Buying a Sword

[Guest]

I have to disagree if you think that all wars are just about suppression and containment. I think that is a part of them, but there are those that are fought with the intent of bringing about a peace and/or reconcilliation.

How about this scenerio... I'll hit the threatening guy to suppress his immediate violence and sober him a bit, then you can talk to him in his somewhat sobered state to bring about the completion of reconciliation.

Veritas - IN Acts 10 the centurian wasn't "called" by God to become a soldier - we also do not know if the Centurian continued on as a soldier.

For the first 100plus years of the Church - the dominate teaching or standard teaching was of pacifism. There are many examples from the early church leaders that the church was pacifistic and that one could not or should not be a Christian and a soldier.

We could come up with many scenarios - but let's deal with reality. Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. The implication here is that violence begets more violence. Wars are not fought for reconcillation, but for supressions, oppression, and to enlarge terroritoies - physical land or influenence. No matter what we wrap war up in, no matter that fancy package, the object of war is to increase one's influence and power - not reconcillation.

However, as a follower of Christ - our ministry is that of reconcillation.

 

[Gary]

Why are wars fought?

.... Wars are not fought for reconcillation, but for (1) supressions, (2) oppression, and (3) to enlarge terroritoies - physical land or (4) influenence. No matter what we wrap war up in, no matter that fancy package, the object of war is to (5) increase one's influence and power - not (6) reconcillation.

I would have to challenge the statement above.

• Could you tell me what Nelson Mandela fought for? (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5)?[/*:m:89975]
• Secondly, what did he achieve? I would suggest (6).[/*:m:89975]

 

[Guest]

Re: Why are wars fought?

.... Wars are not fought for reconcillation, but for (1) supressions, (2) oppression, and (3) to enlarge terroritoies - physical land or (4) influenence. No matter what we wrap war up in, no matter that fancy package, the object of war is to (5) increase one's influence and power - not (6) reconcillation.

I would have to challenge the statement above.

• Could you tell me what Nelson Mandela fought for? (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5)?[/*:m:cf0d6]
• Secondly, what did he achieve? I would suggest (6).[/*:m:cf0d6]

Did Nelson Mandela fight a war?

 

[Gary]

Did Mandela fight a war? ... YES!!

Did Nelson Mandela fight a war?

Quick answer. Yes. He even instigated/initiated and led the armed struggle against apartheid. I should know. I was part of the army on the other side of the fence!

The Treason Trial collapsed in 1961 as South Africa was being steered towards the adoption of the republic constitution. With the ANC now illegal the leadership picked up the threads from its underground headquarters. Nelson Mandela emerged at this time as the leading figure in this new phase of struggle. Under the ANC's inspiration, 1,400 delegates came together at an All-in African Conference in Pietermaritzburg during March 1961. Mandela was the keynote speaker. In an electrifying address he challenged the apartheid regime to convene a national convention, representative of all South Africans to thrash out a new constitution based on democratic principles. Failure to comply, he warned, would compel the majority (Blacks) to observe the forthcoming inauguration of the Republic with a mass general strike. He immediately went underground to lead the campaign. Although fewer answered the call than Mandela had hoped, it attracted considerable support throughout the country. The government responded with the largest military mobilisation since the war, and the Republic was born in an atmosphere of fear and apprehension.

Forced to live apart from his family, moving from place to place to evade detection by the government s ubiquitous informers and police spies, Mandela had to adopt a number of disguises. Sometimes dressed as a common labourer, at other times as a chauffeur, his successful evasion of the police earned him the title of the Black Pimpernel. It was during this time that he, together with other leaders of the ANC constituted a new specialised section of the liberation movement, Umkhonto we Sizwe, as an armed nucleus with a view to preparing for armed struggle. At the Rivonia trial, Mandela explained : "At the beginning of June 1961, after long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe...the Government had left us no other choice."

In 1961 Umkhonto we Sizwe was formed, with Mandela as its commander-in-chief. In 1962 Mandela left the country unlawfully and travelled abroad for several months. In Ethiopia he addressed the Conference of the Pan African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa, and was warmly received by senior political leaders in several countries. During this trip Mandela, anticipating an intensification of the armed struggle, began to arrange guerrilla training for members of Umkhonto we Sizwe.

Read more here: http://www.anc.org.za/people/mandela.html

 

[Lewis]

So what I am getting is that some of you' will let a guy' come in your house beat up the kids and rape the wife' while you stand up there like a true coward. And you will say let me make you a sandwich and lets sit down at the table and pray ? And then kindly let the guy out the door with a loving Christian hug. And tell the guy' come over anytime' my door is always open. Because you are just one peach of a fellow' and one real gem of a guy. And then you yell out as the guy walks down the street' don't forget to bring some friends next time. Do you need any money ? Do I have this right ?

 

[Guest]

So what I am getting is that some of you' will let a guy' come in your house beat up the kids and rape the wife' while you stand up there like a true coward. And you will say let me make you a sandwich and lets sit down at the table and pray ? And then kindly let the guy out the door with a loving Christian hug. And tell the guy' come over anytime' my door is always open. Because you are just one peach of a fellow' and one real gem of a guy. And then you yell out as the guy walks down the street' don't forget to bring some friends next time. Do you need any money ? Do I have this right ?

Who suggested that?

 

[Guest]

Gary - Did Mandela actually use force? I will continue to read the link that you have provided, but what you provided did not show that he actually used force.

 

[Gary]

Did Mandela use force? YES!

Gary - Did Mandela actually use force? I will continue to read the link that you have provided, but what you provided did not show that he actually used force.

Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK), translated "Spear of the Nation", was the active military wing of the African National Congress in cooperation with the South African Communist Party in their fight against the South African apartheid regime. MK launched its first guerrilla attacks against government installations on 16 December 1961. (Gary: ....and remember, Nelson Mandela was their commander-in-chief.) It was subsequently classified as a terrorist organisation by the South African government and media, and banned.

For a time it was headquartered in Rivonia, a suburb of Johannesburg. On 11 July 1963, 19 ANC and MK leaders  including Nelson Mandela, who would be the future South African President  were arrested at Liliesleaf Farm, Rivonia. The farm was privately owned by Arthur Goldreich and bought with SACP (South African Communist Party) funds. This was followed by the Rivonia Trial, in which ten leaders of the ANC were tried for 221 acts of sabotage designed to "foment violent revolution". Wilton Mkwayi, chief of MK at the time, escaped during trial.

The MK carried out numerous bombings of military, industrial, civilian and infrastructural sites. The tactics were initially geared solely towards sabotage, but eventually expanded to include urban guerrilla warfare, which included human targets. Notable among these were the 8 January 1982 attack on the Koeberg nuclear power plant near Cape Town, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the formation of the ANC, the Church Street bombing on 20 May 1983, killing 19, and the 14 June 1986 car-bombing of Magoo's Bar in Durban, in which 3 people were killed and 73 injured. The total number of people killed or injured in the 30 years of MK's campaigns is not known exactly. MK alone was not a military threat to the apartheid state, but the ANC leadership saw MK as the armed component of a strategy of "people's war" that was primarily geared towards mobilizing mass political support.

MK suspended operations on 1 August 1990 in preparation for the dismantling of apartheid, and was finally integrated into the South African National Defence Force by 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe

See also http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/manifesto-mk.html

Manifesto of Umkhonto we Sizwe

(Leaflet issued by the Command of Umkhonto we Sizwe, 16th December 1961)

Units of Umkhonto we Sizwe today carried out planned attacks against government installations, particularly those connected with the policy of apartheid and race discrimination.

Umkhonto we Sizwe is a new, independent body, formed by Africans, It includes in its ranks South Africans of all races It is not connected in any way with a so-called 'Committee for National Liberation' whose existence has been announced in the press. Umkhonto we Sizwe will carry on the struggle for freedom and democracy by new methods, which are necessary to complement the actions of the established national liberation organisations. Umkhonto we Sizwe fully supports the national liberation movement, and our members jointly and individually, place themselves under the overall political guidance of that movement.

It is, however, well known that the main national liberation organisations in this country have consistently followed a policy of non-violence. They have conducted themselves peaceably at all times, regardless of government attacks and persecutions upon them, and despite all government-inspired attempts to provoke them to violence. They have done so because the people prefer peaceful methods of change to achieve their aspirations without the suffering and bitterness of civil war. But the people's patience is not endless.

The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means within our power in defence of our people, our future and our freedom. The government has interpreted the peacefulness of the movement as weakness; the people's non-violent policies have been taken as a green light for government violence. Refusal to resort to force has been interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the people without any fear of reprisals. The methods of Umkhonto we Sizwe mark a break with that past.......

As I said, I was part of the army on the other side of the fence.

Now that you realise that Mandela DID use force.....

Lets get back to my original questions:

You said

aLoneVoice
.... Wars are not fought for reconcillation, but for (1) supressions, (2) oppression, and (3) to enlarge terroritoies - physical land or (4) influenence. No matter what we wrap war up in, no matter that fancy package, the object of war is to (5) increase one's influence and power - not (6) reconcillation.

I have challenged the statement above.

• Could you tell me what Nelson Mandela fought for? (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5)?[/*:m:c8c2d]
• Secondly, what did he ultimately achieve? I would suggest (6).[/*:m:c8c2d]

 

[Gary]

What did Mandela fight for?

What did Mandela fight for? Did he use violence?

In his own words, at his trial, Mandela had this to say:

In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.

Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.

I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962.

So unlike your suggestion of the reason for violence and war (oppression), Mandela instigated violence in response to oppression.

He goes on to say:

I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html

It can not be clearer. Mandela did sanction, encourage and even planned violence. He was the head (commander-in-chief) of the active armed wing of the ANC who did commit acts of violence, some of which resulted in civilian deaths.

If what he did was wrong, please suggest the alternative.

Today, 47.9 million of the 48.0 million South Africans are thankful that he made this decision.... and the world has a much better role model than some other current trigger happy presidents/leaders about how a 'just war' is fought and for what reasons.

He goes on to say:

....But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the Court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our organization bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt. I want, therefore, to say something about the African National Congress.....

:D

There is so much more to learn from this great and wise man. But please read about him first. Read what he said and did. I am sure you will change your mind about the potential use of violence when you read and study our history. There are lessons for us all in his actions and words.

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html

 

[Lewis]

So what I am getting is that some of you' will let a guy' come in your house beat up the kids and rape the wife' while you stand up there like a true coward. And you will say let me make you a sandwich and lets sit down at the table and pray ? And then kindly let the guy out the door with a loving Christian hug. And tell the guy' come over anytime' my door is always open. Because you are just one peach of a fellow' and one real gem of a guy. And then you yell out as the guy walks down the street' don't forget to bring some friends next time. Do you need any money ? Do I have this right ?

Who suggested that?

Sounds like some of the love people in this topic' has been saying to show the intruder.

 

[Rick W]

It's been said blessed are the peacemakers.
Can we please demonstrate a little of that spirit in a more "peaceful" pursuit of the topic at hand?
I can see both sides of this. And aloneVoice has kept his cool without any sign of countering any argument with the same spirit it appears to have been dealt with. I must say he has certainly displayed his belief by not "losing his cool"... wouldn't you think?
Please, tone it down a bit ok?

 

[Guest]

Gary - with the little that I have just learned about you - I can understand why you admire Mendela - and many many people around the world admire him as well. I could point to Gandhi who was able to remove the British from India without using violence (and yes, I am aware that at one time Gandhi supported the use of violence) - but ultimately my example needs to be found in Christ Jesus not Mendela or Gandhi.

I believe in this thread, I even mentioned Rosenberg (sp?) during WWII when Jewish women were able to demand (non-violently) the return of their German husbands and win their release!

However, I would suggest that ending apartheid (while clearly honorable) was not about bringing reconcillation. An injustice for sure for the minority (whites) to rule over and enslave the majority (africans) of South Africa - but ultimately it was about moving the power from the minorities to the majorities.

Now, about 20 years later, I would hope that there has been reconcilliation - but that does not necessarily justify the means to accomplish it.

 

[Guest]

[quote="Lewis W":779c0]So what I am getting is that some of you' will let a guy' come in your house beat up the kids and rape the wife' while you stand up there like a true coward. And you will say let me make you a sandwich and lets sit down at the table and pray ? And then kindly let the guy out the door with a loving Christian hug. And tell the guy' come over anytime' my door is always open. Because you are just one peach of a fellow' and one real gem of a guy. And then you yell out as the guy walks down the street' don't forget to bring some friends next time. Do you need any money ? Do I have this right ?

Who suggested that?

Sounds like some of the love people in this topic' has been saying to show the intruder.[/quote:779c0]

Perhaps you could be a little more specific - let's be honest here, I am probably the only Christian pacifist on this thread - so if you could provide quotes from me that has lead you to that assumption perhaps I can help clear up your misunderstandings.

 

[Gary]

Mandela did not fight for power... he fought to end oppressi

Gary - with the little that I have just learned about you - I can understand why you admire Mendela - and many many people around the world admire him as well. I could point to Gandhi who was able to remove the British from India without using violence (and yes, I am aware that at one time Gandhi supported the use of violence) - but ultimately my example needs to be found in Christ Jesus not Mendela or Gandhi.

I believe in this thread, I even mentioned Rosenberg (sp?) during WWII when Jewish women were able to demand (non-violently) the return of their German husbands and win their release!

However, I would suggest that ending apartheid (while clearly honorable) was not about bringing reconcillation. An injustice for sure for the minority (whites) to rule over and enslave the majority (africans) of South Africa - but ultimately it was about moving the power from the minorities to the majorities.

Now, about 20 years later, I would hope that there has been reconcilliation - but that does not necessarily justify the means to accomplish it.

So you have classified Mandela's fight and use of violence (even as the last resort and after 30!!!! yes, 30 years of peaceful resistance)... all you have been able to say is that it was about power! How wrong you are; in fact, it is a huge insult to us and obviously to the life work of someone like Mandela to classify his efforts as an attempt to gain power. You could not have read what he said at his trial. It was about INJUSTICE and OPPRESSION, fighting and resisting those, about ending injustice and poverty, unjust laws and unequal opportunities. He says it himself.

You said wars were about oppression. I have shown you that Mandela's fight was about ending oppression, the exact opposite of what you claimed wars were about!

You also suggested that ‘However, I would suggest that ending apartheid (while clearly honorable) was not about bringing reconcillation.’ Again, that is not correct. IF you had read the links I had provided you would have seen that Mandela always had reconciliation in his thoughts.

The way that Mandela brought about an end to that oppression has taught us (and the world, hopefully) how to achieve reconciliation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was an example of how to do that and how once-enemies can and did reconcile. http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/

So.... 17 years on we have a reconciled nation and lots less bloodshed than was anticipated by all, even the pacifists and conscious objectors.

Many of my colleagues and contemporaries were conscious objectors. Several of us were not that brave to take that final step.... however, the amount of goodwill generated by Mandela's ability to forgive and the manor in which the resistance was fought, first peacefully and then selectively targeting military installations etc has had the effect of winning most, if not all, former enemies who once pointed guns at each other and tried to kill each other.

What you have not yet suggested is... what other route would you have advised Nelson Mandela to have taken in 1961? Please outline that strategy and think through the consequences of that answer. Remember, at that time, the ANC had already offered passive resistance for 30 years. They had ‘put themselves in the way’ – as you like to say. And turned the other cheek many times…

To many of us, Mandela did act with great wisdom and restraint. I am asking you what you would have done.

Thanks again.
Gary

 

[Guest]

Gary - to almost every 'rule' there can be found an exception.

To be quite honest, the OP of this thread was discussing a specific passage in regards to "buying a sword". I believe I have outlined and presented a clear explaination of that passage to show that Jesus was not suggesting that the disciples were to literally go out and "buy a sword".

In regards to Mandela - one can look back and be glad that everything has worked out - again, does the "ends justify the means"? Does Mandela's actions or the actions on the ANC comply with the Mount Sermon and the example of Christ?

On a side note, that does not have any bearing on our discussion, just my curiosity - is Mendela or does Mandela profess to be a Christian?

Please do not misunderstand what I mean by saying 'gaining power'. I am not talking in an imperialistic sense in regards to Mandela - but can you argue that the 'fight' did not balance the inbalance of power?

Lastly - I would suggest that my comments were in regards to armed conflict between national states - ie: "war".

What I believe to be a shame in the history of the ANC and South Africa is the lack of pressure (in the beginning) by other nations on the government of South Africa to end aprethid peacefully.

 

[Gary]

So we now agree that Mandela did fight a war..

aLoneVoice: Gary - to almost every 'rule' there can be found an exception.
Gary: A fairly large exception. 48.0 million people! So at least now you see that your general rule about war and the reasons for war and the consequences were not correct.

aLoneVoice: To be quite honest, the OP of this thread was discussing a specific passage in regards to "buying a sword". I believe I have outlined and presented a clear explanation of that passage to show that Jesus was not suggesting that the disciples were to literally go out and "buy a sword".
Gary: To be as honest, I agree! Hence very little need to discuss that OP. I was responding to your own assumptions about the reasons for war.

aLoneVoice: In regards to Mandela - one can look back and be glad that everything has worked out - again, does the "ends justify the means"? Does Mandela's actions or the actions on the ANC comply with the Mount Sermon and the example of Christ?
Gary: In many ways, yes. ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ is very applicable to Mandela. And as I have already shown you, the ANC guided 40 million people to ‘turn the other cheek’ for 30 years!

aLoneVoice: On a side note, that does not have any bearing on our discussion, just my curiosity - is Mandela or does Mandela profess to be a Christian?
Gary: I have already mentioned that he is a practicing Methodist. He lives his Christianity rather than preaching his Christianity.

aLoneVoice: Please do not misunderstand what I mean by saying 'gaining power'. I am not talking in an imperialistic sense in regards to Mandela - but can you argue that the 'fight' did not balance the inbalance of power?
Gary: Of course it did. That was a by-product of the freedom struggle. It was even called a ‘freedom struggle’. But let’s be honest again…. that is not the kind of ‘power’ you were suggesting when you claimed wars were about. You claimed ‘.... Wars are not fought for reconcillation, but for (1) supressions, (2) oppression, and (3) to enlarge terroritoies - physical land or (4) influenence. No matter what we wrap war up in, no matter that fancy package, the object of war is to (5) increase one's influence and power - not (6) reconcillation.’ I think I have conclusively shown that the war the ANC fought was about ending oppression and injustice and that the way the ANC conducted that very extended war was always aimed at reconciliation of all people in South Africa.

aLoneVoice: Lastly - I would suggest that my comments were in regards to armed conflict between national states - ie: "war".
Gary: That may be what you are trying to suggest now. But I do suggest that the war between the ruling regime, the elected South African government and it nationally conscripted Defence Force and the ANC and its constituted armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was a very real war. Are you suggesting that the American war of Independence was not a war? Your new definition of what defines a war is so narrow that we would have to classify many conflicts which have occurred in history between two or more armies as not being war!!

aLoneVoice: What I believe to be a shame in the history of the ANC and South Africa is the lack of pressure (in the beginning) by other nations on the government of South Africa to end apartheid peacefully.
Gary: Could not agree more. Too many countries with economic self-interest or greed! I have often wondered… what would have happened if we had vast reserves of oil? Another Iraq? Thank God not. So what is the world doing right now about Zimbabwe? Again, no oil so no real response.

:

 

[Guest]

Gary - again, while I can appreciate that everything has worked out now - what was the causality rate for the "war"?

I am sorry, but I can not ascribe to a a subjective morality that allows for the 'ends to justify the means'.

"Blessed are the peacemakers" must comply with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ - Jesus Christ did not advocate, teach, or use violence against another human being.

Forgive me, I am short on time - and just quickly responded - I am working on some home repairs!

 

[Gary]

Home repairs...

...
Forgive me, I am short on time - and just quickly responded - I am working on some home repairs!

Great! Or should I say 'snap'... I am doing the exact same thing today. At home while others help me with painting and repairs! :D

Enjoy and we will continue our discussion later.

Kind regards
Gary

 

[Gary]

Blessed are the peacemakers

aLoneVoice: Gary - again, while I can appreciate that everything has worked out now - what was the causality rate for the "war"?
Gary: Very difficult to work out. If we take the war as having started in 1961 and ended in 1990 (release of Mandela), then the numbers would have to have been the casualties of the S. African Defence force, both permanent and national servicemen. All white South Africans were called up to the army for (at least) 12 months at the end of their school career and then subsequently called up annually for a 1 month camp. Later, as the war intensified, we were called up for 3 months every second year and many spent that time on ‘the border’, fighting and stopping ‘terrorist’ incursions. Most of the Umkhonto we Sizwe fighters had left the country and after having been trained in Eastern countries, mainly Russia and later Cuba, they would attempt to infiltrate back into South Africa through Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana and especially the Caprivi Strip (between South Africa and Namibia).
Overall, the casualties of the South African armed forces would have been in the few thousand range, probably around the 2-3 thousand. The numbers were never officially released. The 80’s and 90’s would have accounted for the most casualties.
On the Umkhonto we Sizwe side, the number would have been much, much higher, in the 10s of thousand range, 20,000 possibly. However, the toll on the local civilian populations would have been at least double those numbers.

aLoneVoice: I am sorry, but I can not ascribe to a subjective morality that allows for the 'ends to justify the means'.
Gary: Neither can I. I have studied what many leading thinkers understand about Christian ethics. On the non-absolutism side, I see flaws with antinomianism, situationism (which would include ‘end justifies any means’) and generalism. As Norman Geisler says in his book, “Christian Ethicsâ€Â, … ‘since Christian ethics is firmly rooted in the unchanging moral character of God (Lev 11:45 and Mal 3:6), all non-absolutism options are not for the Christian.’ On the absolutism side, the options would be unqualified absolutism, conflicting absolutism and graded absolutism.
As best as I can understand and categorise my own Christian ethics, I would have to be in the graded absolutism category. It successfully answers moral conflicts but remains firm on moral principles based on the absolute, unchanging character of God.

aLoneVoice: "Blessed are the peacemakers" must comply with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ - Jesus Christ did not advocate, teach, or use violence against another human being.
Gary: It is interesting that "Blessed are the peacemakers" assumes that there is not already peace. i.e. that conflicts, violence and wars already exist, happen and re-occur. You would not need peacemakers if those did not exist or were not reoccurring. I have to question you on two other points when you say that Jesus Christ is your example. Are you one of the ‘What Would Jesus Do’ fans? If so, my response is…. in some situations, Jesus performed miracles. Can you do that? Walk on water, turn water into wine, forgive people their sins (even when they have not sinned against you), heal the sick immediately and only using your words, cure leprosy, restore a shrivelled hand, give sight to the blind, raise the dead etc, etc. I would strongly suggest that you cannot ‘do what Jesus did’.
I agree that we can and should follow His teachings but that as sinners, we will still fall short. Did Jesus ever use violence? I would have to ask: “Do you believe John and the Bible that Jesus is the Word and that the Word became flesh? Do you believe that in the beginning was the Word and that the Word was with God and that the Word was (and still is) God? Do you believe that He was with God n the beginning?†If so, can you explain God’s (and by implication also Jesus’) instructions to wage war on Canaan?

 

[Guest]

Gary - I am not of a "WWJD" fan because of it's marketing - I 'hate' "christian" nick-nacks. However, to answer your question about miracles - John 14:11-13

11"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

12"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.

13"Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Did the apostles do miracles? Perhaps we have "lost" something because we are not "doing what Jesus did".

Lastly - I believe you knew that I was referring to Jesus' earthly ministry - however, I believe there there is a difference when God Himself orders violence (ie: war) - in that God is Holy and Just. From what I can remember, in almost every battle that Israel fought - they had the smaller, weaker, unskilled army - it shows that God was on their side. Not to mention that there were strict rules for going into battle (purification rules) and rules of conduct both during and after the battle.