NationStates Jolt Archive

I suppose it's about time that I started a serious thread this time around, so why not make the topic over something I've been pondering about.

Christians, as commanded by Christ Himself, are to love. Love God, love our neighbors, and even love our enemies (or, in other words, those who would make us their enemies). If this is the case, then is it still possible to love those we war against? Can a Christian soldier kill an opposing militant and yet love him or her at the same time? How is this possible?

As a secondary topic, the Old Testament shows God leading the Hebrews into battle and war in order to obtain and defend their Promised Land. Did the "greatest command" Jesus instructed us to follow not apply to the Hebrews before him, or were they able to display love in war also?

Now. Time to discuss. And, please, let's keep it civilised, mmk? I'd rather have an intelligent discussion rather than a flamefest. :)

This isn't intended as a flame, but rather a warning. If you spend your life debating the inconsistencies of Christianity, you will never have time for ANYTHING else. Read the old testament. God slaughtered everyone and everything at least twice.

This isn't intended as a flame, but rather a warning. If you spend your life debating the inconsistencies of Christianity, you will never have time for ANYTHING else. Read the old testament. God slaughtered everyone and everything at least twice.
Be nice. It's sweet to a Christian who geuinely believes in the prinicples of Jesus.

Be nice. It's sweet to a Christian who geuinely believes in the prinicples of Jesus.
That was nice. I just don't want him to waste his life trying to figure out why a God that floods the entire world says it's wrong to sleep with your girlfriend.

I'd rather he sleep with his girlfriend.;)

Ask yourself first

What does it mean to love somebody?

To me, it means being genuinely concerned for the fate of their soul, not their body. Life is measured in years, months, and weeks. Eternity is immeasurable. If you kill in legal war a man who believes, you are facilitating his reward. If you kill in legal war a man who does not, you are removing his chances for redemption. However, most soldiers are already set in the religion they will have until their death, so killing them usually doesn't make a difference. If losing a war jeopardizes the chances of your people to choose the right religion, then your love for them demands that you remove the obstacle to belief, which may or may not be another human being.

On a different tack, I was once gargling salt water to soothe a sore throat, and it slid right down my throat like a lubed-up anchovy. It tasted terrible.

Christians have to play the role of Ursus on occasion, even if peace is the ideal. Avoiding violence is the ideal, and sacrifice is best.. but if one can sacrifice to save others, it's not always immoral, so long as the purpose is justice, but all violence is a tragedy in some form, even if it saves others.

Christians, as commanded by Christ Himself, are to love. Love God, love our neighbors, and even love our enemies (or, in other words, those who would make us their enemies). If this is the case, then is it still possible to love those we war against? Can a Christian soldier kill an opposing militant and yet love him or her at the same time? How is this possible?
There are two ways of looking at this.

The first is to say that there's no way a Christian can be a solider, since taking the life of another is definitely un-Christ-like. This is how we wound up with some of the finest Medics on the planet: they were willing to serve, but not willing to kill.

The second way is to make reference to Romans 13:3-4:

"For civil authorities are not a terror to [ people of ] good conduct, but to [ those of ] those of bad behavior. Would you have no dread of who is in authority? Then do what is right and you will receive his approval and commendation. For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, [ you should dread him and ] be afraid, for he does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant to execute His wrath ( punishment, vengance ) on the wrongdoer."

Books have been written about this.

What does your bible say as far as the 6th commandment is concerned?

nfkrai noml kma taf kiba ta dbk
kiela efei rsa emdae lo kimi
kl ntn

I have no idea what that means...but someone who speaks or understands ancient Hebrew might be able to translate it exactly - ie explain the difference between "killing" and "murdering".

What does your bible say as far as the 6th commandment is concerned?



I have no idea what that means...but someone who speaks or understands ancient Hebrew might be able to translate it exactly - ie explain the difference between "killing" and "murdering".
that says that gargling salt water is a good remedy for a sore throat

that says that gargling salt water is a good remedy for a sore throat
Well, so much for the wisdom of the Bible then.:D

What does your bible say as far as the 6th commandment is concerned?
Almost all of the Ten Commandments have been elaborated on and modified by subsequent scripture.

Almost all of the Ten Commandments have been elaborated on and modified by subsequent scripture.
Which is thus not the word of god and therefore less binding, correct?

I mean, what you're saying is like saying "All men are created equal..." and then adding subsequent scriptures saying "But you can buy and sell Black people...".

Well, so much for the wisdom of the Bible then.:D
what, sore throat remedies are no good? well screw you if you ever get a sore throat, then!

Which is thus not the word of god and therefore less binding, correct?

I mean, what you're saying is like saying "All men are created equal..." and then adding subsequent scriptures saying "But you can buy and sell Black people...".
some bastard came in my room and used my black electrical tape to mess with my roommate
even worse he's a cowboys fan
i'm kicking his filthy ass out if he tries to step in here again

Which is thus not the word of god and therefore less binding, correct?

I mean, what you're saying is like saying "All men are created equal..." and then adding subsequent scriptures saying "But you can buy and sell Black people...".
Well, your analogy sucks, but there's a germ of truth to it. Think of the Ten Commandments as the "constitution" and those portions of the Bible which elaborate on them or modify them as being "amendments" and "interpretive law."

I'm not sure I understand how any of the Bible is the word of God. Wasn't it all written by man?

And does anyone happen to know what was supposed to have happened to the tablets that the ten commandments were originally on?

I'm not sure I understand how any of the Bible is the word of God. Wasn't it all written by man?

And does anyone happen to know what was supposed to have happened to the tablets that the ten commandments were originally on?

There were in the Ark of the Covenant which has been lost ever since it was captured by the Egyptians.

There were in the Ark of the Covenant which has been lost ever since it was captured by the Egyptians.
INDIANA JONES LOL

INDIANA JONES LOL

Some of my Favorite movies.

Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, Book XIX (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120119.htm)

Chapter 7: Of the Diversity of Languages, by Which the Intercourse of Men is Prevented, and of the Mistery of Wars, Even of Those Called Just

...For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be matter of grief to man because it is man's wrong-doing.

Let every one, then, who thinks with pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery.

And if any one either endures or thinks of them without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling.

Chapter 12: That Even the Fierceness of War and All the Disquietude of Men Make Towards This One End of Peace, Which Every Nature Desires

...

It is therefore with the desire for peace that wars are waged, even by those who take pleasure in exercising their warlike nature in command and battle.

And hence it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war.

For every man seeks peace by waging war, but no man seeks war by making peace.

For even they who intentionally interrupt the peace in which they are living have no hatred of peace, but only wish it changed into a peace that suits them better.

They do not, therefore, wish to have no peace, but only one more to their mind.

St. Augustine argued that we all sought peace, but that even the most savage of people were looking for some intrinsic satisfaction of their soul. Bu inference, there was a state of peace that would satisfy each of them, but that you did not necessarily need to submit to unjust oppression.

St. Thomas Aquinas: The Summa Theologica (http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html)

St. Thomas Aquinas further refined the theory at length. It is from him we truly have the more modern philosophy of the Just War.

You might want to read about the Just War (http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html) theory, which carries the thinking to the modern day.

Christian thought is often mixed with ethical obligation. Once you have undertaken to commit acts of war, you should consider to bring peace as swiftly to follow, uphold human sanctity of life, conduct oneself with dignity and respect, and safeguard civilians. That a Christian must not just win a war, but win a war without losing their soul.

As St. Augustine points out above, someone who fights without compunction at the misery caused by war has lost human feeling. Such amorality was considered as terrible, or worse, as purposeful evil. At least passionate wickedness could be calmed, turned aside, or repented. Once someone did not care about the misery they caused or saw around them, there was little you could do to alter such.

[QUOTE=Romanore]I suppose it's about time that I started a serious thread this time around, so why not make the topic over something I've been pondering about.

Christians, as commanded by Christ Himself, are to love.


Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Capitalism itself is incongruous with Christianity.

WW2...Justified

Iraq? American authorities just want Oil....

lol i was going to put something ridiculous about black people here but then i forgot to think of something and just posted this instead

That was nice. I just don't want him to waste his life trying to figure out why a God that floods the entire world says it's wrong to sleep with your girlfriend.

I'd rather he sleep with his girlfriend.;)
not the most on the subject but to respond to this statement, the bible never says its wrong to sleep with your girlfriend. What most people use to support that sleeping with someone before married is the word fornication, which is substituted in for the word pornia, which purely means sexual immorality.

in the old testament the only major 'crime' that ever mentions anything close to pre-marital sex is that of de-virginization of a virgin, in which case you either have to pay up the cost of a virgin, after which you were allowed to marry the not-a-virgin if you felt like it.

I feel that pre-marital sex rules and regulations were just the work of the "church" to act as a control issue. That way you could control the masses into paying their fees to remove the sin of sex from yourself, as well as pay to get married so that you weren't having sex in sin.

-=-=-

As for the war part, I don't think there is really a way to completely understand 'love your enemey' and yet still have war on them. From the completeness of understanding, there shouldn't be a war in the first place. But being angry and acting out of anger in the bible is used as an example as being ok in certain times, such as when great 'pacifist' jesus made a whip and chased moneychangers out of the temple.

Jesus also said to honor your government, and to follow its laws as well. So if the government tells you to go to war, the full blame doesn't rest on you, but on the leader(s) that make that statement/order.

Also, there are many cases in the bible that show that war is needed, and that certain times its required to save the whole. I don't see any war going on today though that would fall under that. Mankind has a way of going on "just and noble wars" that have good points to them, and do some good, but started out as nothing more then, hey, lets get more powerful and rich, but to get the masses going we are going to say its really for a greater good, and that the money and power are just perks of doing the right thing.

Urgh!

I just wrote an essay that elaborated on some of this for my International Relations degree.
I am a first year and an atheist. This following is not my essay but merely a summary of the point regarding Christian influences on the Just War concept.

The concept called 'the just war' was developed first in the 3rd and 4th centuries when the Roman Empire had a great surge in Christian belief. That said, their was a dilemma in reconciling the pacifistic tendencies of Christ with the necessity to develop the idea of the Just war.

St. Augustine was one of the first to address this issue. He argued that while War was immoral and a sin, if it were used to prevent an even greater immorality i.e the destruction of a Christian state, then it was a justifiable immorality.
He also argued that war was one of god's tools in his manipulation of the world. That whether or not a war was going badly or not was either a reward or a chastisement of a particular nation or people from god.

St. Augustine and later on, St. Thomas Aquinas also discussed limitations on war; criteria that would define whether that particular war was just. These included the need for a just cause to fight; that you must have been wronged or if it necessary for the purpose of saving life. War must also be initiated by the proper legitimate authority and that their must be proportionality when fighting the war; the lives and equipment lost must be proportionate to the end outcome of the war.

Christians have to play the role of Ursus on occasion, even if peace is the ideal. Avoiding violence is the ideal, and sacrifice is best.. but if one can sacrifice to save others, it's not always immoral, so long as the purpose is justice, but all violence is a tragedy in some form, even if it saves others.

I agree. I think war should only be conducted if the purpose is justice and the end result is saving innocent lives. So if a government is genocidal I think we should do something about it. If the governmnet simply has stuff we want or is doing something we don't like (that isn't harming anyone) then going to war with them is unjust.

Also violence should be the last resort and it should be restricted to those responsible of the injustice as much as possible. Simply because people are civillians of that government does not make them the enemies and they should be treated with the same care and respect that citizens from your own country are treated.

I think its hard, but possible to love someone that you are at war with. You can love them, but still out of your love for others intellectually understand that you must stop them. Killing other people should be emotionally painful. No one should want to go to war, but simply be doing so because it needs to be done. The fact that so many churches blindly supported the Iraq war was very scary to me. War should trouble everyone no matter how justified.

This isn't intended as a flame, but rather a warning. If you spend your life debating the inconsistencies of Christianity, you will never have time for ANYTHING else. Read the old testament. God slaughtered everyone and everything at least twice.

O.o

I guess it's wrong, then, for me to be switching my major from Psychology to Biblical Studies and Theology? :D

I'm not sure I understand how any of the Bible is the word of God.

1. Wasn't it all written by man?

2. And does anyone happen to know what was supposed to have happened to the tablets that the ten commandments were originally on?
1. Yes, but many Christians hold that these men were "inspired by God" to write what they did.

2. They are supposedly in the Arc of the Covenant, which may or may not be in a small chapel in Ethiopia. No one really knows.

O.o

I guess it's wrong, then, for me to be switching my major from Psychology to Biblical Studies and Theology? :D
Not at all. Sudy whatever trips yer trigger! :D

Maybe God intended that we Love Our Enemies BEFORE we reach a state of war. If we would care for our enemies, things like 9/11 would not happen in the first place.

What would have happened if we would have treated the people of the middle east with love and respect for the last 50 years? What if instead of providing arms so that they and we could kill each other we would have provided the means of prosperity? What if we would have used even a small portion of the money to build rather than destroy?

Here's an idea that would be much cheaper than war. What if we go into Gaza and build roads, schools, water, sewer, electical, a modern port, a desalinization plant? Then provide micro loans to those wishing to start businesses. In 50 years Gaza could look like Hong Kong. But would that be as much fun as making and using things that go BOOM?

What if we actually had respect and love for those who had other religions? What if we didn't have ministers daily preaching on the evils of other religions? Can someone name one place where Jesus or Paul preached against other religions? Remember when Paul went into Athens he honored them for their great faith. A faith in idols.

What if we paid the workers a fair share of what we pay for imports? Is it love to live a life of relative luxury while those that provide the means starve?

What if we had treated a disease like HIV as a disease and sent researchers to Africa in the beginning? Was it love to ignore it just because it was a disease of Africans and Gays?

War isn't the first reaction, it is the LAST reaction. If we lived in love and spent our money and time thinking about how we could love people, we would spend a lot less than it costs to have a standing army. But do we honor a president like Carter who worked for peace in the world, or do we honor and reelect a president that starts and "wins" a war. We vote for hate rather than love.

This isn't intended as a flame, but rather a warning. If you spend your life debating the inconsistencies of Christianity, you will never have time for ANYTHING else. Read the old testament. God slaughtered everyone and everything at least twice.

If you seriously want to look at this, there are some articles I recomend you read

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

I suppose it's about time that I started a serious thread this time around, so why not make the topic over something I've been pondering about.

Christians, as commanded by Christ Himself, are to love. Love God, love our neighbors, and even love our enemies (or, in other words, those who would make us their enemies). If this is the case, then is it still possible to love those we war against? Can a Christian soldier kill an opposing militant and yet love him or her at the same time? How is this possible?

Yes, you can love the beings that you fight against. The souls of those beings are your brother or sister. You are all God's children.

If you must punish your brother to stop him from helping wicked or foul men: then do it, but don't take any happiness from the killings.

Did not your mom love you when she spanked you? Mine did. Sometimes you must show tough love.


As a secondary topic, the Old Testament shows God leading the Hebrews into battle and war in order to obtain and defend their Promised Land. Did the "greatest command" Jesus instructed us to follow not apply to the Hebrews before him, or were they able to display love in war also?

Ah, did not the fact that Jesus had to retell the Isrealites in the New Testament show you that this was either a clarification or a new law?
If the Old testamentals were meant to love the enemy as themselves but did not know it: it would be a clarification.

And Sick Nigntmares: Did you not read the Old testament? Numbers? Well that Book he didn't kill the women and children of the Medianites. This was because they are of the same line from Abraham. The Caananites weren't so the women or children must rise up in rebellion later or lure the istealistes away into sin.

Yes, you can love the beings that you fight against. The souls of those beings are your brother or sister. You are all God's children.

If you must punish your brother to stop him from helping wicked or foul men: then do it, but don't take any happiness from the killings.

Did not your mom love you when she spanked you? Mine did. Sometimes you must show tough love.


Sure. My father spanked me as a child, but I realize now that he was trying to deter me from trouble because me loves me. However, wouldn't there be a difference in spanking a child and ending one's chance to redeem himself through Christ? Going to war and killing an unbeliever--essentially sending him to eternal death--is tough love?

This brings up another point of discussion: God is a God of love. God is also a God of Justice. When He enacts His Justice he may send people to their deaths. Is this compatable with His love, or does he have to, for a lack of a better phrase, "switch modes"?

(As an aside, I'm loving the discussion so far, guys. Thanks for keeping it clean. *cookies all around* :))

There are two ways of looking at this.

The first is to say that there's no way a Christian can be a solider, since taking the life of another is definitely un-Christ-like. This is how we wound up with some of the finest Medics on the planet: they were willing to serve, but not willing to kill.

The second way is to make reference to Romans 13:3-4:

"For civil authorities are not a terror to [ people of ] good conduct, but to [ those of ] those of bad behavior. Would you have no dread of who is in authority? Then do what is right and you will receive his approval and commendation. For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, [ you should dread him and ] be afraid, for he does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant to execute His wrath ( punishment, vengance ) on the wrongdoer."

Books have been written about this.

Indeed, it isn't incompatible. One of the ealiest converts to the Christian religion, asdocumented in Acts, was a Roman officer. He was still an officer after his conversion; and there was no pressure layed upon him to throw off his civil duty in that capacity.

Generally, a soldier in combat, does not act upon his duty in that capacity based on hate. They carry out a job determinate upon the civil authority (Caesar).

This isn't intended as a flame, but rather a warning. If you spend your life debating the inconsistencies of Christianity, you will never have time for ANYTHING else. Read the old testament. God slaughtered everyone and everything at least twice.
I hope this doesn't get me in trouble because there are some subjects in history that we just aren't supposed to touch.

Death and killing isn't the ultimate evil in the world of a being that lives forever and offers life forever to others. In our world where life is the one thing that can't be "made up" for, death seem the worst that can be done.

Sometimes God allows or orders death knowing that to the righteous it is a reward, to the unrighteous it is a cleansing of the earth so the righteous that are left can carry on. Sometimes God also allows death so he can reach his goals.

Now is where I get into trouble:

Why did God allow Hitler to come to power and why did he allow the holocaust? Rom 13 All civil power comes from God. Written when evil men ruled Rome. But Rome allowed the spread of Christianity.

God gave Hitler power as he had in Rome. God allowed the holocaust for his reasons. What could those reasons be? There is one obvious reason. Without the holocaust, Israel wouldn't exist. The west allowed the establishment of Israel and the return of the Hebrews to the middle east because of the holocaust. What about the 6 million or so deaths, and the deaths of all those soldiers? For God, death isn't an ending, it is a beginning.

I think God would like for us to act in love to the entire world. If we would have done that over the last 60 years there wouldn't be the terror we have today. We wouldn't need to spend $$ on destoying, if we had spent $$ on building. But in the end, God can use wars and autrocities to his advantage.

kill compassionately...kill because you have to, not because you want to...love god first, your neighbour second, yourself third...if militants are threateneing non-millitants, then it would be loving to shoot the millitants...at the same time, you can do so with compassion...if somebody surrenders, don't shoot them anyways, etc.

kill compassionately...kill because you have to, not because you want to...love god first, your neighbour second, yourself third...if militants are threateneing non-millitants, then it would be loving to shoot the millitants...at the same time, you can do so with compassion...if somebody surrenders, don't shoot them anyways, etc.

To address the above quote first, whether or not one should believe in any kind of just or compassionate killing is debatable. For example, I believe mercy killing is fine if it ceases the pain of someone who was sure to die anyway.

To say love God first and your neighbour second isn't really true. The New Commandment is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself." The thing to remember in that statement is that Jesus said that the second commandment was like it, meaning that you should love your fellow humanity with the same ardour that you would pledge to God.

St. Augustine of Hippo came up with what's possibly the earliest coherent and unified definition of a Just War:

Most authors agree that "St. Augustine was the originator of the Just War Theory."(2) When it came to individual self-defense, St. Augustine contended that one's own life or property was never a justification for killing one's neighbor. Christian charity was the motivating force behind this statement. But when one speaks of rulers of nations they have the obligation to maintain peace. This obligation gives them the right to wage war. He says, "'The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.'"(3) Those subject to the rulers must obey unless they command something against a Divine Law. For St. Augustine the only reason for waging a war would be to defend the nation's peace against serious injury. He says, "'A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.'"(4) The intention of the war is very important for St. Augustine. He says, "'The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war.'"(5) St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, "'We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.'"(6) So in St. Augustine's thinking a war "was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct."(7) (source) (http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html)

Since we all have short attention spans, I'll stop there for now.

Ok...It sounds like you're all saying that war is the only option or something. I havn't read all the posts, just a few, so forgive me if I'm wrong. The first thing you do when someone else does something wrong is not kill them. There are better ways to settle these kind of things. All I'm trying to say is...don't react in a violent way. Something like that...you could just talk to the wrong-doer. If they don't stop doing whatever keep asking them to stop. I know this won't always work...
If someone runs around killing people all day then you don't walk up to them and ask them to stop. That's just retarded. You make them stop, then put the shooter where he belongs. Prison. By doing this you are demonstrating love. You are protecting the people, and you are protecting him from himself. If no one stopped him then he would probably continue doing what he was doing. Or, someone might have killed him.

In the second post, I think, someone said that God killed everyone a with the Israelites to get the Promised Land. That's true. But everyone that died were followers of false gods. They worshipped Baal and a bunch of other false gods. And they hated the Israelites. They feared them. They knew that God was on their side. They still continued to worship their false gods though. Also, that land was promised to the Israelites.

The Israelites often became slaves because they disobeyed God constantly. Just thought I'd add that...

Did your mom love it when she spanked you? Mine did.

!!!!

This isn't intended as a flame, but rather a warning. If you spend your life debating the inconsistencies of Christianity, you will never have time for ANYTHING else. Read the old testament. God slaughtered everyone and everything at least twice.

Very true, but people have spent their entire life pointing out the inconsistancies of Christianity (Christians and non-Christians), and personally, I wouldn't mind doing it myself...

If this is the case, then is it still possible to love those we war against? Can a Christian soldier kill an opposing militant and yet love him or her at the same time? How is this possible?

it's easy. if you're a follower of bushido, that is. bushido teaches seven virtues of a warrior, one being benevolence. this is meant towards those below your class (ie. commoners, non-warriors) and those who are servants of your clans' enemy. bushido also taught respect of your elders, family, clan, and those you kill.

PS: before you say that bushido isn't Christian, it it possible for a Christian to follow a value set different than that of the Church. Why? 'Cause Vatican II said so!

Psalm 144
Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.
LORD, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him!
Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away.
Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them.
Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children;
Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
I will sing a new song unto thee, O God: upon a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings will I sing praises unto thee.
It is he that giveth salvation unto kings: who delivereth David his servant from the hurtful sword.
Rid me, and deliver me from the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood:
That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be as corner stones, polished after the similitude of a palace:
That our garners may be full, affording all manner of store: that our sheep may bring forth thousands and ten thousands in our streets:
That our oxen may be strong to labour; that there be no breaking in, nor going out; that there be no complaining in our streets.
Happy is that people, that is in such a case: yea, happy is that people, whose God is the LORD.

Be well!

[QUOTE=Romanore]I suppose it's about time that I started a serious thread this time around, so why not make the topic over something I've been pondering about.

Christians, as commanded by Christ Himself, are to love.


Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Capitalism itself is incongruous with Christianity.

WW2...Justified

Iraq? American authorities just want Oil....

(sigh)

if we really wanted the oil, we'd just take it.

this wasn't for oil, it was to stop a brutal, murderous dictator and give Iraqis a chance to elect their own rulers. Do you value:

a)The right to vote?

b)Freedom of speech?

c)The right to the same rights as everyone else in your country? Sunnis were Saddam's pets while Shi'a and Kurds were treated like crap under him. We've been trying to change that.

d)The rule of law?

e)A constitution built on the example of Western democracies?

etc.

If so, you must admit that even if Haliburton stock goes up, we have accomplished so much more (or are in the process of trying to accomplish these things..) than to lower the price of crude and increase the stock value of an oil-refining (or whatever) company.

What about the self-determination of a sovereign nation? If they really wanted to, they could have overthrown him themselves. If we really wanted to, we could overthrow the US government, even with its' organized military and infrastructure.

be well:D

I get that question alot, being a hardcore Christian.

But first, to understand why God condones that sort of combat (ie, the Hewbrews you talked about), you must understand why God would order it.

-Early on, Satan attempted to take over the Earth. God wasn't particularly fond of this. What did he do? Sent his many choirs of angels to defend His domain and the plane of existance which we reside in. Satan, in his wars against Jesus and the Lord God, was banished to Hell. Much like Islam and the jihad (defense of Islam), Christianity has witnessed (and suffered through) "religious" wars.

-The difference between what we are doing here on earth (Conquering, in the most basic sense) and what the Lord did/does in Heaven and Hell is that the Lord orders His choirs (IIRC, Seraphim, Cherubim, Ophanim, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and then your run-of-the-mill Angels) into action against forces of sin and evil for the defense of all existance, and the defense and salvation of us as God's children. What we're NOT doing down here on Earth is killing Satan's minions for the good of Christianity and for our salvation... we're more focused on relatively short-term happenings, and not God's will.. ;) (Not saying that war is wrong... we just have different priorities, and we ARE defending ourselves and saving others.)

-As much as we'd love to clasp our hands and pray <i>extra</i> hard for God to come save us from the baddies and terrorists, that just won't work out how we'd like it to. Unfortunately, Jesus wasn't trained in firearms handling and safety.

Hope this clears some things up, as confusing as it sounds to even myself... but you've gotta ask that question to a higher authority to really see the answer. ;)

I suppose it's about time that I started a serious thread this time around, so why not make the topic over something I've been pondering about.

Christians, as commanded by Christ Himself, are to love. Love God, love our neighbors, and even love our enemies (or, in other words, those who would make us their enemies). If this is the case, then is it still possible to love those we war against? Can a Christian soldier kill an opposing militant and yet love him or her at the same time? How is this possible?

As a secondary topic, the Old Testament shows God leading the Hebrews into battle and war in order to obtain and defend their Promised Land. Did the "greatest command" Jesus instructed us to follow not apply to the Hebrews before him, or were they able to display love in war also?

Now. Time to discuss. And, please, let's keep it civilised, mmk? I'd rather have an intelligent discussion rather than a flamefest. :)

I apologise if this arguement has already been given. I confess that I have not read the entire thread.

Biblically, war is immoral. There is no way around it. You can rationalize it to yourself all you want, but war is always immoral and without any backing from God. There is not God's side in a war. There are no holy wars. Those who claim to serve God when they start a war are simply using what is readily available to them as an excuse to kill. Were Christianity not a viable alternative, people would still kill under another banner.

The real question is do you mind disobeying God by killing your fellow man? You defy God every day when you commit those little sins, but there is no sin that is any worse than any other in the eyes of God. It is just as bad to do one as the other. Can I say I, a Christian Sunday School teacher, would not kill a man to defend someone I deeply cared about, a friend or a wife for example? I cannot. I can say that to kill a person for any reason is a sin, but we do it anyway. We just rationalize it to ourselves. I feel sure that in a life or death situation the selfish man in me would chose to kill another, but I hold no illusions over the fact that it is a sin.

On the old testament, the Hebrews were under the law. They were under the strict code of righteousness. The dominion of Christ in grace had not been established yet.

No one can display love for their fellow man in a warzone unless they are a pacifist battlefield medic, healing the wounded on both sides. Should you show love? Yes. Are we ever going to achieve that ideal? Certainly not. Man is sinful and unregenerate. We are quite beyond being saved on our own accord. It is all God's grace and nothing of man. So there you have it, there is no moral way to go about killing a man and committing to war. You just do it. It is kill or be killed. If you chose not to sin, you die. If you chose to sin, you live. I am not going to judge either side. I know that in a war situation, I would likely chose to kill.

Maybe God intended that we Love Our Enemies BEFORE we reach a state of war. If we would care for our enemies, things like 9/11 would not happen in the first place.

Note how the US had supported the Taliban for a decade. In fact, we had given them $2 Billion to obtain arms to drive off the Soviet Union. Yet they still attacked us, because they privately loathed us.

Note how many of the people who have attacked us have cited a hatred of Israel, who they would like to see extincted. Our support of the Jewish people has by policy made us anathema and enemy. They continue to say things such as that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. (You can read about Iran in the news recently.)

While we can extend a hand of friendship, it can be hacked off at the wrist.

Thus the question to Christians is: do we accept the blow and turn the other cheek?

We lost 3,000 people on 9/11. We've lost over 2,000 troops since the OIF and OEF were launched. The Iraqis are estimated to have lost over 100,000 dead.

Payback?

What would have happened if we would have treated the people of the middle east with love and respect for the last 50 years?

The best successes we've had in that regard have been Egypt, which in the Carter Administration signed the Camp David Accords. They are a close ally.

Jordan has buried the hatchet with Israel also.

We're even getting reforms out of Libya.

So the issue is the slow process of transformation of the region, knowing that many of the states simply lie to our faces, duplicitly harbor terrorists, even fund them, but they play nice for the visiting US dignitaries and cameras.

It's a very difficult region to work in. There's a lot of hatred. You have to be a true Christian to take it and not wish to lash back.

What if instead of providing arms so that they and we could kill each other we would have provided the means of prosperity?

There has to be a balance. Many of these nations are poised on the brink of Moderate Islam/Secular government vs. Islamicist goverment.

There are rebel groups in every nation which are more than willing to assassinate their leaders and hold civil wars.

Thus, we extend both offers of military training and equipment to ensure there are not violent overthrows like in Iran or brutal civil wars like in Algeria, while also trying to engage them economically to raise the standard of living.

Poverty creates desperate people.

What if we would have used even a small portion of the money to build rather than destroy?

In some nations, we have been, and we've been busy. We need to do a heck of a lot more in Iraq to rebuild it now. It's been decimated.

The cost is going to be well into the tens of billions. It's a shame that the nation, wracked by economic sanctions for a decade, now also has to be put back together infrastructure-wise.

Because of the costs there, we'll probably have very little to offer to other nations in the region or around the world.

Here's an idea that would be much cheaper than war. What if we go into Gaza and build roads, schools, water, sewer, electical, a modern port, a desalinization plant?

How about this... what if the other Arab nations stop sending money for RPGs to blow up buildings? You might see more economic investment if workers would not be threatened with being kidnapped or shot, and if leaders felt their infrastructural investments would not simply be blown up because they were funded by the Great Satan?

It's a hard problem. You ask a good question. The issue is that the region itself must stop savaging itself.

Israel did not cause Iraq to invade Kuwait. That's been a dispute since World War II.

Israel did not put the Taliban in power. Uh... We have to take responsibility for that ourselves.

The Gaza strip needs to stop bombing itself. Hamas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4316774.stm) is bombing the Palestinian authority police. Fatah shot one of their top miltary leaders. Why?

In what world does it make sense for a Muslim to attack a Muslim?

You can't blame the US or Israel for all this chaos.

This needs to go back directly to the people who are committing the violence.

Then provide micro loans to those wishing to start businesses. In 50 years Gaza could look like Hong Kong. But would that be as much fun as making and using things that go BOOM?

It needs to sink into the skulls of people who believe that dying for Allah and killing housewives in a marketplace and waiters in a restauraunt is better than trying to set up a lemonade stand themselves.

You cannot blame the US directly for the militants who have decided to continue fighting the war in Iraq, killing Muslim civilians at the same rate of butchery as under Saddam Hussein. While we are responsible, and should have predicted this sort of insurgency and planned to fight it, we are not responsible for it directly. These people are attacking Muslims -- police and civilians. The US will be gone some day, they reason. Their real enemy are the 'collaborator' government.

What if we actually had respect and love for those who had other religions? What if we didn't have ministers daily preaching on the evils of other religions? Can someone name one place where Jesus or Paul preached against other religions? Remember when Paul went into Athens he honored them for their great faith.

The disrespect we show to the Arab world is only in part a disrespect of their faith. Iraq threw out the US and UK from doing oil business there in the 1970s because we were vultures looking for cheap oil with a bad deal for the Iraqis.

Our business leaders need to be as ethical as our politicians. And yes, it would help if our political leaders were more ethical too.

A faith in idols.

Well, every time you see a picture of God, that's a deep offense to Muslims. Graven images and all that.

What if we paid the workers a fair share of what we pay for imports?
If there were more unions organizing than AK-47, RPG-7 toting militias, they might actually be able to collectively bargain for wages.

Right now, if they do not like a boss, they just shoot him.

So bosses become like Chicago gangland mobsters. They keep hired thugs. They might keep a few government officials on the payroll. The workers who are honest don't ask too many questions. It's a dangerous life.

This is not to say there are not ethical, honest, peaceful businessmen anywhere in the Middle East. There are some very good ones. But they have to work carefully because there are others who are... eh... ethically challenged.

Is it love to live a life of relative luxury while those that provide the means starve?

Which is a difficult question to ask. The rich-poor divide in the Middle East is savage. Many are still living quite poorly while the rich drive limosines.

It's been oft quoted that the Arab world has a population greater than the EU (until recent expansion), but an economy less than Germany.

So what do you do? How can you get them to care about their own society?

What if we had treated a disease like HIV as a disease and sent researchers to Africa in the beginning?

This is a terrible travesty. "Abstinance" as a policy obviously did not work on the continent of Africa. There are far more programs in place now, and some very heroic and compassionate doctors have been fighting tirelessly to get drug companies to produce HIV/AIDS cocktails to prevent further spread and even some Catholics have broken from Rome to say that contraception is needed to prevent the spread. Finally, it took a fatal disease to get them to admit they were the best thing to prevent health problems.

Was it love to ignore it just because it was a disease of Africans and Gays?

It was silly to ignore it thinking that it would only affect those populations. I don't think you can blame "Christians" for this. I'd blame racists and homophobes, who can be atheists or Muslims or worship Barney. But yes, a number of nutcases that call themselves Christians really did a disservice to the world by letting pandemic breed.

War isn't the first reaction, it is the LAST reaction.

You have to avoid this as a mirror-image fallacy. You believe this, and therefore you would like everyone else to believe it. Yet understand that there are fierce warlike people in the world. To them it is not the last reaction. It often is in the top five. "Sitting down and actually thinking about the whole problem before jumping to conclusions" is often low on the list in these cases.

If we lived in love and spent our money and time thinking about how we could love people, we would spend a lot less than it costs to have a standing army.

Recall that a great war was caused by Love. Helen of Troy, whose face launched a thousand ships.

Love is also usurped, by people who claim themselves patriots -- they love their country. Or they love their god. Or they love their freedom.

Love is a central element to all wars, or people would not fight so fiercely.

So most ethics are based not only in love, but in pragmatics. Logic. It is simply innefficient to fight all the time. There are better ways to get long-term results by peace.

When you appeal to the heart with people who have little teeny-tiny hearts, you have to use motivating factors which are important to them. Your appeal to emotions will otherwise fall on deaf ears.

But do we honor a president like Carter who worked for peace in the world, or do we honor and reelect a president that starts and "wins" a war. We vote for hate rather than love.

I think Carter was a good President. Very underestimated.

But winning wars does indeed look sexy on the resume.

Carter's military was ill-prepared for the Iranian hostage crisis. It fouled up because of its own equipment and planning failures. Of course, Carter was lambasted and blamed for everything.

Ford too was a decent fellow. The last Republican in the office I didn't find utterly loathesome.

I apologise if this arguement has already been given. I confess that I have not read the entire thread.

Biblically, war is immoral. There is no way around it. You can rationalize it to yourself all you want, but war is always immoral and without any backing from God. There is not God's side in a war. There are no holy wars. Those who claim to serve God when they start a war are simply using what is readily available to them as an excuse to kill. Were Christianity not a viable alternative, people would still kill under another banner.

War is immoral? That's news to anyone with a grasp of Biblical history.


The real question is do you mind disobeying God by killing your fellow man?

Killing may not be disobeying.... There is no commandment not to kill...


You defy God every day when you commit those little sins, but there is no sin that is any worse than any other in the eyes of God. It is just as bad to do one as the other. Can I say I, a Christian Sunday School teacher, would not kill a man to defend someone I deeply cared about, a friend or a wife for example? I cannot. I can say that to kill a person for any reason is a sin, but we do it anyway.

Except, it is not a "sin" to kill someone "for any reason". Murder is a sin... But not all killing is murder.


We just rationalize it to ourselves. I feel sure that in a life or death situation the selfish man in me would chose to kill another, but I hold no illusions over the fact that it is a sin.

Except, once again, it is not a sin.


On the old testament, the Hebrews were under the law. They were under the strict code of righteousness. The dominion of Christ in grace had not been established yet.

No one can display love for their fellow man in a warzone unless they are a pacifist battlefield medic, healing the wounded on both sides. Should you show love? Yes. Are we ever going to achieve that ideal? Certainly not. Man is sinful and unregenerate. We are quite beyond being saved on our own accord. It is all God's grace and nothing of man. So there you have it, there is no moral way to go about killing a man and committing to war. You just do it. It is kill or be killed. If you chose not to sin, you die. If you chose to sin, you live. I am not going to judge either side. I know that in a war situation, I would likely chose to kill.

Only because, without any biblical backing, you are attempting to assert an act as a sin. In that regard, it is a sin to you.... Since you believe it... As a soldier on the battlefield, to not cary out the orders of God's agent upon earth (the civil authority), would be a sin. If a soldier chooses NOT to kill on the battlefield... They are commiting sin.

I suppose it's about time that I started a serious thread this time around, so why not make the topic over something I've been pondering about.

Christians, as commanded by Christ Himself, are to love. Love God, love our neighbors, and even love our enemies (or, in other words, those who would make us their enemies). If this is the case, then is it still possible to love those we war against? Can a Christian soldier kill an opposing militant and yet love him or her at the same time? How is this possible?

As a secondary topic, the Old Testament shows God leading the Hebrews into battle and war in order to obtain and defend their Promised Land. Did the "greatest command" Jesus instructed us to follow not apply to the Hebrews before him, or were they able to display love in war also?

Now. Time to discuss. And, please, let's keep it civilised, mmk? I'd rather have an intelligent discussion rather than a flamefest. :)


THE BIBLICAL CASE FOR SELF-DEFENSE. It is noteworthy that the Bible records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH Sabaoth ("The LORD of hosts"--Exodus 12:41). God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim (savior-deliverers). Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Hebrews 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints--nor even Jesus--are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14). When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

War is immoral? That's news to anyone with a grasp of Biblical history.

Killing may not be disobeying.... There is no commandment not to kill...

Except, it is not a "sin" to kill someone "for any reason". Murder is a sin... But not all killing is murder.

Except, once again, it is not a sin.

Only because, without any biblical backing, you are attempting to assert an act as a sin. In that regard, it is a sin to you.... Since you believe it... As a soldier on the battlefield, to not cary out the orders of God's agent upon earth (the civil authority), would be a sin. If a soldier chooses NOT to kill on the battlefield... They are commiting sin.

Actually, I have quite a grasp of Biblical military history. After a battle, the Hebrews offered sacrifices to the Lord. The sacrifices were in thanks and praise for victory and for atonement for sin. There is no righteous hatred. If you hate a man, you have done just as much as murdering him. Hate of the enemies of the Hebrews is mentioned much in the Bible. They were sinning in this act. On the battlefield too, they sinned as they cut down their enemies in hatred. They were under the law at this time, so after they committed their sins they ritualistically cleansed themselves from it.

Also, the Bible does say we are to obey our governments to a point. When the laws of a governments contradict the laws of God we do not have to follow their laws which break the commands of God. God does not ask us to follow blindly our governments. Saying that we should is saying that our leaders lead us by divine right. That is not true. The only reason to defend the concept of war is to rationalize it as not sin. It is sin, but that is not something to be horribly condemned for, except by God. That little white lie you told your grandmother to make her happy was a sin to. There is no degree to sin. That is a humanistic concept and completely unbiblical.

There is no way to avoid committing sin. To believe so would involve a belief that human beings are creatures that are not naturally predisposed to sin and, in general, completely unregenerate creatures. War is one such thing in which there is no righteous way to go about it. I know that if I were to go to war I would be committing a sin, but that does not mean I would not do it. That also does not mean I would condemn someone else who did go to war in my stead. As humans we pick and choose which battles we fight.

Except, once again, it is not a sin.

Then tell me Tekania, why then did St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas spend years trying to justify war in a Christian context?

It seems illogical for them to expend time justifying war if it were not sin.

Actually, I have quite a grasp of Biblical military history. After a battle, the Hebrews offered sacrifices to the Lord. The sacrifices were in thanks and praise for victory and for atonement for sin. There is no righteous hatred. If you hate a man, you have done just as much as murdering him. Hate of the enemies of the Hebrews is mentioned much in the Bible. They were sinning in this act. On the battlefield too, they sinned as they cut down their enemies in hatred. They were under the law at this time, so after they committed their sins they ritualistically cleansed themselves from it.

Red indicates information which contradicts the word.

You do not need to "hate" to engage in war... BTW.


Also, the Bible does say we are to obey our governments to a point. When the laws of a governments contradict the laws of God we do not have to follow their laws which break the commands of God. God does not ask us to follow blindly our governments. Saying that we should is saying that our leaders lead us by divine right. That is not true. The only reason to defend the concept of war is to rationalize it as not sin. It is sin, but that is not something to be horribly condemned for, except by God. That little white lie you told your grandmother to make her happy was a sin to. There is no degree to sin. That is a humanistic concept and completely unbiblical.


Where they contradict the expressed will of God... That is the key. Your entire system of logic here, is based from the deceit that all killing is wrong.


There is no way to avoid committing sin. To believe so would involve a belief that human beings are creatures that are not naturally predisposed to sin and, in general, completely unregenerate creatures. War is one such thing in which there is no righteous way to go about it. I know that if I were to go to war I would be committing a sin, but that does not mean I would not do it. That also does not mean I would condemn someone else who did go to war in my stead. As humans we pick and choose which battles we fight.

Contradictions contradictions contradictions and lies....

The natural man is unregenerate... If you are actually a disciple of Christ, you have been regenerated by the Spirit of God.

There is a way to wage righteous warfare. And a soldier is not bound to fight under hate or malice... It is possible to kill another person, without committing a sin, killing is not itself an inherantly sinful act.... Though it can be.

Then tell me Tekania, why then did St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas spend years trying to justify war in a Christian context?

It seems illogical for them to expend time justifying war if it were not sin.

They didn't spend years trying to justify war... They wrote treatise [not apologies] upon the theology of war.

They didn't spend years trying to justify war... They wrote treatise [not apologies] upon the theology of war.
It should also be mentioned that these treatises were so specific as to what criteria justify war that there is practically no war that would qualify as just and/or justifiable.
Shalom.

There is no righteous hatred. Red indicates information which contradicts the word.

For the sake of the debate, could you specify where scripture condones righteous hatred? It seems contradictory to God Himself to condone hatred when He himself is Love. Seems impossible to balance the two out...at least to the naked eye.

[QUOTE=My Dressing Gown]

(sigh)

if we really wanted the oil, we'd just take it. Obviously we are in the process of doing just that.

this wasn't for oil, it was to stop a brutal, murderous dictator and give Iraqis a chance to elect their own rulers. Did we go after the WORST dictator in the world? NO. If we wanted to rid the world of the worst, we would have gone to Africa or SE Asia. Obviously that wasn't the reason we went to Bushnam. So what was the reason? What did Bushnam have that those areas of Africa and Asia didn't have?

Do you value:

a)The right to vote?

b)Freedom of speech?

c)The right to the same rights as everyone else in your country? Sunnis were Saddam's pets while Shi'a and Kurds were treated like crap under him. We've been trying to change that.
So now the Sunni will be the pets of the Shi'a and Kurds. New name same game.
d)The rule of law?

e)A constitution built on the example of Western democracies?

etc.Notice how these wonderful people have already opened their own torture prisons. Oops, maybe that is one of those wonderful ideas we have taught them. I guess we cann't blame Saddam for teaching them that that's how "democracy" is done.

If so, you must admit that even if Haliburton stock goes up, we have accomplished so much more (or are in the process of trying to accomplish these things..) than to lower the price of crude and increase the stock value of an oil-refining (or whatever) company.Yea we've taught them how capitalism works. Any "whatever" with connections is the big dog. Everyone else is the slave. I'm sure they have that lesson down.

Now we only have to wait and see who the next big dog dictator will be. The idea is he will be our pupppet dictator and not the puppet of some other group. That is how Bushnam is different from Vietnam. When we did the right thing and pulled out of Nam, they prospered in their own culture. In Bushnam, we pull out and every big dog in the area will try to make it their own boot camp. The people won't have their own dictator that will respect and honor their culture as in Nam. A benevolant dictator is hard to find. Nam had theirs picked out. Bushnam has no one in the wings that has the interest of the people at heart. Haliburton certainly has NO social interest.