Love Thy Enemy... But to what extent?

[Bollweevil]

It is never stated directly within the Bible, but the lack of condemnation of soldiers throughout the Gospels combined with the numerous wars waged by Israel that were ordered by God says a lot about the matter. Since I'm too lazy to elaborate myself, I'll let this essay explain further (with more detail and Biblical referencing than I could possibly manage anyways; I'm not particularly familiar with the details of Scripture.)

Anyways, when tyrants and forces of evil threaten the world, a nation, or a people, are we supposed to stand aside and allow them to bring the world into an oppressive dictatorship? What if the Christian Franklin Roosevelt had stood aside and allowed Imperial Japan to conquer America, knowing that it would lead to the death of millions and the devastation of American cities? What if the Anglican Winston Churchill had allowed the Nazi and Italian Empires to continue on their warpaths, knowing that it would lead to the fall of Great Britain and the genocide of numerous ethnic groups? It would have led to mass destabilization, the destruction of numerous cultures, and the death of potentially hundreds of millions. Japan, Germany, and Italy would still be totalitarian empires rather than peaceful democracies. Racism and hatred would be societal norms rather than reviled concepts. That sort of world is one that very few would want to see.

Also, read the essay I originally posted. No offense, but it really doesn't seem like you did.

I understand where you are coming from, I really don't know how 12 years ago I came to this belief. I can easily see myself agreeing with you. I want so deeply to defend and protect with violence and death. It took a lot of studying from me to change my mind. My encouragement to you is study Jesus' principles without prejudice; don't bring society, what you've heard before, what any person has said, or you personal desires into your study. God bless you for your diligence for knowledge and you Spirituality.

I scanned through your first essay; however you're right I didn't read the entirety before I commented. I have read both essays now. I have heard every scriptural justification. Let me first say I do not like this principle of Jesus, I don't want to turn the other cheek at times.
FIRST ESSAY
1 Pacifism is harmful
Pacifism implies doing nothing, Jesus did not teach that. He taught no evil of violence. God is speaking to individuals not the worldly kingdom (same as government). How are God's people to act. Yes those examples are terrible yet we live in a world that satan rules and evil is here. God does not put more value on the soul of an "innocent" individual than on Bin Laden therefore who are we to say who dies and who doesn't. There is no responsibility or guilty on us if someone kills innocent people. Nonviolence not pacifism teaches from Jesus other ways to try and protect the innocent.
2. Consistent pacifism would have to eliminate the police, not just the military
Again Jesus' principles apply to individuals not governments. My belief is a Christian not choose one of those professions. In the US police use to not carry guns. Again protection by police can be done without evil or violence.
3. Luke 3:14 allows military service
These men were still under the Old Covenant. Also lack of mentioning leaving the military is not permission for violence. It says nothing either way about their profession.
4. John 18:36 acknowledges the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms
Which takes precedence: God's kingdom or man's kingdom? Jesus does not speak to the right of earthly kingdom to fight, He simply is stating what they do. In no way can you infer He is ok with His children fighting with the earthly kingdom. Again Jesus is speaking to individuals and how they are to live.
5. Romans 13:3-4 grants governments the right to use force to restrain and punish evil
Same argument, same response God speaks to His children not the earthly kingdom. Jesus showed us how to live and that was nonviolently.
6.1 Peter 2:13-4 confirms the teaching of Romans 13:3-4
God's teachings, principles and how we are to live always takes precedence over man's government. China I believe has a law only 1 child per couple. I don't know what their law is if the wife gets pregnant with #2, what if the law stated it must be aborted...........do God's people follow man's government or our Spiritual kingdom (government)?
7. 1 Peter 2:13-4 confirms the teaching of Romans 13:3-4
"Since the Scriptures teach that it is right for a nation to engage in a just war, it follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight in such a war." Jesus' teachings do not say it's right for government to fight he simple states what occurs. 'It follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight...' this is a fallacious argument. It does not give Christians the right if that were the case. 2 separate entities, God's people and earthly government.
8. Church and state must be distinguished
Sorry, this has no weight as an argument.
9. What about turning the other cheek?
The writer of the essay admits in the beginning paragraph that this is his opinion. Matt. 5 and 6 is very clear and plain, let the Bible speak to your heart without prejudice. Regarding the other essay we live as Christians following His teachings. If we use the Old Testament laws then which ones do we follow and which ones don't we follow. Who are we to say what is right or not from the old law.
Mark 9:2-8 Moses and Elijah represented God's teaching to His people through Moses and then through the prophets. The main point is God say of Jesus "listen to Him", Moses and Elijah were gone.

I realize this is complicated and not easy. I use to believe that absolutely I have the right to defend the innocent. I then began studying the Bible with prejudice looking for the scriptures that gave me this justification. After months of study and reluctance to accept, I had to chang my belief. Again, I do not like this teaching of Jesus yet I am committed to following Him.

God bless

 

[Bknight006]

No. You were soliciting interpretations regarding the phrase "Love thy enemy" and I gave mine.

I said nothing personal, and I used my own words based, in part, on The Book of Luke and other concepts that I connect to that.

Maybe I did not understand what you were asking for?

Ah, sorry about that. I completely misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies.