Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How do pacifist Christians reconcile pacifism with with Jesus's commendation of the Roman centurion?

This is why it is important to not water down the "turn the other cheek" teaching.
I have always agreed that it is important to not 'water down' the "turn the other cheek" teaching. Just as important as it is to not go beyond what it does teach.

This is obviously a topic you've put some thought into and don't mind posting about. Nor mind accusing me of watering Matt 5:39 down repeatedly. So, if you don't mind, can I ask you a different question:

Why will you not directly answer: "Do you think that Jesus was teaching that if someone violently poked out your or someone else's eye that you should just offer them your other eye?"

Maybe he will tell you to call the police.
What police?

A. The Christian police that think Matt 5:39 teaches for you to ''turn your other cheek' to someone trying to murder you or poke your eye out so when they show up, they tell you to stop 'watering down' Matt 5:39 by running and for you to offer your attacker your other eye right now so that you can demonstrate Matt 5:39 to them.

B. The Christian police that think like you and that God's told them to run away or whatever?
I'm willing to run away or whatever. I believe it is this willingness that God is really looking for.

C. Or the Christian police that God has put in place to punish bad deeds with their swords in accordance with Rom 13:4?

Romans 13:4 (LEB) for it [civil authority, such as the police] is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid, because it does not bear the sword to no purpose. For it is God’s servant, the one who avenges for punishment on the one who does what is bad.
D. Or the non-Christian police?
 
I have always agreed that it is important to not 'water down' the "turn the other cheek" teaching. Just as important as it is to not go beyond what it does teach.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)

Here’s a general definition of pacifism: the belief that violence of any kind is unjustifiable and that one should not participate in war.

Let’s also look at the surrounding verses of that scripture citation for the context:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Mat. 5:38-42

smite: to smite in the face with the palm of the hand, to box the ear.

We discern the difference between someone slapping you with an open hand on your right cheek, and someone punching you with a closed fist left hook to your head.

In the passage above, we have a description of one man who would INSULT another man by slapping him on the cheek. It's an attempt to incite, not inflict damage. The word says, don’t buy into that; don’t return his evil with evil. And don’t buy into Caesarian law suits; don’t refuse one who asks you to walk the distance with him; don’t refuse one who would borrow from you.

The cited verse, in its context, has little to do with pacifism or self-defense. It has everything to do with overcoming evil with good.

Even Christ Himself did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23), or when struck on the face by the palms of the Roman guards (Matthew 26:67-68, Mark 14:65, Luke 22:64).

Matthew 5:39 is speaking about the custom of the Romans when a superior would demand obedience from an inferior. Christ was showing disdain for them when he said to turn the other cheek. When struck by a Roman superior in the first century, you where to drop to one knee or put your forehead in the dirt before them. To turn the other cheek to him would be a very defiant act when you were struck on the face. We are not to resist with violence, of course, but with love. That is truly resisting evil.

By simply turning the other cheek for him to hit, you are refusing to partake of the evil resulting from bowing to man, and at the same time you are not reverting to violence. We are to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). You are showing him, out of love, that you can only bow to One Lord, and no man will you ever bow down to. You show him that you will place God's command above man's command, no matter what the consequences will be. You are willing to take the punishment, and are willing to get "hit again" by your enemies, but you will stand firm in God's Law of love. By taking a stand such as this, the one who hits you may very well flee from you (James 4:7).
 
Last edited:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5:39 (KJV).
Leo Tolstoy, who was a deep Christian thinker in addition to being the author of War and Peace and other classics, believed "resist not evil" was the key to Jesus' message. He wrote extensively about this.
As this thread shows, one can cite Bible verses pointing in different directions. But I do tend to think Tolstoy hit upon a profound truth.
Which position, militarism or pacifism, really seems more consistent with Jesus' overarching message? It seems to me that war is best left to God and His heavenly "troops."
Think how radically transforming it might be if we took "resist not evil" literally. Yes, the transformation would be a very long-term project, with lots of senseless suffering and plenty of evil running amuck in the interim. I claim no special knowledge, but my suspicion is that something this radical was precisely what Jesus was talking about - that "resisting not" evil is ultimately the only way to defeat it.
Many serious historians and theologians believe Christianity took a wrong turn when it was embraced by Constantine and became the official state religion. They believe this paved the way for a militant version of Christianity that is far from what Jesus envisioned.
I listen to a lot of American Family Radio. The prevailing philosophy is, quite literally, worship of the military. It is really pretty disturbing. Indeed, it often seems that what is being called Christianity is really just extreme American nationalism and militarism. Christianity has been subsumed to a particular notion of patriotism.
A legitimate debate, centered on Bible verses, can certainly be had as to when and where, if ever, the use of force is consistent with Christian principles. I would not suggest that those who believe the use of force is acceptable in some circumstances are necessarily wrong, although I would suggest that blind worship of the military and subsuming Christianity to patriotism are wrong.
For myself, I have a strong suspicion that Tolstoy was on the right track and that what Jesus was talking about was something far more radical than one is likely to hear from either side in the conventional debate between pacifism and militarism.
 
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5:39 (KJV).
Leo Tolstoy, who was a deep Christian thinker in addition to being the author of War and Peace and other classics, believed "resist not evil" was the key to Jesus' message. He wrote extensively about this.
As this thread shows, one can cite Bible verses pointing in different directions. But I do tend to think Tolstoy hit upon a profound truth.
Which position, militarism or pacifism, really seems more consistent with Jesus' overarching message? It seems to me that war is best left to God and His heavenly "troops."
Think how radically transforming it might be if we took "resist not evil" literally. Yes, the transformation would be a very long-term project, with lots of senseless suffering and plenty of evil running amuck in the interim. I claim no special knowledge, but my suspicion is that something this radical was precisely what Jesus was talking about - that "resisting not" evil is ultimately the only way to defeat it.
Many serious historians and theologians believe Christianity took a wrong turn when it was embraced by Constantine and became the official state religion. They believe this paved the way for a militant version of Christianity that is far from what Jesus envisioned.
I listen to a lot of American Family Radio. The prevailing philosophy is, quite literally, worship of the military. It is really pretty disturbing. Indeed, it often seems that what is being called Christianity is really just extreme American nationalism and militarism. Christianity has been subsumed to a particular notion of patriotism.
A legitimate debate, centered on Bible verses, can certainly be had as to when and where, if ever, the use of force is consistent with Christian principles. I would not suggest that those who believe the use of force is acceptable in some circumstances are necessarily wrong, although I would suggest that blind worship of the military and subsuming Christianity to patriotism are wrong.
For myself, I have a strong suspicion that Tolstoy was on the right track and that what Jesus was talking about was something far more radical than one is likely to hear from either side in the conventional debate between pacifism and militarism.

BRAVO!!!
 
yes, the transformation would be a very long-term project, with lots of senseless suffering and plenty of evil running amuck in the interim.

I don't think the suffering must be senseless. There is very good sense in turning the other cheek, or just resisting evil in general. What one person views as suffering another person may view as dicipline; sometimes the only different is perspective or conviction.

A legitimate debate, centered on Bible verses, can certainly be had as to when and where, if ever, the use of force is consistent with Christian principles. I would not suggest that those who believe the use of force is acceptable in some circumstances are necessarily wrong, although I would suggest that blind worship of the military and subsuming Christianity to patriotism are wrong.

Good point. A lot of people will use examples of their families being attacked and then relate that over to war as a justification. I don't think all violence is wrong. So much depends on circumstances and our own willingness to hear what we don't want to hear. Most of the examples used to justify violence are based on fear or personal loss, as though God would view fear as a genuine reason to use violence, or that he'd never ask us to sacrifice even our family for him.

Our personal comfort and attachment to family become sacred in our own minds and we become indignant about this to the point that we honestly cannot hear God saying, "let it go".

I'd be far more willing to trust the counsel of someone who says, "I'm willing to suffer violence if I think it's what God wants me to do, but I'd also have trouble standing idly by while my family is being attacked."
 
I don't think the suffering must be senseless. There is very good sense in turning the other cheek, or just resisting evil in general. What one person views as suffering another person may view as dicipline; sometimes the only different is perspective or conviction.

What I meant by "senseless" is that, if we truly did not resist evil, the Hitlers, Stalins and Maos of the world (and all the mini-Hitlers, mini-Stalins and mini-Maos) would run amuck until the transformation had occurred. A large number of non-resisters would be eliminated at the whim of the aggressors. This would indeed be a frightening experiment to try, and it isn't any more likely to be tried than Jesus' other radical teachings, but my strong suspicion is that this is the only way evil can be defeated: by not resisting it. As G. K. Chesterton famously said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and not tried."
 
Ok thanks for clarifying. However, I still see it as sensible to obey Jesus even IF it means evil is allowed to run free etc. I mean, evil is already running free and rampant anyway.

The idea that the bad people of the world would have free reign to do whatever they want IS something we need to be willing to face. However, I don't think that is what Jesus was suggesting, either. God's protection is not absolute in the sense that he will always prevent evil deeds, but if we trust him, his protection will be there for us.
 
How do pacifist Christians respond to the following arguments in support of militant Christianity:
The New Testament contains various accounts in which John the Baptist, Jesus and Peter encounter Roman soldiers. Had military service been incompatible with being a member of Kingdom of God, surely John the Baptist, Jesus and Peter would have made some note of this or they would have counseled the soldiers to abandon the military. Rather, we read the following:

1. John the Baptist Did Not Counsel Roman Soldiers to Give Up Their Arms


2. Jesus Praised the Centurion for His Faith


3. God Used the Centurion Cornelius to Graft Gentiles into the Kingdom of God

The fact that of all of the Gentiles, God used a soldier to graft Gentiles into the Kingdom of God gives an imprimatur to the institution of the military.

GOTT MIT UNS
- Deutsche Christen

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."
- John 18:36

In the passage above, Jesus is being tried for His life BY A MILITARY FIGURE during a MILITARY occupation of a country that was not his own. The person Jesus spoke to was Pontius Pilate, a Roman who was the chief military occupation officer for the Roman Empire. When it was determined by political fiat that Jesus, a man who was innocent of the crimes He was accused of, was guilty - Pilate ordered SOLDIERS to beat Him within an inch of His life and then dragged Him out of the city. At the assigned place of execution, ROMAN SOLDIERS nailed Christ to a cross hung Him until He died and then proceeded to STEAL His clothing and GAMBLE over the last remaining personal threads belonging to Him. While Jesus's life ebbed out of Him, SOLDIERS mocked him and His religion.

During His trial, however, Jesus stated to His accuser for the record and for all time that His kingdom was not of this world. By this He meant several things.

1. During His entry into Jerusalem a scant week earlier He rode a donkey, not a war horse. The symbolism was clear. He refused political and military leadership and/or participation.

2. Items quoted #2 and #3 above were matters of faith and were not any sort of certification of the military. #1 is a deliberate misinterpretation of scripture, a statement of illogic that supports a premise by suggesting an untrue negative conclusion. There is no interpretation or commentary known that suggests such was the truth.

3. It should also be noted that Jesus paid His taxes and obeyed the laws of the land - in exactly the manner of a foreign tourist - NOTHING MORE.

4. Jesus NEVER uttered an oath of allegiance or loyalty to the Roman government. Neither did He say one ought to do so. He paid His taxes, that's all.

5. Neither Jesus nor any of the apostles ever said that one should support the troops in their murderous unjust campaigns. They obeyed the laws, that's all.

6."Woe to him who builds his house by unjust gain, setting his nest on high to escape the clutches of ruin!"
- Habakkuk 2:9

The above scripture reflects the general precepts of the entire Holy Bible in that God opposes and curses those who seize by force that which does not belong to them by means of lawful labor and honest trade. The greatest offenders of this have been SOLDIERS past and present.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ...
Is there no other way the world may live?
When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

At the top of this post I quoted a slogan of the German Christian political organization (Deutsche Christen). The words were, "Gott Mit Uns". Translated into English they mean, "God With Us". Despite the twisted propaganda of the German government and the gullible people who believed the lies they were told the nation was led into war BY SOLDIERS who caused the most effusion of blood and destruction the world has ever seen. The German people were mistakenly led to believe that God would bless their nation and their efforts.

God did not.

And if God did not ultimately bless the Roman Empire for their injustice and lies and theft and murder and if God did not bless Germany for their war mongering, neither will God bless America any more for it's militarism, it's unjust murders of innocents and for its attempts to rule the world with its global financial hegemony.

"So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you."
- Jeremiah 7:16

In any tyranny, be it a government or a private organization there are those who hate the truth and love violence. They will have their reward as well as those who seek peace.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."
- Jesus as quoted in Matt 5:9

As writer of this post I wish to testify that I am a veteran of honorable military service for six years, two of which were spent in the middle east. I suffered a permanent injury as a result of my service. During my time in uniform I witnessed acts both illegal and unjust, as defined by our own laws. I can affirm by my own experience the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. War serves no good purpose.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
During His trial, however, Jesus stated to His accuser for the record and for all time that His kingdom was not of this world. By this He meant several things....
Well, if Jesus’ “kingdom was not of this world”, why would he pay taxes to it???

3. It should also be noted that Jesus paid His taxes and obeyed the laws of the land - in exactly the manner of a foreign tourist - NOTHING MORE.
The truth is, Jesus did not “pay His taxes.” Jesus was not exempt; he was immune (and so are we, his people, free).

'Jesus paid taxes' is a popular falsehood taught throughout evangelical Christianity. Religion has always been the tool of choice of tyrants to control the sheeple.

In fact, Jesus himself was accused of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar at his trial (Luke 23:2). Notice these were not false witnesses who accused Jesus of not paying taxes, because every time a false witness accused Jesus, the scripture tells us it was a false witness (Mark 14:57-59). Where did Jesus forbid to pay taxes to Caesar?

In Mark 12:13-17, Jesus was asked if it was lawful to give taxes to Caesar or not. A silver coin, with Caesar's inscription on it, was shown to Christ. In this example, the Lord's answer requires everyone to make the determination as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God;

Mark 12:17
"...Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's..."

Who did this silver coin belong to? Since the Scripture says, "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts" (Haggai 2:8), that means that the silver coin shown to Jesus belonged to God. However, those who live, move, and have their being in the image of Caesar, as the disciples of the Pharisees did, will believe this coin belongs to Caesar instead. We are not to be deluded by the image of Caesar, but built-up in the image of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:7; 15:49, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:10).

Others cry, “What about Matthew 17:24-27?”:

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Let's break this passage down.

Verse 24:
The tax collector went for the soft target, asking Simon Peter if Jesus paid taxes.
Verse 25: Peter said, "yes". But "Jesus prevented" Peter from paying the tax. Why did Jesus prevent Peter from paying taxes?
Verse 26: Jesus said "Then are the children free" from paying taxes. This is why, because we are now free. But we must not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness.
Verse 27: However, to avoid "offending" this tax collector (since, as was the habit of Peter, he opened his mouth too soon without really thinking and obligated Jesus by his statement that Jesus did pay taxes), Jesus told Peter to cast a hook into the sea, and catch a fish, and take out money from its mouth and pay it.

Even though Jesus provided a coin to Simon for this tax, it was to avoid "offending" the collector, and because Peter rashly agreed to pay it, not because we are bound to pay taxes by Law. Jesus made the point to stress that the children are free from taxes. But notice, Simon Peter and Jesus did not give him any of their own money, but that which came from the fish! It is interesting to note that Peter was a commercial fisherman (a fisher of fish) before being called to be an apostle of Christ (a fisher of men), and when Peter opened his mouth before thinking (as he often did), Christ basically chastised him by having Peter return to his old life to pay his debt! He had to be a fisher of fish to catch that fish with the coin in its mouth. Thus, the lesson for us is: When you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world again to meet those obligations.

Additionally, Jesus could not have fulfilled prophecy if he was to go to prison, which might have happened if he didn't pay that tax after Peter "volunteered" for him. It was not his time to go to prison yet. Likewise, Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to his rescue, but because the scriptures would not have been fulfilled if he did, he refrained from doing that act (Matthew 26:53-54). Jesus taught that we are free from paying taxes if we are children of the king (Matthew 17:24-26), meaning the children of King Jesus (Acts 17:7, 1 Timothy 1:17).

Now, for clarification, if a government is acting strictly as a minister of God, then it is lawful to pay taxes to that government (Romans 13:6), because that "silver coin" which belongs to God also belongs to God's ministers, as they are acting in his name and doing his will. However, if a government is not a minister of God, then there is no duty to give taxes to it.

So now we know that Jesus did not ‘pay taxes.’ Rather, Jesus cleverly provided a coin to Simon Peter with which to satisfy Simon’s foolishly incurred obligation and thus teach him (and us) a lesson.
 
Last edited:
(Post removed, ToS 2.4, personal insults, and not in compliance with forum guidelines requiring opposing posts to cite scripture backing the opposing opinion. Obadiah)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Post removed for failure to comply with forum guidelines: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding." Vague references to entire chapters or to passages that don't speak to the subject at hand do not fulfill this requirement. Obadiah.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Post removed. Response to a deleted post. Obadiah)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Post Removed. response to a deleted post. Obadiah)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A very long winded, albeit mistaken explanation of the events surrounding Jesus' statement that He paid the tax because He "rendered to Caesar the things belonging to Caesar and to God the things belonging to God."

Jesus did not have a tax exemption. He was not immune to anything in the world. He paid His tax and He obeyed the law exactly as a tourist might do in a foreign land.

If one wishes to dabble in debate about other interpretations, then I submit that the Jewish explanation for Romans 13 among others is that Paul was writing about the Temple tax. All Jews of the time owed tax to the Temple and it is suggested that new Christians wouldn't have to pay that tax or obey the religious ordinances of Jewish law. It's along the same lines as circumscision. Peter learned from God that the goyyim were acceptable for salvation. Paul learned that Jewish law did not apply to those who were under grace.

There was no slight of hand involved in Jesus' tax paying. There was no clever manipulation of local laws and exemptions. Jesus paid because it was the law of the land, which He obeyed. Christians today are called to follow Christ's example. We are to pay the lawful taxes and obey the laws insofar as they do not conflict with divine morality and commandments and what is right.

Bottom line is that Jesus paid His taxes. The Bible says so. Inferences and interpretations that He did not are inaccurate and untrue.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft..
Firstly, Jesus paid nada, zero -- rather, SIMON PETER DID.

The ministry of Jesus would have been acceptable to the ungodly Caesarian authorities, but for the fact that Jesus was now cutting into "their place and their nation " (John 11:48) i.e. their status and their stuff. $$$ Oops! Can't have that! "Crucify him!", they cried.

And they began to accuse [Jesus], saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. (Luke 23:2).

Secondly, Simon Peter (the one who spoke presumptuously) was REBUKED and was the one then tasked with paying the money - not Jesus - because Simon Peter is the one who obliged himself to pay. Jesus sent Peter to do it PRECISELY because it was Simon Peter who, with his presumptuous mouth, erroneously obligated himself (and Jesus!) to the tax in the first instance. Because a contract was entered into when Simon Peter answered in the affirmative, Jesus and Peter would now risk an OFFENSE if they did not follow through with what Simon Peter had said he would do. So off to Simon’s former commercial world he was sent, as a fisherman, to do this commercial fisher thing and fulfill his foolish obligation to the taxmen of the world. Peter had a big mouth, and it literally cost him this time.

Here’s a fun scenario. Imagine for a second, after Jesus PREVENTED Simon from paying, because THE CHILDREN OF GOD ARE FREE from taxation, Simon then goes back to the tax men and says, “Hey, guys, I goofed. My Master and I really don’t pay taxes after all. Sorry about that!” ROFL! Jesus and Simon were strangers sojourning through that city, preaching the truth. What do you think the people there would have thought of ANY thing that Jesus and Simon would have done or preached after Simon had previously rashly agreed to pay but then refused? One might say, “They did not keep their word then to pay the tax after Simon Peter said he would, so why should we trust them now about any other thing?” IOW, any subsequent witness of Jesus and Simon Peter would be as a gunshot to the foot.
 
---------------------------------------------
Brother Mike wrote:
So you been to "MOST" churches and found this to be true? You know how many Churches there are? That is a pretty blanket statement.
---------------------------------------------


I have been to quite a few churches, all up and down the east coast in fact. And then some.
Information I've gleaned from other folks tell the same tale - the flag is held in greater esteem than the cross.
And church leaders wonder why few people come any more.....

"In the United States many churches display the American flag. The Christian flag is usually put on one side and the American flag on the other. Does having two flags in your church mean that Christianity and the American establishment are equal? If it does, you are really in trouble."
- Francis Schaeffer

Mr. Schaeffer didn't mention flag etiquette. The US flag is always displayed on its own right with symbols of lesser significance to its left.
In most Protestant churches the flag is on [stage] right and the cross is in the middle - symbolically lesser than the US flag.
Do symbols mean anything? If not, then why salute the flag or put on a uniform to defend it?
If the cross means nothing, then why display it at all?

"I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. YOU SHALL NOT HAVE ANY GODS BEFORE ME."
- the first commandment

By the way, where is the flag and cross in your church? Or do you not attend?

-----------------------
Brother Mike wrote:
It's not about supporting unjust things. It's about support the kids we send over who just obey orders. They have family's, and are human just like we are. When I was in the military I saw some of the most stupid and backward things that just did not make sense. No question the Military leaders and those in charge are dumb as rocks. When I signed up, I agreed to do what "THEY" asked. I agreed to that, the good and the bad. Surely you knew that you had to obey orders before you signed up. I think that is really instilled in you at Basic Training, no matter what branch you sign up for. You work for them, you do what they want.
It's no different than working a Job.
-------------------------


No different than working a job?

I don't know who you work for, but my boss doesn't ask me to pick up a gun and blow somebody's brains out. He doesn't make it a career goal of my life to bomb houses, blow up vehicles, kill children and torture people who are defending their own country. My employer doesn't award merit badges for murder.

IT IS NOT NORMAL TO KILL PEOPLE.

[unnecessary and argumentative. ToS 2.4 Let's be nice!]

"If an American is concerned only about his nation, he will not be concerned about the peoples of Asia, Africa, or South America. Is this not why nations engage in the madness of war without the slightest sense of penitence? Is this not why the murder of a citizen of your own nation is a crime, but the murder of citizens of another nation in war is an act of heroic virtue?"
- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I do NOT support the troops.

I didn't have a choice about military service, unles you consider enlistment vs. going to jail a choice. It was called the draft.
I got out of the service in 1974 with a minor permanent injury.
(I wouldn't mind losing a function if the sacrifice had been justified - it wasn't.)
In the spring of 1975 I burned all my uniforms. It was all a waste. War solves nothing.
Do you know what happened in the spring of 1975? Probably not. Probably don't care, either.

I do not support the troops.

The men and women who put on a uniform today do it voluntarily. No one compels any of them to do it.
Whatever reason they may have for going in, the one reason that is foremost is that they voluntarily agree to support the illegal policies of the US government.
THAT is why I do not support them.

The fact that they are human makes it all the worse. They were each born with the ability to know right from wrong - and chose the wrong. Maybe they were too young and stupid when they signed up. I know I was. If I had to do it over again, I'd refuse and go to jail. But I didn't know any better until I'd seen the worst.

Today I try to tell folks the truth,
- despite militaristic types who justify a government that doesn't care if its own people live or die
- or gullible patriotic types who only give lip service to the flag without having spent so much as 60 seconds in uniform.

It is wrong, dead wrong and no amount of justification and pseudo-patriotic rhetoric will bring back one innocent person who was killed for the sake of errant national policy.
Do you even know what those policies are? Do you care?
Probably not - you seem to prefer to justify bloodshed for Old Glory's sake and to blazes with the reasons for it.

This is why America is being judged.

We have chosen sin instead of righteousness and we have chosen war instead of peace.
We have deadened our conscience to suffering and international aggression and call ourselves right.
We are worse than criminals - the thief and the murderer are not hypocritical about what it is they do.

------------------------------------------------------
Brother Mike wrote:
You can wake up and look at the big picture of a lost and dying Word that God is going to melt into a molten pile of goo and all of man's actions and accomplishments will be burned up. It's not going to matter soon enough anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------


This is exactly the apathetic attitude of 'hands off' that destroyed the once great American Republic on October 26, 2001. There is nothing worse than a man who has been shackled by tyranny, except perhaps the one that refuses to acknowledge that his wings are actually chains.
The country that men of courage thought they were defending doesn't belong to them any more. It isn't your country and it isn't mine either. The greatest joke of all is that nobody cares.

So wave your striped flag and declare madly that all is well - sip your beer and watch the 'ole ball game and don't worry.

YOU MAY take all this as a rant against America if you wish. Those that only see red, white and blue will do so.
My purpose, however, is to get eyes off the bloody American militarism that has seized the minds and imagination of our people and to refocus on matters of peace. There are NO peacemakers today….anywhere. Have you noticed that? Everybody thirsts for blood and death. Everybody.

“The peacemakers are the children of God.”
- Jesus

OK, so where are they? They’ve all either put on uniforms to carry a gun or are attending rallys and parades which, sooner or later, end up with a militaristic display. (Go to any major league ball game. They ALWAYS start with a sickening display of nationalism - sometimes a military fly-over too.)

The constant desire to kill and destroy has got to stop - or it will consume us all in its fury.

We MUST focus upon the Prince of Peace, not the gods of war.

IF GOD DOESN'T JUDGE AMERICA, HE WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO SODOM AND GOMORRAH.
- Shanghai curse August 1937

Jesus is the way, the only way. NOW is the time to repent. Today is the day of salvation.
Do not put your trust in flags or nations.
Seek Him while you may, for the night is coming when nobody will be able to choose.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Firstly, Jesus paid nada, zero -- rather, SIMON PETER DID.

The ministry of Jesus would have been acceptable to the ungodly Caesarian authorities, but for the fact that Jesus was now cutting into "their place and their nation " (John 11:48) i.e. their status and their stuff. $$$ Oops! Can't have that! "Crucify him!", they cried.

And they began to accuse [Jesus], saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. (Luke 23:2).

Secondly, Simon Peter (the one who spoke presumptuously) was REBUKED and was the one then tasked with paying the money - not Jesus - because Simon Peter is the one who obliged himself to pay. Jesus sent Peter to do it PRECISELY because it was Simon Peter who, with his presumptuous mouth, erroneously obligated himself (and Jesus!) to the tax in the first instance. Because a contract was entered into when Simon Peter answered in the affirmative, Jesus and Peter would now risk an OFFENSE if they did not follow through with what Simon Peter had said he would do. So off to Simon’s former commercial world he was sent, as a fisherman, to do this commercial fisher thing and fulfill his foolish obligation to the taxmen of the world. Peter had a big mouth, and it literally cost him this time.

Here’s a fun scenario. Imagine for a second, after Jesus PREVENTED Simon from paying, because THE CHILDREN OF GOD ARE FREE from taxation, Simon then goes back to the tax men and says, “Hey, guys, I goofed. My Master and I really don’t pay taxes after all. Sorry about that!” ROFL! Jesus and Simon were strangers sojourning through that city, preaching the truth. What do you think the people there would have thought of ANY thing that Jesus and Simon would have done or preached after Simon had previously rashly agreed to pay but then refused? One might say, “They did not keep their word then to pay the tax after Simon Peter said he would, so why should we trust them now about any other thing?” IOW, any subsequent witness of Jesus and Simon Peter would be as a gunshot to the foot.

You are picking at nits, sir. The premise here isn't who paid the taxes or when or why. Jesus said that things which are Caesar's are due to him. The argument for blind nationalistic militarism proceeds from there to Romans 13, which many presume to be the ultimate definition of national allegiance.

It isn't.

My point, as always, is that Jesus acted like a tourist from a foreign country. He paid taxes where due and obeyed the local laws. He was never convicted of breaking any of them despite His enemies extreme desire to do so.

Even the apostles obeyed the laws.

It isn't about allegiance to earthly governments. The Kingdom of God is and ought to be foremost in the minds and hearts AND ALLEGIANCE of anyone who follows Christ.

Jesus said that loyalty was due to God FIRST. Not even the members of one's own family were to supersede the right of God's first ownership of us and our actions.

And when nationalistic policy contradicts the precepts of God we ought to disobey them. Romans 13 states that the organizations set up to maintain law and order will punish even civil disobedience. It isn't a command to blindly obey wicked government, but it is a very concrete statement about what we may expect if we try to do so. Paul doesn't want anyone to go into Christianity without knowing the price of it.

Consider also that Paul's letter was to Christians in Rome. Those folks were living in the midst of the Empire. Do you think they did not know about government in that place? Do you think they needed to be reminded? They didn't, but Paul wrote to illuminate them on the consequences of their discipleship.

God first, last and always.

The nation or the empire is always at the bottom of the list.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
 
(Post removed, failure to follow forum guidelines and ToS 2.4, personal insults and unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I realize there are strong opinions and feelings both politically and personally regarding military service but our own personal experiences of time spent in service is not the topic of this thread. I would like to redirect this thread back to the topic of finding out how to reconcile pacifism with with Jesus's commendation of the Roman centurion otherwise I see this thread heading in an unpleasant direction.

Thanks.
 
I believe in the case of the Centurion as well as with the rest of us, Jesus wants us just as we are.
It is the Holy Spirit that will change us, not us doing the changing.
A soldier is a solder.
As one draws closer to Jesus, he will see that Jesus wants us to live a life of peace and not do harm to others.

Having fellowship with peace loving people is not so easy in the military.
A person can grow in one area of their lives but not another.
We should not judge others.
God has certainly changed me, little by little, over the years.
And there's still more to go.

I think one day, after a military man retires, he may change his thinking about the military.
I did. I know others did.
But not all.

However God chooses to work in a person's life is his business.
We should all see change the longer we live.
I think a peace loving person is seen more often towards the end rather than at the beginning.
 
Back
Top