Should Christians Fight In Wars ?

[Strangelove]

Perhaps the original question should be: Should Christians fight in just wars?

But then how do you figure which wars are just and who's side to fight on?

 

[Sissy]

Please answer the question in post 116. It appears that you are avoiding a question that challenges your position.

Is that why you have not answered the question (there has already been one reminder)? Or is there another reason?

Are you sure you want an answer, Drew?
Because there is an answer. But it's from scripture, so who knows if you will choose to recognize it as the word of God or not.

Posting scripture to someone who does not see all of scripture as the word of God is sorta like casting pearls to swine.
Seeing your low view of scripture, I am rather reluctant to discuss scripture with you anymore.

But for the sake of others who actually study scripture as the word of God, I will post an answer sometime today.

 

[Sissy]

And I'll ask you this one for the 3rd time Sissy:

Were Christians right to submit to and fight for the Third Reich Nazi army which by your reckoning was God ordained.

No pressure>>>


.....tick......tock......tick......tock

This is not the only thread that has my attention.
Nor am I on this site all day.

Ya'll are going to have to show a little more patience with me.
I'm an old woman, and I'm slow.
But I'm sure!

 

[Strangelove]

This is not the only thread that has my attention.
Nor am I on this site all day.

Ya'll are going to have to show a little more patience with me.
I'm an old woman, and I'm slow.
But I'm sure!

Lolz,,,,,Um....thats what you said yesterday. Only 6 outta 10 for dodging maam.

 

[Drew]

Scripture (you know, the word of God) specifically says theft is wrong.
Scripture does not say being a soldier is wrong.

I thought you might use this line of reasoning.

First, you have previously argued that since Jesus used a "war image" without rebuking the morality of warfare, that therefore Jesus must endorse war.

As we all now see, that principle cannot work in light of the teaching about robbing the house. Fine.

Now you say, correctly of course, that Scripture declares theft to be wrong in other places, so there is no need for Jesus to repeat that here in this story about the house being robbed.

Well, Sissy, where does Scripture otherwise teach that it is wrong to tie people up? Jesus suggests that homeowner should be bound, and does not "rebuke" such an activity.

So if you are going to say "Scripture does not say that being a soldier is wrong", I could use your line of reasoning and assert that scripture does not say "don't tie people up".

In any event, I think that scripture does indeed tell us that war-making is wrong in a number of places, although admittedly the case is somewhat indirect:

1. The "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" teaching;

2. The general critique that Jesus levies against Israel and her push to a violent confrontation against Rome - I have not brought this up, but I will post on it shortly;

3. The "turn the other cheek" teaching;

4. The call for us to model the cross in our lives -and the cross certainly did involve a "passive" response to the challenge of evil. And yet, strangely and wonderfully, the passive approach "worked" - at least if we take Paul seriously when he teaches that the "powers and principalities" were defeated on the cross.

 

[Drew]

This is not the only thread that has my attention.
Nor am I on this site all day.

Ya'll are going to have to show a little more patience with me.
I'm an old woman, and I'm slow.
But I'm sure!

Your avatar gives the impression that you are a young woman "packin heat"

 

[jasoncran]

While I empathize greatly with your position here, we need to remember that one could have used that same line of reasoning with the crucifixion. One could have said something like this to the disciples: "Why are you sitting back and letting this great man get killed, you are enabling the evil to continue unchecked".

The point is this: On the cross, Jesus actually defeated evil through his passive act of non-resistance. Lest we all think that this was a special case, I believe a case can be made that either Jesus and / or Paul teach that the cross is actually an appropriate model for the way we are to deal with the world. For example,

and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

that is different drew, shall i call up post where you call the church to be a part of the theocratic movement and also that we should pay taxes willingly? i'm sure that you would find that the logical iconsistency with supporting politicians who may or maynt be war hawks but must act in your interest in defense matters.

surely, you wouldnt tell me not to vote nor run for office.

any politicain who will want to be a governor or senator in the united states will have to deal witht the military and also the law enforcement side of the house.

or a judge who has to enact the law of capital punishment by sentencing according to state guidelines and the consideration of the victim's family.

this is a personal decision for the person not to decide or decide, i simply dont see that argument you pose as strong enough for nay on military.

if so then we must also include the offices of govt as well. its pure bunk to say no being in the military but you can run it from the civilian side and make decision to send then to war or not.

 

[jasoncran]

Of course. We've hammered them into the stone age. All we need now is the occupation forces. Security. Supplies etc.

Hmmmm.....pull em out then send em back in under a different name. Truckers? Support units? Can we read MERCENARIES and Private Security companys like Blackwater or whatever name they've morphed into now?

The war in Iraq continues. Occupation continues. Afghanistan war continues. The heroin trade continues and gets bigger. You know its wrong but you cant stop it. Becaue you have NO say.

You are towing the company line. America is not what you think it is.

Do you know what the Fasci is?

ok then so say the guy from thailand that has problems with human rights and also sex trade and slavery.

uh no, i with those truckers as that is my battalion mission. hard to be effective in combat when off road isnt an option.

when you go to iraq and actually fight then talk till then your words have no efffect.
news is all about money, you spend money to read the rags they make a profit, it doesnt have to be true.

i cant speak about all that goes on over there. but is the country of kosovo still occupied? or korea? or germany?japan?

and what about england , wait we send troops to thailand all the time.

i know more about america, cause i live here, you dont.

if i only told about the murders in my county then you would say man the crimes high but if told you the whole situation and then you say that is rare here and crime is low. its all how you spin it.

and the left and right rags spin it to their bias.

 

[Bazz1040]

So true.

It's staggering isn't it Bazzmeister?

I am not surprised though. The unconverted mind will justify pretty much anything it wants in order not to appear evil. The Bible says it is desperately wicked and who can know it?<O</O

 

[jasoncran]

germany asked us to stay and we did,

did we not pull out of saudi arabia?

we are in s.korea because we have never signed a treaty with n.korea and at the request of that govt.

would the loss of a navy ship in international waters constitute a threat to you? n.korea is a threat to s.korea. in thier eyes.

japan feels the same.

we are in japan as that was at first for the cold war and now i am not sure, if we occupied that country surely the japenses would be so friendly to us and call us the closest allies to them!

btw they are more capitalistic then us. they dont have national bank its privatised.

its that way because of us evil american and our henious general mccarthur.

odd since the japanese would considered the left handie weak and deny him rights till we influenced them. they also didnt allow alot of things for women.

they also dont teach the reason why we went to war with them for the most part, and havent apologised to china and korea for thier attrocities.

we are no longer in charge of kosovo ops , nato is. and we have less then 1000 there.

when it was 60k ten yrs ago.
we are in thailand to train them and that is very few.

the germans wanted us to stay for money(they need us slobs for the money we spend).

when its all said and done i hope we will leave germany and nato.

 

[jasoncran]

ma read up on why we stayed in europe,im sure you heard of the cold war and the fulda gap and east and west berlin, check point charlie and also east and west germany.

the fulda gap is where the russians would and only could invade germany from east germany , that is where the bases where then. and still are to a degree.

we had almost 200k there in 1991, and less then 10k there now. hardly and force to handle the german army.

 

[jasoncran]

should we not have tried to change them, we didnt use force to do that when we were there. we of course stayed there as we needed to be. its war forces occupy. but lets see here

there was no german and japense insurgency on a large scale.

mcarthur used economics to change them.

would aslo call that logic wrong as the north wrongfully attacked the south and also occupied it 1883.

each state in the confederacy had to change its constitution and outlaw slavery if i recall correctly.
tn was the first state to be readmited to the union.

and the last was missipi.

by that thinking of some here would say the entire civil war was illegal as the confederacy was a seperate state and asked lincoln to withdrawal federal troops and he didnt and the war started.

should we then not have tried to de-nazi fi germany? or change japenese culture?

btw you in the old german riech days like me would be considered inferior and killed. hitler hated muslims as much as the other religions. and the japenese i'm unsure about.

when one does the true japenese arts from japan you learn indirectly much about the imperalistic thoughts that lead to war.

the mejii influence on the arts still is around. you can see it in the code of bushido. and so on.

 

[Bazz1040]

i know why we stayed in Europe - I understand circumstances nescesitate for American bases in some countries, the point is, all of those countries were once at war with the Us, then when the US defeated them - they magicly asked us to stay and set up a permenant camp - Im just saying, its portrayed as peace keeping and democracy spreading, but when in reality it is conquring and subjagating - they may find reasons to stay in the conqured countries, but the point is they stay - Japan is a great example of a subjagated land - they were defeated by the US primarily, and the US wrote their constitution, forbidding them from having an offensive military - now the Japanese may be ok with Us bases there, but they didnt give the Us a call one day and say "hey, you guys wanna set up a few bases here?" They were basicly forced, The US sets up regimes that it likes (Karzai, Malik) and then all of sudden, those regimes say come on in set up a permanent camp - its not fishy to you or imperialistic to you?

That's what the U.S is about; always presenting itself as the good guy, while demonizing others. But the bottom-line is the U.S is just as opressive as those they condemn. The U.S has been one of the main supports of dictators....as long as that dictator is a puppet of the U.S government. For example, Noriega was once on the CIA's pay roll and well as Saddam Husain.

 

[jasoncran]

i know why we stayed in Europe - I understand circumstances nescesitate for American bases in some countries, the point is, all of those countries were once at war with the Us, then when the US defeated them - they magicly asked us to stay and set up a permenant camp - Im just saying, its portrayed as peace keeping and democracy spreading, but when in reality it is conquring and subjagating - they may find reasons to stay in the conqured countries, but the point is they stay - Japan is a great example of a subjagated land - they were defeated by the US primarily, and the US wrote their constitution, forbidding them from having an offensive military - now the Japanese may be ok with Us bases there, but they didnt give the Us a call one day and say "hey, you guys wanna set up a few bases here?" They were basicly forced, The US sets up regimes that it likes (Karzai, Malik) and then all of sudden, those regimes say come on in set up a permanent camp - its not fishy to you or imperialistic to you?

what else would you do when you just took a anti- american govt give it back to osama bin liden? aghanistan didnt have an effective unifying goverment,

kunar never was really held by the taliban and allowed a lot of things you wouldnt like , ie the education of woman and also the less covering burquas.

of course it should be friendly but they, what would you do? put an anti-american like ahmed imanutjob back in charge

and why is it called the islamic republic of afghanistan and not a democratic name. and that constitutiion states islam is the national religion and also sharia law is in effect.

why are christians being persecuted in iraq and in afghanistan if we are imperialistically dominating them?

and iraq is still called the islamic republic of iraq.

 

[jasoncran]

That's what the U.S is about; always presenting itself as the good guy, while demonizing others. But the bottom-line is the U.S is just as opressive as those they condemn. The U.S has been one of the main supports of dictators....as long as that dictator is a puppet of the U.S government. For example, Noriega was once on the CIA's pay roll and well as Saddam Husain.

no, the bathist party was in charge and and saddam was one of two baathist in charge, then he killed his leader and took charge we just allowed it and aske him to keep the country of iran at bay.

we never ever paid saddam he rose to power in the eighties.

 

[jasoncran]

In 1961, Kuwait gained independence from Britain and Iraq claimed sovereignty over Kuwait. A period of considerable instability followed. Qāsim was assassinated in February 1963, when the Ba'ath Party took power under the leadership of General Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr (prime minister) and Colonel Abdul Salam Arif (president). Nine months later `Abd as-Salam Muhammad `Arif led a successful coup against the Ba'ath government. On April 13, 1966, President Abdul Salam Arif died in a helicopter crash and was succeeded by his brother, General Abdul Rahman Arif. Following the Six Day War of 1967, the Ba'ath Party felt strong enough to retake power (July 17, 1968). Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr became president and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC).


Promoting women's education in the 1970s.In July 1979, President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr resigned, and his chosen successor, General Saddam Hussein, assumed the offices of both President and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council.

i stand corrected on how hussein came into power.

 

[jasoncran]

hmm i guess ma would like this then as well its most like our laws as we have sharia law here in the u.s. and links are all from wikipedia.

on the afghani constitution and its provision on the freedom of religion.

The Constitution describes Islam as its sacred and state religion. A system of civil law is described, but no law may contradict the beliefs and provisions of Islam. It was widely reported that Sharia law is not specifically mentioned, but in fact Hanafi jurisprudence is one of the six branches of Sharia law. Moreover, concessions are made to Shia jurisprudence in cases arising strictly between Shi'ites.

Followers of other religions are "free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites" within the limits of the law. There is no mention of freedom of conscience, and in fact apostasy from Islam is punishable by death (see below).

 

[Bazz1040]

no, the bathist party was in charge and and saddam was one of two baathist in charge, then he killed his leader and took charge we just allowed it and aske him to keep the country of iran at bay.

we never ever paid saddam he rose to power in the eighties.

The CIA once called Saddam a ***** but he is our ******. I don't listen those talking heads on TV, I listen to those that worked for the Government that knows what goes on behind closed doors.<O</O
<O</O

You want to know something about your communal government go to http://www.expertwitnessradio.org/site/<O</O
<O</O

Michael Levine is a retired DEA agent. I have listened to this man's radio show for years, and on his show they predicted that 911 would happen.

Moderator Note: This post was edited to remove the profanity. No profanity should be posted on this forum even in a quote.

-cyberjosh


<O</O

 

[Sissy]

Your avatar gives the impression that you are a young woman "packin heat"

Oh how I sometimes wish I were still as young, and as thin, and as energetic as the avatar appears!
There's a cute story behind my avatar, but it has nothing to do with this thread, so i won't get into it.

 

[Sissy]

OK, finally getting around to your post #116.

No. Things cannot be as simple as this. The author of Ecclesiastes makes numerous statements about the vanity of life. This is not the voice of the Holy Spirit! This is the voice of a man who does not have the entire picture.

Sissy, a direct question for you: If things are as you say - that the Holy Spirit is behind everything in Ecclesiastes, are you saying that God is saying this:

That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun

If this is to be understood as the expression of divinely inspired truth, then please explain how, if "that which has been" is indeed "that which will be", then how do you explain this:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away,

Which writer is correct, sissy? They certainly both can't be right. The author of Ecceliastes believes that things never change - that the future will be the same as the past. The author of Revelation sees that there will be a radical transformation to the world in the future.

I think the author of Revelation has the truth here and that the author of Ecclesiastes has only a partial understading of the big picture of what God is doing.

But I will be interested to see how you defend the view that, since the Holy Spirit is the author of both books - that, one the one hand, nothing ever changes, but on the other, that there will be a new heaven and a new earth.

There has already been an instance where the heavens & earth had to be made anew.

In Genesis 1:1-2 we find that God created the heavens & earth, and it became without form and void.
Then the Spirit moved. God spent 6 days reforming it from it’s chaotic and desolate state.

Isaiah 46
(10) Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
​

Likewise, Solomon (or more correctly, the Holy Spirit) declares the same in:


Ecclesiastes 1
(9) The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.


Studying scripture is always simpler if you let scripture interpret scripture, instead of your feelings.
But of course, you first have to recognize all scripture as the word of God.

God is a man of peace and a man of war (Exodus 15:3).
And the Holy Spirit again confirms it in Ecclesiastes 3 --- a time for peace, and a time for war.




Now, let me go back and try to find what Doc was being so impatient about.