Null

[Hoping2]

Aside from some narrow options of alternate service to the war, conscription gives no option to refuse to serve entirely.

Thank God He does !

There is no reason a Christian to support establishment of such a situation.

I can't figure out what that means ?

 

[RDKirk]

Thank God He does !

I can't figure out what that means ?

A Christian should not support (e.g., vote for) a government law that would restrict his freedom to exercise his conscience.

 

[o_mlly]

Can New Zealanders not hold opinions on how governments can and cannot act?

Opinions? Of course.

Is it immoral for a private citizen to compel others through the threat of force to fight and kill for them?

? I'm not sure what you mean.

Someone posted in this thread that they were a "sheepdog". I suppose that means at a minimum that they would willingly put themselves in harm's way to protect their immediate family from unjust aggressors. How about their extended family? Maybe also their church community of fellow worshipers? If so then why not their civil community? What principle limits one's obligation to defend others with whom they live and commune from unjust aggression?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Opinions? Of course.

So what's the relevance In me being from New Zealand?

? I'm not sure what you mean.

Someone posted in this thread that they were a "sheepdog". I suppose that means at a minimum that they would willingly put themselves in harm's way to protect their immediate family them from unjust aggressors. How about their extended family? Maybe also their church community of fellow worshipers? If so then why not their civil community? What principle limits one's obligation to defend others with whom they live and commune from unjust aggression?

My question is easily understood. Can a private citizen threaten someone to compel them into fighting on their behalf? Is this moral? You said the government cannot compel us to do immoral actions. So I am testing this statement.

 

[Johan2222]

During the days of the Kings of Israel, the law said; thou shall not kill.

Do you think there was never a time when the king instructed their people to gird on their weapons and go to battle and some did not say;

“I don’t want to do this because it is against the law!”

Romans 13:1-4 KJV
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

If the authority ordained by God compels you to go 1 mile with them, should you not go 2 miles.

Those authorities do not bear the sword personally themselves, but through their subjects and as you are one of them, you are subject to them by the law of God.

God does not change and God ordained many men throughout history to command their men to kill, and as soldiers under authority by divine ordinance they were not guilty of murder, but were simply instrumental in bearing the sword and thereby sending many murderers to God.

Jesus never told soldiers to leave the army. He did tell them not to do violence to other men but bearing the sword lawfully by the ordinance of God’s ordained leaders is not doing violence to anyone, that is simply obedience to the call to mete out the justice of God’s appointed authority.

If bearing the sword was illegal, Christ would have made it plain to every soldier who believed that they should leave the army, but Christ (the Word) ordained it as part of the process of righteousness.

Resisting conscription by the authorities is resisting the power of God (for all authority is of God) and they that resist shall bring damnation upon themselves, for the scripture cannot lie.

 

[RDKirk]

During the days of the Kings of Israel, the law said; thou shall not kill.

Do you think there was never a time when the king instructed their people to gird on their weapons and go to battle and some did not say;

“I don’t want to do this because it is against the law!”

Romans 13:1-4 KJV
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

If the authority ordained by God compels you to go 1 mile with them, should you not go 2 miles.

Those authorities do not bear the sword personally themselves, but through their subjects and as you are one of them, you are subject to them by the law of God.

God does not change and God ordained many men throughout history to command their men to kill, and as soldiers under authority by divine ordinance they were not guilty of murder, but were simply instrumental in bearing the sword and thereby sending many murderers to God.

Jesus never told soldiers to leave the army. He did tell them not to do violence to other men but bearing the sword lawfully by the ordinance of God’s ordained leaders is not doing violence to anyone, that is simply obedience to the call to mete out the justice of God’s appointed authority.

If bearing the sword was illegal, Christ would have made it plain to every soldier who believed that they should leave the army, but Christ (the Word) ordained it as part of the process of righteousness.

Resisting conscription by the authorities is resisting the power of God (for all authority is of God) and they that resist shall bring damnation upon themselves, for the scripture cannot lie.

A Christian should not support (e.g., vote for) a government law that would restrict his freedom to exercise his conscience.

 

[Johan2222]

A Christian should not support (e.g., vote for) a government law that would restrict his freedom to exercise his conscience.

Do you know that the first demo(n)cracy recorded in scripture was the kingdom under Saul.

Saul was chosen by lot, (vote) even though Samuel anointed him.

1 Samuel 10:20-21 RSV
Then Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. [21] He brought the tribe of Benjamin near by its families, and the family of the Matrites was taken by lot; finally he brought the family of the Matrites near man by man, and Saul the son of Kish was taken by lot. But when they sought him, he could not be found.

Not so with David. David was a dictator who was never elected by vote.

Did you ever wonder about that, why so many people have a bee in their bonnet about dictatorships?

Did you ever wonder why the people voted after Samuel had already anointed Saul.

Do you know that a democracy functions on the selection of the one who is most highly esteemed by men?

Luke 16:15 KJV
. . .for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Did you ever wonder why democracy is the most esteemed form of government on Earth?

Hosea 8:4 KJV
They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

Have you ever wondered why a democracy only functions in prosperous societies and then as those societies degrade and become corrupt through democracy, they become lazy and lose their wealth and descend further and further down until the rebellion happens and the democracy turns into a dictatorship?

A Christian should not support (e.g., vote for) a government.

You got that part right and then you added to it and ruined it.

The word commands us to imitate only Paul and Jesus and they would never have voted for anyone, not just because that would be a stumbling block to those who did not agree with them, but for several other reasons revealed in scripture.

Do you know what they are?

 

[RDKirk]

Do you know that the first demo(n)cracy recorded in scripture was the kingdom under Saul.

Saul was chosen by lot, (vote) even though Samuel anointed him.

1 Samuel 10:20-21 RSV
Then Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. [21] He brought the tribe of Benjamin near by its families, and the family of the Matrites was taken by lot; finally he brought the family of the Matrites near man by man, and Saul the son of Kish was taken by lot. But when they sought him, he could not be found.

That's not what "democracy" means. You don't know what a democracy is. And apparently not a republic either.

Not so with David. David was a dictator who was never elected by vote.

Did you ever wonder about that, why so many people have a bee in their bonnet about dictatorships?

Did you ever wonder why the people voted after Samuel had already anointed Saul.

Do you know that a democracy functions on the selection of the one who is most highly esteemed by men?

Luke 16:15 KJV
. . .for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Did you ever wonder why democracy is the most esteemed form of government on Earth?

Have you ever wondered why a democracy only functions in prosperous societies and then as those societies degrade and become corrupt through democracy, they become lazy and lose their wealth and descend further and further down until the rebellion happens and the democracy turns into a dictatorship?

A Christian should not support (e.g., vote for) a government.

You got that part right and then you added to it and ruined it.

The word commands us to imitate only Paul and Jesus and they would never have voted for anyone, not just because that would be a stumbling block to those who did not agree with them, but for several other reasons revealed in scripture.

Do you know what they are?

A Christian should not support (e.g., vote for) a government law that would restrict his freedom to exercise his conscience.

 

[Hoping2]

A Christian should not support (e.g., vote for) a government law that would restrict his freedom to exercise his conscience.

Agreed.

 

[o_mlly]

A Christian should not support (e.g., vote for) a government law that would restrict his freedom to exercise his conscience.

Fair enough. However, conscience is subjective, and it would seem chaos might be a likely outcome. For instance, should a Christian follow the mandates of a law for which he did not vote? For instance, one may think the laws requiring the payment of taxes to support public schools is unconscionable given the present curriculum. May he morally withhold tax payments?

Relating to this thread, in a state that has lawfully passed and is imposing conscription on citizens to wage a just war, may an eligible citizen refuse military service in any capacity to support the defense of his country?

My question is easily understood. Can a private citizen threaten someone to compel them into fighting on their behalf? Is this moral? You said the government cannot compel us to do immoral actions. So I am testing this statement.

Not so easily understood at all. Although often uncharitable, threats, of themselves, cause no direct and tangible harm. And the one threatened need not act upon that threat or withhold acting because threatened. Our martyrs are exemplars of refusal to do evil based on threats.

 

[RDKirk]

Fair enough. However, conscience is subjective, and it would seem chaos might be a likely outcome. For instance, should a Christian follow the mandates of a law for which he did not vote? For instance, one may think the laws requiring the payment of taxes to support public schools is unconscionable given the present curriculum. May he morally withhold tax payments?

You have confused me. I was presuming you were a Christian, in which case you would know the answers to those questions.

 

[o_mlly]

You have confused me. I was presuming you were a Christian, in which case you would know the answers to those questions.

I don't think I am the cause of your confusion.

I know the Christian answer to these questions. The question is: Do you?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not so easily understood at all. Although often uncharitable, threats, of themselves, cause no direct and tangible harm. And the one threatened need not act upon that threat or withhold acting because threatened. Our martyrs are exemplars of refusal to do evil based on threats.

Alright then, what if the person is willing to imprison or kill the person who disobeys them. Is that evil? All this to avoid answering the question. Do you think it's permissible for private citizens to threaten others to get them to do what they want?

 

[o_mlly]

Alright then, what if the person is willing to imprison or kill the person who disobeys them. Is that evil? All this to avoid answering the question. Do you think it's permissible for private citizens to threaten others to get them to do what they want?

The question is too general to answer. Get specific: who, what, when, where, in what manner ... a concrete question.

Is it permissible for parents to threaten their children with punishment if the children disobey the parent's rules? Of course it is.

Is it permissible for you to threaten me if I don't answer your unanswerable question? Nope.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The question is too general to answer. Get specific: who, what, when, where, in what manner ... a concrete question.

Is it permissible for parents to threaten their children with punishment if the children disobey the parent's rules? Of course it is.

Is it permissible for you to threaten me if I don't answer your unanswerable question? Nope.

I understand, you cannot engage in hypotheticals. How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning? I mean it's not like the Mafia ever existed and used violence and threats of intimidation to get them to do what they want. Just like governments do with the power it has to conscript people to fight in it's wars. Your position is that the government cannot do immoral acts, I am asking the question whether it is immoral to force someone to fight for you despite them not wanting to. You are unable to answer this because it is obviously immoral.

 

[o_mlly]

I understand, you cannot engage in hypotheticals. How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning? I mean it's not like the Mafia ever existed and used violence and threats of intimidation to get them to do what they want.

I have no idea what you are trying to post.

Your position is that the government cannot do immoral acts ...

No, that's not my position ... kindly read the posts more carefully.

I am asking the question whether it is immoral to force someone to fight for you despite them not waning to.

That's a different question. So, which is it? "Do you think it's permissible for private citizens to threaten others to get them to do what they want?" or the above.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have no idea what you are trying to post.

I know you have no Idea.

No, that's not my position ... kindly read the posts more carefully.

That's a different question. So. which is it? "Do you think it's permissible for private citizens to threaten others to get them to do what they want?" or the above.

I guess then It is permissible to threaten people to do what you want. Someone can even imprison them and kill them if they refuse to fight for that person. If the government can do it, why can't anyone?

 

[o_mlly]

I know you have no Idea.

I guess then It is permissible to threaten people to do what you want. Someone can even imprison them and kill them if they refuse to fight for that person. If the government can do it, why can't anyone?

Wow? I'm kinda getting now what you may have meant when you asked rhetorically, "How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?" Is the correct answer "querulous"?

See Statement on Registration and Conscription for Military Service for the Catholic position ... and get something to eat ... soon.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Wow? I'm kinda getting now what you may have meant when you asked rhetorically, "How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?" Is the correct answer "querulous"?

See Statement on Registration and Conscription for Military Service for the Catholic position ... and get something to eat ... soon.

You're clearly not engaging. But that's okay. I know hypotheticals aren't your thing but if you were in WW1, would you have supported the conscriptions of young men to die in the trenches? That it was perfectly acceptable for modern states to do this?

 

[RDKirk]

Relating to this thread, in a state that has lawfully passed and is imposing conscription on citizens to wage a just war, may an eligible citizen refuse military service in any capacity to support the defense of his country?

We're not just going to pick me apart. I've stated my position clearly enough long ago in post #20.
If you claim to know the real Christian answer, then state it and let's discuss it.