17 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHelps what? Is that the meaning you were using? Why then did you give a very different definition earlier, and how do you explain this obviously false statement (in light of this definition) by you:
Christendom
“Those parts of the world where most of the inhabitants profess the Christian faith.”—Webster’s New World Dictionary
hopefully this helps
wrong we have absolutely nothing to do with Christendom and have tried in every way to distance ourselves from it.
17 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMassive Logic Failure. All these wars were secular wars instigated by politics and money, using nationalistic fervor to incite hatred of others. The fact that some misguided, nay downright evil, religious leaders got involved was sad, but to blame the wars on Christendom? sorry it doesn't follow, nor do the facts bear that out to be true.
Have they lived up to their claim of being followers of the Prince of Peace?
Two world wars started in the realm of so-called Christian nations. “Christian” political leaders resorted to arms in 1914 and 1939, and the clergy in all contending nations gave their blessing.
The Columbia History of the World states regarding World War I: “Truth wa ...[text shortened]... search for peace.”
beating their swords into ploughshares for almost two thousand years.????
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by duecernope you should know your history Deucer my friend, for in fact the war in Christendom could have hardly taken place had it not been for the support of the state by the church, for in many instances, from the crusades through to the first and second world wars would have been impossible without the willing assistance from members of Christendom.
Massive Logic Failure. All these wars were secular wars instigated by politics and money, using nationalistic fervor to incite hatred of others. The fact that some misguided, nay downright evil, religious leaders got involved was sad, but to blame the wars on Christendom? sorry it doesn't follow, nor do the facts bear that out to be true.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadthese are all petty side issues, if you have anything of relevance to state with regard to Christendom and its legacy of warfare, let it be known, otherwise change your name to side show Bob.
Helps what? Is that the meaning you were using? Why then did you give a very different definition earlier, and how do you explain this obviously false statement (in light of this definition) by you:
[b]wrong we have absolutely nothing to do with Christendom and have tried in every way to distance ourselves from it.[/b]
18 Mar 10
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie==========================================
The book The Early Christian Attitude to War says: “Inasmuch as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war . . . The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal ...[text shortened]... d to those hating you, to bless those cursing you, to pray for those who are insulting you.”[/b]
The book The Early Christian Attitude to War says: “Inasmuch as they [Jesus’ teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war . . . The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.”
=========================================
That may be true. But this is now your selective reference to history.
What would you do if I provided early history arguing against Arius polytheism? (ie. Two Gods - Jehovah and the Logos ). You would not regard historical refutations of Arius as confimration of the errors modern Jehovah's Witnesses.
So while I acknowledge some Christian Pacifists in church history I don't think that is the determining factor as to God's will in the matter. Quakers are a pacifists and also a Christian denomination.
A professional soldier is not fighting or killing for personal gains (other than to kill rather than be killed).
He may be in some societies, a concientious objector and put place on non-combative duty. But I see no legality insisting that he or she must choose between being a Christian and being a soldier.
With as much logic you might argue that being a policeman and being a Christian were incompatible. Or you might reason that it was impossible to be a criminal judge or prosecutor and be a Christian.
The fact of the matter is that there are disciple of Jesus Christ is many walks of life - soldier, lawyer, politician, house wife, senator, under cover agent, spy, judge.
It may be that a believer does not have peace to linger in a certain profession. I do not see that it is a legal and mandatory matter that the New Testaments insists that he or she choose between following Christ or that profession.
=============================================
Matt. 26:52: “Jesus said to him: ‘Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.’” (Could there have been any higher cause for which to fight than to safeguard the Son of God? Yet, Jesus here indicated that those disciples were not to resort to weapons of physical warfare.)
===========================================
To me this only indicates that as a professional soldier who happens to also be a Christian, I have to be reconciled to the fact that I MAY perish by the sword. As a professional soldier I very well may die violently in that line of work.
This does not mean that I cannot be a believer in Christ as a soldier. It does not mean I am a "second class" Christian because I am in that profession.
================================
Isa. 2:2-4: “It must occur in the final part of the days that the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains . . . And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.” (Individuals out of all nations must personally decide what course they will pursue. Those who have heeded Jehovah’s judgment give evidence that he is their God.)
=========================================
That is different. After the second coming of Christ when He establishes this peace upon the globe, those are different circumstances. There is then no need to be a soldier.
====================================
2 Cor. 10:3, 4: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things.” (Paul here states that he never resorted to fleshly weapons, such as trickery, high-sounding language, or carnal weapons, to protect the congregation against false teachings.)
=======================================
Nothing here says that a Christian cannot be a professional soldier.
Spiritual warfare can be carried out by a soldier in prayer just as much as anyone else.
======================================
Luke 6:27, 28: “I [Jesus Christ] say to you who are listening, Continue to love your enemies, to do good to those hating you, to bless those cursing you, to pray for those who are insulting you.”
====================================
I fully agree that we should love and pray for our enemies. However I also submit Romans 12:18:
"If possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with all men."
The tone here in the apostle's exhortation is accomodating and reasonable. It is not legal. It recognizes different levels of spiritual maturity. It recognizes different circumstances and practicality.
As much as it is possible with the disciple, he is to live in peace with all men. If I am on the battlefield of war and am a Christian, it is not a Christian legality that I immediately must throw down my weopons. It may not be possible to live in peace with the person shooting at you as you fulfill your duty to your country.
"If possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with all men."
If such a soldier has the grace and faith to immediately throw down his gun and refuse to fight, he entrusts his soul to God's sovereignty. Maybe God will give him a way out. But if he does not have that level of faith yet he still believes in Christ, he is not excluded from salvation because of these circumstances.
The apostle's exhortation in Romans 12:18 is in harmony with the rest of the chapter. It is reasonable, flexible, accomodating, and wise. It is not legal.
18 Mar 10
1 edit
Robbie, the principle of kingdom living in Matthew is that a person is strict with himself but accomodating toward others.
If you as a Christian cannot be a professional soldier, you may take care of your conscience until you have life and peace within. You are to be thorough with your own walk with the King.
Yet towards others you are to not judge but even be merciful. The merciful shall obtain mercy.
The kingdom people are to be strict towards themselves and merciful towards others. This is contrary to human nature. We tend to be loose and accomodating towards ourselves but exacting and strict towards others.
In the kingdom of the heavens this is reversed. You allow others their liberty. You are exacting towards your own walk with God.
So I say this to say, if being a soldier offends your Christian conscience, you may look to God to be away from that profession. That is your affair before the Lord. It is not for you to make a legality that others must keep. If a Christian feels to remain in the armed forces as a believer in Jesus, you should be at peace with him.
Strict towards ourselves and merciful towards others. That is the principle of the kingdom of the heavens in Matthew. Judge not that you be not judged.
I speak this for my own sake even more.
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is not a side issue as the whole point of your thread is to accuse Christiandom of something yet you apparently are unwilling to explain what this Christiandom is - or rather deliberately give misleading definitions which do not in the slightest fit your claims.
these are all petty side issues, if you have anything of relevance to state with regard to Christendom and its legacy of warfare, let it be known, otherwise change your name to side show Bob.
How can I have anything of relevance to say about Christiandom when you are unable to clearly explain what you mean by the term? I have already pointed out in no uncertain terms that going by your the definitions you have given so far, some of your claims are quite obviously false - and it is equally clear that you know it.
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhitehead"No True Scotsman"
It is not a side issue as the whole point of your thread is to accuse Christiandom of something yet you apparently are unwilling to explain what this Christiandom is - or rather deliberately give misleading definitions which do not in the slightest fit your claims.
How can I have anything of relevance to say about Christiandom when you are unable to clea ...[text shortened]... o far, some of your claims are quite obviously false - and it is equally clear that you know it.
19 Mar 10
1 edit
Jaywill your post reads like a whole list of excuses, as if your conscience is trying to excuse itself, i am going to be quite blunt with you , killing is wrong. i do not care for the morality of this system, scripturally, historically, it has been shown that war is both futile and morally unacceptable.
(Romans 12:17-21) Return evil for evil to no one. Provide fine things in the sight of all men. If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.” But, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals upon his head.” Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.
perhaps your stance is due to the militaristic nature of your culture, i do not know, we have a very different attitude towards the military in Europe than in the States, nor are we as 'right wing', either. Ultimately you are correct however, this is a conscience based decision, but if our conscience is not working, like a compass that has magnetic interference it may lead us on a path contrary to the revealed word of God.
19 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBy your definition, yes. If you have a better definition, then give it. Otherwise, simply accept your legacy and your hypocrisy as a member of Christiandom.
ummm actually no! i was but am not! when one separates the wheat from the chaff, are they one and the same?
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadso the wheat is the same as the chaff???? how is that dear Whitey? perhaps you shall grind the chaff and make your bread? you wife and children will certainly cry out for wheat!
By your definition, yes. If you have a better definition, then give it. Otherwise, simply accept your legacy and your hypocrisy as a member of Christiandom.
i will never admit it, we have killed no one, are a-political, are neutral in all cases of conflict, then now, the onus is on you to show how we have contributed to this legacy of violence, if you please, and squirming like a snake with petty side issues will do you no good, either state how we have contributed to the culture of violence or retract your statement.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause you have defined it as such.
so the wheat is the same as the chaff???? how is that dear Whitey?
i will never admit it, we have killed no one, are a-political, are neutral in all cases of conflict, then now, the onus is on you to show how we have contributed to this legacy of violence, if you please, and squirming like a snake with petty side issues will do you no good, either state how we have contributed to the culture of violence or retract your statement.
It is you not I that has accused Christiandom of the 'legacy of violence' and since you are part of Christiandom by your own definition, it is up to you to deal with it or admit that either your claim or your definition is false.
If it is your definition that is wrong, then please give one that is correct, or your whole thread remains unintelligible.