Christians and the military.

Originally posted by Doward
Are you on meds or something? I don't mean that as an insult, its just that you are quite irrational. First you're talking about needing swords to fight the Romans then you're saying they would have been slaughtered (my contention). You don't seem to have a frim grasp on reality.

Exactly when and where did Christ comment on WW1 or WW2? When and where did C ...[text shortened]... rds of restraint and peace. The evidence in the New Testament is overwhelmingly against you.

I think you are the one who is thinking and speaking irrationally.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's why they used guns!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taih2zUOmIM

HalleluYah!

Originally posted by RJHinds
HalleluYah!

So the question of the day is, if Jesus told you not to kill for your country but your country did, what would you do? A very simple question so I hope for a very simple answer.

Originally posted by galveston75
So the question of the day is, if Jesus told you not to kill for your country but your country did, what would you do? A very simple question so I hope for a very simple answer.

The right thing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The right thing.

So then you'd do what Jesus says to do over what your country says to do? Congratulations, good decision.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It has been asserted, that,

I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are more of a coward than I am.
[b]They refuse to serve in the military like regular Christians.
Maybe, that is why you are a member of the JW's, coward.

this of course appears to me to transgress the most sacred of principles, that life is
sacrosanct to God, for he was the ...[text shortened]... nciples will
you learn warfare?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjQD-aZOL10&feature=fvst[/b]

"this of course appears to me to transgress the most sacred of principles, that life is sacrosanct to God, for he was the originator of life and it does not belong to man to take it. Not only that, it also appears to me to be in direct conflict with certain Biblical principles, namely,.."

Tell it to David, a man of war, and a man after God's own heart.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"this of course appears to me to transgress the most sacred of principles, that life is sacrosanct to God, for he was the originator of life and it does not belong to man to take it. Not only that, it also appears to me to be in direct conflict with certain Biblical principles, namely,.."

Tell it to David, a man of war, and a man after God's own heart.[/b]

yet David was not permited to build the temple because his hands were stained with blood

Originally posted by Doward
yet David was not permited to build the temple because his hands were stained with blood

But that was not the blood he shed in battle during wars, but of the
husband of the woman of his desire.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But that was not the blood he shed in battle during wars, but of the
husband of the woman of his desire.

1 Chronicles 22: 6 Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house for the LORD, the God of Israel. 7 David said to Solomon: “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God. 8 But this word of the LORD came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. 9 But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon,[a] and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. 10 He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’



(emphasis mine)

Originally posted by Doward
yet David was not permited to build the temple because his hands were stained with blood

That is true. There are always consequences. Of course you see how my reply to robbie fits against his post I replied to?

Originally posted by Doward
1 Chronicles 22: 6 Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house for the LORD, the God of Israel. 7 David said to Solomon: “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God. 8 But this word of the LORD came to me:[b] ‘You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Nam ...[text shortened]... I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’



(emphasis mine)

You are right. I did not remember that. So God wanted the House of
God to be built during a time of peace by a peaceful man. That is
interesting. So there is a time and place for everything under the sun.
A time for war and a time for peace.

Originally posted by Doward
Manny, Justice (as well as vengance) belong to God. How far would Ghandi have gotten if he called for armed insurrection? I'd say about 3 months later he and all of his followers would have been dead.
When the Romans were feeding the Christians to lions did they fight the Roman oppressor? No, but re-examine history and tell me who won?

agreed 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on what Christian principles will you learn warfare? notice the term Christian.

I don't know the answer to what I'm about to ask - but I'm betting my house and all my belongings that you are a pacifist because your church tells you to be - i.e. it's a JW position. If true that is idiocy beyond belief; the scripture you quote do not support pacifism one of them is relating to war between the spirit and the flesh. Anyone is a coward if they will not defend their own home, their own family, their own neighbourhood.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't know the answer to what I'm about to ask - but I'm betting my house and all my belongings that you are a pacifist because your church tells you to be - i.e. it's a JW position. If true that is idiocy beyond belief; the scripture you quote do not support pacifism one of them is relating to war between the spirit and the flesh. Anyone is a coward if they will not defend their own home, their own family, their own neighbourhood.

Anyone is a coward if they will not defend their own home, their own family, their own neighbourhood.

Normally I see you as a voice of reason among the theists, but this sentence speaks the kind of ignorance I'd expect from... well, some of the others.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]Anyone is a coward if they will not defend their own home, their own family, their own neighbourhood.

Normally I see you as a voice of reason among the theists, but this sentence speaks the kind of ignorance I'd expect from... well, some of the others.[/b]

I'll take that as a compliment, thanks.

I'm not pro war, especially the political or religious ones. The point I'm trying to make is that some things are worth fighting for, but we should make our own minds up about which they are and not be dictated to by religion.

If my home was being invaded and my family threaded, I'd kill to defend them - that is not the same as saying I support "illegal" military action. I just don't believe that fighting to the death for what is important to us has to be a bad thing - and especially not just because some preacher tells us it is.