love among all

[david]

[/QUOTE]“He was inculcating the principle of avoiding quarrels by not replying or reacting in kind. A slap on the cheek is not intended to injure physically but only to insult or to provoke into a fight.”

This is one of those cases where you misquote. Neither I nor I'm sure anyone else on this forum is saying we should take up a sword and kill our brother due to an insult. You always change defending others to our slaughter of our brothers.

Quote

Hi seeking truth, Yes, let's call it: “Defending others.” Let's call it “defending freedom,” as the US does. That makes it sound pretty. War is not a pretty thing. If you have a gun in your hand and you are killing people from another country, how do you not know that there is someone in that other country who also thinks they are Christian and believe that they are on the right side too, (because that is the propaganda their governement lets them see) and they have a gun. Something has gone wrong. True Christians definitely do not kill other Christians.

“So YOU want to solve the world's problems, fix all the injustices. What can you do? I thought it was God's kingdom we looked to for the solutions, not human governments.
Vengeance is MINE. I shall repay, says Jehovah.”

This is one of those examples were you overstate what I've said. Once again I'm not talking being aggressive I'm talking defense.

Quote

Well, I'm sorry for overstating it. My point was that you and your country believe you can make the world a better place, as does every country. They all think they have God on their side. Seeking Truth, is your life more important that following God's commands?

No reasonable person wants a war least of all a christian and to risk your life to save others I believe falls under “no greater love has any man then to lay down his life”

Quote

Yes, a lot of people try to make this scripture apply to killing other people. Jesus sacrificed his life for us. Seeking Truth, if you have the opportunity to step in front of a bullet to save your brother, then that is love. But to take a gun in hand and kill people while trying to save other people and perhaps your very brother who is under the belief that he was born in the right country, the good one, then that seems to be the opposite of stepping front of the bullet, and hence, the opposite of love.

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. I would not start a war as far as it depends on me, but defending the defenseless is different.

Quote

You keep speaking about defending the defenceless. To me, it seems war is seldom about that. Are the defenceless ones these days the ones who live in countries that have oil? Because to defend them is to find yourself fighting against Cubes. Which are the defenceless countries? Canada has an almost non-existent military, compared to other countries. Where are you from Seeking truth?

“So it is you who decides if it is a just war?”

More or less yes. Are we incapable of making judgments? And it also follows that if Christians are only fighting to defend themselves or others and abstaining from aggression then you don't have brother killing brother.

Quote

OK, so what you are suggesting is that the brother in the good country, the “right” one would fight, but the one who finds himself in the “wrong” country, the bad one, would abstain from fighting. Wars are seldom black and white. If you live in the U.S, the other side is the bad side. If you are on the other side, and see what your news doesn't allow you to see, the U.S. is Satan, or at least, considered so by many.

“I believe defending yourself personally if someone on the street attacks you is far different from deciding to pick up a gun and engage in your countries war.”

How so if both are for defense?

In one of these scenarios, you are actively supportin the ruler of the world and the wars he wages.

Seeking Truth, just when did it become Ok for Christians to be a part of the world?
The answer: The late second century. A lot of things became “ok” around that time.

[david]

Quote

David, you are mixing defense/protection with vengeance and hatred. The motives are not the same. Yesterday, I watched in part the Frontline documentary on Rwanda again. It was definitely a dark hour orchestrated by the power of darkness. On this one occasion, the aggressors stopped a red cross vehicle in transit and killed six of the injured as they had been in the habit of doing. I don't know whether they stopped at six because that was all that were on board, or that the bad guys were apprehended somehow… on another occasion, it was reported that the attackers were literally mobbing vehicles to attack those who were attempting to escape. Some had to do all they could to shove them off. Having no weapons, they used their legs to repel their attackers and keep the occupants of the vehicles safe… Someone might have had a gun and the required courage and so fire on the attackers to leave them alone to ride out to safety… would you call that vengeance or something done out of hatred? I don't see Jesus judging such a scenario as unrighteousness.

If you suddenly find yourself in a country at war and have to flee, and have to kick someone off of your vehicle to get away….this is different than taking an active role in killing your hutu or tutsi brothers.
I find this situation remarkable. They were a single group, split up because of their faces, or size of their noses or whatever–to form two groups. And then, later, the killing began. You were on which ever side based on your face.
Jehovah's Witnesses living there were of course neutral and would rather die than kill someone in war, so they were not responsible for killing people because of the destinctions of their faces.

Quote

Your view is that Jesus says love your enemy so let's stand by and let evil ran its course because we have not received a “thus saith the Lord,” and there is a day of the Lord coming, and Jesus says “love one another…” I think he gave us more responsibility than that, i.e. within the scope to love others as we love ourselves.

So if you were there, let's say you were a Hutu. What would you have done?
Or if you were a Tutsi, what would you have done?

Here's a thought:
Image you are a Jew.
When you see the Roman armies coming, and surround Jerusalem, WHAT DO YOU DO? Do you defend your city? What did Jesus say:
LUKE 21:20-21
““Then let those in Ju·de´a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her;”
I don't know. Maybe this is one of the scriptures that lead the early Christians to believe that it was wrong to engage in warefare.

Quote

I love myself, therefore I would not purposely harm myself. And yet, if I have a wound that is spreading, I might have to seemingly harm myself in the process of containing that wound. I may have to have surgery and cut off some parts of my body to save the greater part. There was the courageous mountain climber who pinned between a rock and a hard place, actually cut off his own arm in order to preserve his enitre life! I seem to remember some Jesus commandments along those lines and I thought “wow!” It all depends on what is at stake.

Good thought. Perhaps one should cut their own arms off if they are wanting to go to war and kill people for the government.

Quote

I am saying that it is rather unrighteous to do nothing when one could.

I agree. If you have the power to save someone. If you are a doctor walking down the street and someone falls to the ground, you would be bloodguilty if you did not try to help him. Knowledge brings responsibility. A doctor walking down the street would be more responsible than a plumber because he has the knowledge and should know what to do.
What is a Christians specialty, his area of knowledge? Killing?
2 CORINTHIANS 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.”

Quote

By the grace of God, you needn't ever have to worry about me taking up arms against you or anybody else as I desire no harm towards anyone.

I realize you desire no harm to anyone. Yet, you defend the right to harm people for your country.

[Cubes]

Quote

So if you were there, let's say you were a Hutu.  What would you have done? Or if you were a Tutsi, what would you have done? Here's a thought: Image you are a Jew. When you see the Roman armies coming, and surround Jerusalem, WHAT DO YOU DO?  Do you defend your city?  What did Jesus say: LUKE 21:20-21 ““Then let those in Ju·de´a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her;” I don't know.  Maybe this is one of the scriptures that lead the early Christians to believe that it was wrong to engage in warefare.

Sure IF you can flee, that would be the best option… Moses simply wanted to leave Egypt with Israel at God's command.  At a certain point Pharoah said Moses and the guys could go and worship YHWH and return.   Here's what Moses said (a consideration which you leave out of your partial counsel and treatment of the word on this topic, as I have enjoyed many of your insightful posts):

Exd 10:9 And Moses said, We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we [must hold] a feast unto the LORD.

Jesus said flee because it would seem that with advance warning, that would be the safest outcome to get out of harm's way.  But what of these…”Matthew 24:19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation,…”

If your pregnant wife, young ones and say a bunch of little orphans, the infirm who depended on you were unable to make the winter flight and you see some crazed, blood-thirsty individual approaching seeking you out with obvious intent to harm, and God reveals an opportunity to you whereby you may by NECESSITY have to kill that assailant… say you were on a cliff and he is coming below and all it would take would be for you to roll A STONE (albeit a large stone!) onto that person, and thereby flee with the people in safety, WHAT would you do?  Would you stand there praying or saying that “Jesus says to 'love thy enemy… Vengeance is mine says the Lord…there's a day coming for the Lion of Judah…etc'” and so do nothing?  Shall the Lord not require it if you did  nothing (given opportunity to defend)?  

At such a time, and in such a scenario, I don't believe that your intent is to avenge, hate or fight for any government ….  After all if the guy was to turn round and leave, you are not going to chase him down in anger and demand justice.  You'd breathe a thankful sigh of relief and be on your way.  You are just trying to live and let live.  And it is not just your life which is at stake but those of the others.  To PERMIT yourselves to be killed then would not be for the glory of God or for the name of Christ…

It may well be that you would not succeed trying and so the entire party including yourself perish bodily… but at least you could try!!

You want me to believe that Jesus says we should do nothing in such a situation and I say, not.  The people would have to flee because Jesus is saying that the wickedness would be overwhelming, such that it would engulf as the hour of Satan would have come.  That doesn't mean that one is banned from putting up a defense, however futile.

Quote

Good thought.  Perhaps one should cut their own arms off if they are wanting to go to war and kill people for the government.

I do not advocate for war but do recognize that there are times when by necessity, others may have to defend themselves and rightly so!  

Love thy neighbor and love thy enemy… in the scenario above it would definitely be unloving to your neighbors to standby and watch them be slaughtered, IF you could assist and so avoid harm coming to them.  Jesus says one cannot serve two masters, you'd either at some point have to offend your neighbor or the enemy. Responsibility would be first to your brother or neighbor. [How does one love God whom he has not seen while hating his brother whom he sees? And also, firstly Jesus was sent to the house of Israel…].  And I can't recall any verse that says “let them and their young and old, with their sons and daughters and all who seek shelter with them lay down and die at the sight of the enemy.”  

Quote

…you defend the right to harm people for your country.

Actually not.  I merely recognize that peace loving humans from all walks of life and nations may unfortunately be put in positions they do not wish to be found in and so out of necessity defend themselves.  I do not prefer one race or nationality to another as we are all the handiwork of God's and beautiful in our various forms, shades, and hues.

[david]

Nick's words:
[/QUOTE] If If If. Now is hard enough without all the ifs men imagine.

Quote

Just kidding. The motto of war: Kill or be killed. Shoot first, don't ask questions. Kill. I find your scenerio a little different than actively seeking people out to kill because they live in a different country.

and God reveals an opportunity to you whereby you may by NECESSITY have to kill that assailant.

Quote

If God revealed it, it would have to be in a way that I was extremely certain it was God who was doing the revealing. I have a question that is a little off topic. It is a paradox I read. You are standing next to the train switch and a train is on the tracks heading for what appears to be 10 children playing on the tracks. Apparently, they are all deaf and facing the opposite direction, because they don't see the train coming. You see it. And you see the switch. YOu also see that if you switch it to the other track, there is one child, on that track. You only have 3 seconds to decide. Right now, if you do nothing, 10 children would die. If you act, you will effectively be killing a child. If you refrain from acting, 10 children will die. Murder is of course wrong. And by throwing the switch, you will be guilty of murder, killing someone's child. What do you do? There is no lesson and this isn't a part of this discussion. It's just a paradox I read a while ago. But based on your previous comments, I'm guessing you will be killing the child, and saving the ten.

If If If. Now is hard enough without all the ifs men imagine.

Ya, in this case, I agree, this “if” is highly unlikely. But other “if's” involving war, and killing or obeying the government if it commands you to break God's law–not so unlikely.

[david]

ok, all the quotes above are where they should not be.

[Cubes]

Quote (david @ May 05 2006,03:41)

If God revealed it, it would have to be in a way that I was extremely certain it was God who was doing the revealing.   I have a question that is a little off topic.  It is a paradox I read. You are standing next to the train switch and a train is on the tracks heading for what appears to be 10 children playing on the tracks.  Apparently, they are all deaf and facing the opposite direction, because they don't see the train coming.  You see it.  And you see the switch.  YOu also see that if you switch it to the other track, there is one child, on that track.  You only have 3 seconds to decide.  Right now, if you do nothing, 10 children would die.  If you act, you will effectively be killing a child.  If you refrain from acting, 10 children will die.  Murder is of course wrong.  And by throwing the switch, you will be guilty of murder, killing someone's child.  What do you do? There is no lesson and this isn't a part of this discussion.  It's just a paradox I read a while ago.  But based on your previous comments, I'm guessing you will be killing the child, and saving the ten.

Hi David:

You see, in my view, if you refrain from acting, you are still guilty. It'd take a cool calculated mindset of indifference to do nothing.

You could try other options by attempting to forcefully drive either the one child or the deaf children off the track (if there is reasonable time). You and some children may die in the attempt.

You do not count any life as less worthy but the decision to grieve 20 parents vs 2 or so would come into play. It is still hard because the one child may be all that there is to his/her parents (like parable of the Ewe that the Prophet Nathan gave to King David), but I would have to make the switch and hope that as Jesus died to save many, so too would that one child save 10 and hope that God understands that the decision was not born out of an evil heart but one of love. Not that I take matters into my own hands but that I have a responsibility to act by his own will and judgments.

As for the IFs, I am afraid the atrocities of life are more horrible than can be imagined… the situations that people often times find themselves in.

[Sammo]

Hi everyone

FWIW, I agree with David on this. I did a talk at my church on this last year; if anyone's interested my notes are online here: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~stalexan/Files/Bible_and_war.ppt

God bless
Sam

[malcolm ferris]

Would love to look at those notes Sam but I don't have Power Point.

[Sammo]

Oh – maybe this? http://www.massey.ac.nz/~stalexan/Files/Bible_and_war.htm

[NickHassan]

Hi Sammo,
Should all resign from the army?
Can no man serve Christ in the Military?
How do you feel about feeding the soldiers and tending their wounds?

[Sammo]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,05:01)

Hi Sammo, Should all resign from the army? Can no man serve Christ in the Military? How do you feel about feeding the soldiers and tending their wounds?

Hi Nick

If a soldier has pledged to be non-violent, then he's either about to be killed like a sitting duck by his enemies, or imprisoned (and once upon a time, shot) by his own army. Neither of those are very appealing, so I'd definitely recommend resigning if possible – but ultimately that will be up to the individual.

People can serve Christ in the military so long as they obey his teaching, which includes non-violence. But that's going to lead to either of the two scenarios above.

Even non-combatant roles (like cooks and medics) involve pledging allegiance to your country – I couldn't honestly do that when I've pledged allegiance to Christ. After all, we're supposed to be “strangers and pilgrims”.

What do you think?

[david]

I agree

[david]

Quote

Even non-combatant roles (like cooks and medics) involve pledging allegiance to your country – I couldn't honestly do that when I've pledged allegiance to Christ. After all, we're supposed to be “strangers and pilgrims”.

Sammo, I really don't understand them. It seems they are continually saying that they would rather make their government happy than God.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Sammo @ May 05 2006,05:22)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,05:01) Hi Sammo, Should all resign from the army? Can no man serve Christ in the Military? How do you feel about feeding the soldiers and tending their wounds? Hi Nick If a soldier has pledged to be non-violent, then he's either about to be killed like a sitting duck by his enemies, or imprisoned (and once upon a time, shot) by his own army. Neither of those are very appealing, so I'd definitely recommend resigning if possible – but ultimately that will be up to the individual. People can serve Christ in the military so long as they obey his teaching, which includes non-violence. But that's going to lead to either of the two scenarios above. Even non-combatant roles (like cooks and medics) involve pledging allegiance to your country – I couldn't honestly do that when I've pledged allegiance to Christ. After all, we're supposed to be “strangers and pilgrims”. What do you think?

Hi Sammo,
Logic is of some use in these matters but it is not our true and ultimate guide is it?
Surely the principle that shold be used with those in the military is that of 1Cor 7.20
” Each man must remain in the condition in which he was called”
Why?
Because Jesus is Lord and the Shepherd of his sheep and as they submit to his voice they will stay or move when and where he advises.

That is what being our Lord means.

We can put obstacles in God's way by presuming His will or listening to the voice of strangers, rather than awaiting it.

That is because His answer for different individuals may be different-for now- and he may have work for us to do where we are now before He makes changes.

[david]

Quote

Because Jesus is Lord and the Shepherd of his sheep and as they submit to his voice they will stay or move when and where he advises.

Remember when Satan “tempted” Jesus by offering him all the kingdoms (governments) of the world? Jesus didn't deny that these were Satan's to give. And what tempation would it have been if they weren't Satan's to give? Satan is called the “ruler of the world.”

So, when a government says: 'I would like you to be a soldier and kill for us,' is it Christ that is saying this, through the government? Or is Satan the one resposnible for these kingdoms?
Remember, soon, Jehovah is going to crush and put an end to these human kingdoms. (dan 2:44)
The governments serve a purpose. But they are not the ultimate authority.
God is.
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3
“But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.”

[david]

PSALM 2:2
“The kings of earth take their stand And high officials themselves have massed together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one,”

Whose side are you on–If God says one thing and the government the opposite?

[NickHassan]

Hi david,
Following you would not be wise would it?

[Cubes]

Quote (Cubes @ May 05 2006,04:00)

Quote (david @ May 05 2006,03:41) If God revealed it, it would have to be in a way that I was extremely certain it was God who was doing the revealing.   I have a question that is a little off topic.  It is a paradox I read. You are standing next to the train switch and a train is on the tracks heading for what appears to be 10 children playing on the tracks.  Apparently, they are all deaf and facing the opposite direction, because they don't see the train coming.  You see it.  And you see the switch.  YOu also see that if you switch it to the other track, there is one child, on that track.  You only have 3 seconds to decide.  Right now, if you do nothing, 10 children would die.  If you act, you will effectively be killing a child.  If you refrain from acting, 10 children will die.  Murder is of course wrong.  And by throwing the switch, you will be guilty of murder, killing someone's child.  What do you do? There is no lesson and this isn't a part of this discussion.  It's just a paradox I read a while ago.  But based on your previous comments, I'm guessing you will be killing the child, and saving the ten. Hi David: You see, in my view, if you refrain from acting, you are still guilty.  It'd take a cool calculated mindset of indifference to do nothing.   You could try other options by attempting to forcefully drive either the one child or the deaf children off the track (if there is reasonable time).  You and some children may die in the attempt. You do not count any life as less worthy but the decision to grieve 20 parents vs 2 or so would come into play.  It is still hard because the one child may be all that there is to his/her parents (like parable of the Ewe that the Prophet Nathan gave to King David), but I would have to make the switch and hope that as Jesus died to save many, so too would that one child save 10 and hope that God understands that the decision was not born out of an evil heart but one of love.  Not that I take matters into my own hands but that I have a responsibility to act by his own will and judgments. As for the IFs, I am afraid the atrocities of life are more horrible than can be imagined… the situations that people often times find themselves in.

Hi David:

I was thinking about this as I went to bed last night and couldn't believe how remarkably like the gospel it was:

1.  Your position is to not act, thus seemingly freeing yourself of responsibility.  NOT.

2.  Turning it up a couple notches:  How about the one child on the track happens to be your own?

3.  God acted.  John 3:16 shows that my hypothetical judgment and action was the right one.  

[Cubes]

So again, what use have the disciples with a sword?  Was it not Jesus himself who asked them to buy swords?

Luke 22:35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be *accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end.”
38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.”

[david]

Quote

1. Your position is to not act, thus seemingly freeing yourself of responsibility. NOT.

I didn't say my position in the highly unlikely train scenario was to not act. If I only had a second to decide, I feel I would probably act, unless frozen in shock. I just bring up this scenario which is in a paradox book because it seems to have parallel logic and consequences involved. And it's an interesting paradox.
Taken a little further, the book speaks of a physician (let's say Nick) in charge of the translpant division at a big hospital. Ten children are under his care. All of them are dying from various organ failures, and all of them can be saved only by organ transplants. One needs a heart translplant, two need kidney transplants, three need leiver transplants, and four need lung tranpslants. None of these organs is abailable, and none will become abailable until after they have died. All Nick needs is one healthy dead body, out of which he can extract a heart, kidnesy, and the liver and lungs (which can be cut up into picest to provide all the tranpslant marerial needed to save the lives of his partients.) (This of course is science fiction for many reasons. But ignore that.) Nick glances out the window and notices a healthy looking little girl the same size as his patients. Nick runs outside, grabs the girl, cuts her up, performs the transplants and saves the ten kids.
Is this case any different from the train? What if anything is the difference?

Quote

PSALM 2:2 “The kings of earth take their stand And high officials themselves have massed together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one,” Whose side are you on–If God says one thing and the government the opposite?

Quote

Hi david, Following you would not be wise would it?

If you look closer Nick, I am not one of the choices. Don't follow me. I would suggest following God. Here are you choices: The kings of the earth, and Jehovah and his annointed one (Christ).
Does not this scripture NICK suggest that following the governements is not always the right thing to do? Follow God Nick. Follow God.

Hey Cubes:

Quote

So again, what use have the disciples with a sword? Was it not Jesus himself who asked them to buy swords? Luke 22:35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” 36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be *accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end.” 38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

I think this scripture deserves a thread of it's own. Two swords. “It IS ENOUGH.” Enough for what? Enough to defend and save Jesus? Clearly Jesus didn't want this. It was just enough to teach his disciples a lesson. The lesson is very clear:
MATTHEW. 26:52
“Jesus said to him: ‘Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.’
Jesus desired to have a sword available among his followers on that night in order to demonstrate clearly that, though they would come into circumstances that could easily provoke armed resistance, he did not intend to resort to the sword but would give himself up voluntarily in harmony with God’s will.
Certainly, Peter’s sword and the other one at hand would have availed little against such a large group of armed men, and by trying to use them, they would undoubtedly have ‘perished by the sword.’ (Mt 26:47) More important, such attempted delivery of Jesus would have failed, being completely contrary to Jehovah God’s purpose. (Mt 26:53, 54)
The lesson Jesus was trying to teach you Cubes is simply stated:
‘Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.’

THE EARLY CHRISTIANS UNDERSTOOD THIS. The ones who personally knew Jesus. The ones that came after them. The ones that lived into near the end of the next century–all refused to engage in military action.

2 TIMOTHY 4:3
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled;”

ACTS 20:29-30
“I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”

How can you not see that the taking up of arms (which the early Christians refused to do) was part of that apostasy fortold by Jesus and the apostles?

[Author]

Posts