, but at least we are getting the same Savior.
Daniel
JonC,
Im glad that you served your country and glorified God in fulfilling His calling that He had on your life at that time. I agree with superdave that God gives power to governments to rule His creation. And another point to make in support for the military and military service is found in Luke 3:14 (im sorry if this has already been touched on i didnt read all the posts they were kinda long) John is preaching to the people what they must do in order to repent and be saved (v. 3) in preperation for Jesus' coming. John told the crowd you must have fruits to show the genuineness of your repentance, so diff groups were asking him what those fruits should be. In v.10 the crowd asked him, in v.12 the tax collectors asked him and then in v. 14 soldiers asked him. It is interesting what John told them to do. At the time the soldiers were occuping Israel by a forced occupation. And military warfare wasnt as nice as it is now either. Very brutal indeed. So what did John tell them to do. Did John tell them to drop their swords for they were oppressing God's chosen nation(Israel)? No, he didnt.
In v. 14 John responds, "Dont extort money and dont accuse people falsely-be content with your pay." John was telling them as a civil servant you should fulfill your duty in an honest way. So, John's response to these occupying soldiers validifies the "rightness" of military service, even when you are providentially in an army that is occuping a foreign country for less then "just" reasons as were the Roman soldiers at that time.
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: dfd2 ]
Im glad that you served your country and glorified God in fulfilling His calling that He had on your life at that time. I agree with superdave that God gives power to governments to rule His creation. And another point to make in support for the military and military service is found in Luke 3:14 (im sorry if this has already been touched on i didnt read all the posts they were kinda long) John is preaching to the people what they must do in order to repent and be saved (v. 3) in preperation for Jesus' coming. John told the crowd you must have fruits to show the genuineness of your repentance, so diff groups were asking him what those fruits should be. In v.10 the crowd asked him, in v.12 the tax collectors asked him and then in v. 14 soldiers asked him. It is interesting what John told them to do. At the time the soldiers were occuping Israel by a forced occupation. And military warfare wasnt as nice as it is now either. Very brutal indeed. So what did John tell them to do. Did John tell them to drop their swords for they were oppressing God's chosen nation(Israel)? No, he didnt.
In v. 14 John responds, "Dont extort money and dont accuse people falsely-be content with your pay." John was telling them as a civil servant you should fulfill your duty in an honest way. So, John's response to these occupying soldiers validifies the "rightness" of military service, even when you are providentially in an army that is occuping a foreign country for less then "just" reasons as were the Roman soldiers at that time.
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: dfd2 ]
dfd2:
I wasn't going to even respond to your assertion that this passage "proves military service is valid" because the argument is self-refuting and needs no comment. However, some may not see that and read the passage like you did, so a comment or two.
This is the argument from SILENCE. Therefore, it proves absolutely nothing. Because a author said NOTHING about a subject does not prove they approved of something. For example, James praises the faith of Rahab the harolt but did not say anything about her being a prostitute. Are we to infer that the Apostle James was thereby approving prostitution? Of course not. Further, this method can be used to prove whatever you want and leads into absolute absurdity. No one said a thing about one country occupying another country. Are we to infer from this that the writer APPROVED of the concept of a stronger country subjecting a weaker country to their control? What do you think? So, you see the absurdity of trying to use the argument from silence to prove anything. This is the weakest of all arguments and really, is no argument at all.
Somewhere else I read the tired argument of Jesus chasing the money-changers out of the temple. The fact that that "argument" keeps coming up shows how desperate those trying to show support for Christians fighting in a war really are.
Let's see!!! Jesus gets mad because all these slime balls are using the temple for their own personal gain, and have forgotten the purpose of the temple in the first place. He takes a whip and raises his voice to chase the animals out of the temple. Boy, that sure does support taking an AK-47, adopting a way of life that has the sole purpose of killing the enemy and defending the "fatherland", of killing on the command of a superior officer and swearing allegiance to the government instead of God. What utter nonsense and desperation. Jesus peeks around the corner, takes a whip and snaps it in the air, probably yells BOO cows, they run out of the building and wow, we have support for a Christian taking up the art of killing the enemy and being a professional soldier!! Now how is one to deal with such weighty arguments. No wonder one goes back to the argument from silence.
James2
I wasn't going to even respond to your assertion that this passage "proves military service is valid" because the argument is self-refuting and needs no comment. However, some may not see that and read the passage like you did, so a comment or two.
This is the argument from SILENCE. Therefore, it proves absolutely nothing. Because a author said NOTHING about a subject does not prove they approved of something. For example, James praises the faith of Rahab the harolt but did not say anything about her being a prostitute. Are we to infer that the Apostle James was thereby approving prostitution? Of course not. Further, this method can be used to prove whatever you want and leads into absolute absurdity. No one said a thing about one country occupying another country. Are we to infer from this that the writer APPROVED of the concept of a stronger country subjecting a weaker country to their control? What do you think? So, you see the absurdity of trying to use the argument from silence to prove anything. This is the weakest of all arguments and really, is no argument at all.
Somewhere else I read the tired argument of Jesus chasing the money-changers out of the temple. The fact that that "argument" keeps coming up shows how desperate those trying to show support for Christians fighting in a war really are.
Let's see!!! Jesus gets mad because all these slime balls are using the temple for their own personal gain, and have forgotten the purpose of the temple in the first place. He takes a whip and raises his voice to chase the animals out of the temple. Boy, that sure does support taking an AK-47, adopting a way of life that has the sole purpose of killing the enemy and defending the "fatherland", of killing on the command of a superior officer and swearing allegiance to the government instead of God. What utter nonsense and desperation. Jesus peeks around the corner, takes a whip and snaps it in the air, probably yells BOO cows, they run out of the building and wow, we have support for a Christian taking up the art of killing the enemy and being a professional soldier!! Now how is one to deal with such weighty arguments. No wonder one goes back to the argument from silence.
James2
James,
Well, it doesnt surprise me that you wouldnt agree with that. But from the amount of argumentation that you are giving against christian military service it must be a great evil. So when those soldiers asked what they should do to show there repentance to be true, if in fact milliatry service is soo evil, dont you think John wouldve said to quit being a soldier? Especially since they were occopuying Israel? I think that he would have. If you were there it seems very likely to me that you would have plenty to say to them about quitting serving as a soldier but John doesnt tell them that. Hmmm, very interesting.
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: dfd2 ]
Well, it doesnt surprise me that you wouldnt agree with that. But from the amount of argumentation that you are giving against christian military service it must be a great evil. So when those soldiers asked what they should do to show there repentance to be true, if in fact milliatry service is soo evil, dont you think John wouldve said to quit being a soldier? Especially since they were occopuying Israel? I think that he would have. If you were there it seems very likely to me that you would have plenty to say to them about quitting serving as a soldier but John doesnt tell them that. Hmmm, very interesting.
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: dfd2 ]
dfd2:
No, I don't think John, or anyone else, would have said gee, guys, you need to repent, now rip that uniform off, get out of the military this very moment or you are going to hell, then hit them about the face and body with the Old Testament. Of course that passage does not support being a solider for all the reasons mentioned. The argument from silence is the weakest of all arguments.
Remember, that was John the Baptist, that was before the cross, that was before Pentecost, and before the out pouring of the Holy Spirit, to just point out a few things.
I'm not saying military service is an evil. Like I've said before, my son was a Army Ranger, even tho I hated the idea, I still didn't think he was evil or was going to hell. I just thought he was wrong and prayed that he would come to his senses. He did, of course and now has his Ph.D in genetics and biochemistry, after turning down an appointment to West Point, I might add.
Please don't get me wrong. I do not judge the individual because he decides to join the military and swear obedience to his superior officers and to obey the government. I just feel that for a christian that is wrong and very misguided and has no basis whatsoever in the teachings of Christ. I'm not going to repeat everything I've said on this thread and the others elsewhere, so you are right, I disagree with you but that doesn't mean I don't love you as a brother in Christ.
God Bless
James2
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
No, I don't think John, or anyone else, would have said gee, guys, you need to repent, now rip that uniform off, get out of the military this very moment or you are going to hell, then hit them about the face and body with the Old Testament. Of course that passage does not support being a solider for all the reasons mentioned. The argument from silence is the weakest of all arguments.
Remember, that was John the Baptist, that was before the cross, that was before Pentecost, and before the out pouring of the Holy Spirit, to just point out a few things.
I'm not saying military service is an evil. Like I've said before, my son was a Army Ranger, even tho I hated the idea, I still didn't think he was evil or was going to hell. I just thought he was wrong and prayed that he would come to his senses. He did, of course and now has his Ph.D in genetics and biochemistry, after turning down an appointment to West Point, I might add.
Please don't get me wrong. I do not judge the individual because he decides to join the military and swear obedience to his superior officers and to obey the government. I just feel that for a christian that is wrong and very misguided and has no basis whatsoever in the teachings of Christ. I'm not going to repeat everything I've said on this thread and the others elsewhere, so you are right, I disagree with you but that doesn't mean I don't love you as a brother in Christ.
God Bless
James2
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]