Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh c'mon. Is it really necessary to "correct" Harry's answer. He gave a good and accurate answer. Your attempt to degrade our military and our "peace officers" (that's is the true title of our police and deputy sheriffs) is not appreciated. BTW I am a former law enforcement officer and member of the military.
Harry3142 said:Jesus said this:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9)
Note that the word used is 'peacemakers', not 'peacekeepers'. It demands action, not subservience, to earn this title. A person can sit in their room, or even hide under their bed, and be called a peacekeeper. But in order to be called a peacemaker, action must be taken for the purpose of either maintaining or restoring peace.
This is why its a title earned most often not by civilians, but by military and law enforcement. If a nation has plans to subdue another nation and enslave their citizenry, only to have those plans be thwarted by the military of that nation's protecting its people from those whose desire was to enslave them, then that military has earned the title of 'peacemakers'. If criminals have plans to use others as if they were nothing more than theirs to do with as their lusts and passions dictate, only to have those plans be thwarted by law enforcement made up of people who have vowed to protect the citizenry against the lusts and passions of criminals, then that law enforcement has earned the title of 'peacemakers'. It is a title that must be earned by a person's actions, rather than by his choosing to be inactive.
Using violence to ensure peace is taking away the point of the action at the start, like telling children not to hit, then saying its ok to kill to prove that killings wrong. It is irrational.
LionofJudahDK said:You are obviously clueless as to the course of human history. Violence has re-established peace so long as human civilization has been around. This is a fact, and not just the magical fairyland fantasy, that pacifists like to exchange reality for.
Not really, if the point is defending the innocent or ensuring that one will be able to come home to care for his family. You are only right if the point of ensuring peace through non-violence is not getting blood on one's hands. That is of course only respectable among the unmarried and childless, who have only themselves to care for & somehow justify looking the other way with indifference when one's neighbor is being victimized. I couldn't bear to live like that, I'd sooner die than be a coward, I will gladly die by the sword if it means I have lived a life protecting the innocent, caring for my neighbor, and providing for my family.Using violence to ensure peace is taking away the point of the action at the start
When parents declare it isn't okay to hit . . . they are making a generalization. If my son witnessed a child being bullied and failed to act, even including hitting if necessary, I would probably punish my son. Fortunately none of my sons are cowards and they have good morals, so they would and have intervened on behalf of peers being bullied. The only time my oldest has been in trouble at school was when he stopped a bully who would not stop violently tormenting a disabled child & had to resort to violence, as his pleas weren't heeded. That has nothing to do with the death penalty (which is what you must mean by killing to prove that killing is wrong) but it stands to reason that a moral man would defend the innocent with his words and failing that with fists and failing that with lethal measures . . . within the constraints of law and circumstance of course.like telling children not to hit, then saying its ok to kill to prove that killings wrong. It is irrational.
I am well aware of history, but it doesn't mean it's right, our ancestors were not perfect and made mistakes too.
George Orwell said:“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.”
LionofJudahDK said:I, on the other hand, think it was right of the Allies to band together to rid Europe of the horrors of nazism.
And I believe that he who stands by and does nothing while people are being butchered and oppressed, are just as guilty as the oppressor and butcher. That's why pacifism is up there with nazism and communism competing for the title of most evil, disgusting, and inhuman ideology ever spawned in satan's mind. Pacifists are enablers of evil.
Jesus was a pacifist.
LionofJudahDK said:Ignorant and ridiculous meme is ignorant and ridiculous.
No, Jesus did not say that no society should ever take up arms. In fact, He Himself commanded Israel to go on quite the extensive conquest in Cana'an.
I don't understand how you could read the Gospels and get anything but a pacifist view from Jesus. He never hurt or killed anyone.
LionofJudahDK said:I don't understand how you can read the entirety of the Bible, and get anything but the idea that war can be just. Especially since God Himself commanded certain wars.
So unless you're out on a "Jesus isn't God!"-errand, you don't have a leg to stand on.
I believe Jesus was the most recent and accurate voice of God.
By degrading the results of their efforts you degrade them. When the enemy surrenders (like after WWII) the headlines and news media scream "PEACE".
In my opinion, No.
C. S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" said:I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
LionofJudahDK said:And there we go - your opinion about the meaning of what Jesus said just became completely irrelevant. You've basically just called the man either a liar or a lunatic. As C. S. Lewis so excellently said:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?