The violence debate

[candle glow]

God created all nations. God created all authority. If it is the will of a sovereign nation to go to war, then they do so under the auspices of God and are subject to His will.

I'm sure I can find many "sovereign nations" which went to war, and which you would feel embarrassed to be supporting if you would only stop knee-jerking and think about what you are saying.

In an effort to prove yourself right, you've just justified every war in history, and you've used God to do it. Congratulations. Say hello to hitler for me.

 

[Blessedj01]

I'm sure I can find many "sovereign nations" which went to war, and which you would feel embarrassed to be supporting if you would only stop knee-jerking and think about what you are saying.

In an effort to prove yourself right, you've just justified every war in history, and you've used God to do it. Congratulations. Say hello to hitler for me.

I'm not justifying EVERYTHING. Don't be ridiculous, we aren't debating Hitler. You're not the person to judge, candle_glow. There are many sides to the current conflicts in the world today. Either way, Christians are not to be found "guilty" and deserving of murder just because they pay taxes that are partly used to fund military projects.

Oh and stop revealing your bias by automatically assuming that all Western overseas military action is unjust.

 

[Hospes]

He's [Paul] says there is no power but of God, but experience tells us that worldly rulers (and even Godly leaders) are not perfect and really CAN and DO exercise authority outside of what Jesus asked us to do as Christians.

Granted, but are civil governments called by God to follow the same dictates given those whom Jesus has called to follow him, i.e. the Church?

Paul explains that these "rulers" are there to encourage us to do good works. But what happens when the rulers ask us to do evil works instead? Does Paul's advice here still stand?

Yes, the authority of this scripture still stands. To be clearer, I believe we are to submit to civil authorities up to the point our submission does not violate our submission to our Lord. Defining that point is a matter of conscience. And when our conscience leads us to disobey the civil authority, we are to submit to the penalty to which the civil authority subjects us. Thus, we may be called to glorify God by suffering for him at the hands of the civil authorities that he has set in place.

So, when we talk about governments creating military institutions and then using those institutions to participate in war, is that really coming from God, as Paul assumes in his advice?

In short, yes. Case in point: when the most horrendous evil of all time was carried out by the Roman and Jewish authorities, it was "coming from God", i.e. he used the civil authorities to carry out his will for something even worse than war.

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all."

BTW, am I right in thinking your question implies Paul's letter is not scripture, i.e. it is not "God breathed?"

 

[candle glow]

I'm not justifying EVERYTHING

God created all nations. God created all authority. If it is the will of a sovereign nation to go to war, then they do so under the auspices of God and are subject to His will.

All nations. All authority. All means all, blessed. I'm not judging you. I'm looking at your words and believing you actually mean what you say. I guess I got that wrong, too, eh?

Either way, Christians are not to be found "guilty" and deserving of murder

I never said anyone deserved to be murdered. I would challenge you to prove your accusation, but I know you won't because you can't. I also won't bother to ask you to apologize for falsely accusing me of something so nasty because you've done this several times now and I've rebuked you several times now, but it just keeps happening.

just because they pay taxes that are partly used to fund military projects.

Live by the sword die by the sword, right? The point I was making is that, if you help someone to buy guns, which they then go and use to kill people, how can you possibly expect the people who are being killed to distinguish between the gunmen and the financiers?

Is that a standard you yourself would uphold if the people who financed al-queda claimed they were not responsible because they did not do the actual killing?

Can you see the HUGE hole in your reasoning? This is not me trying to "win" or "judge" you or insult the dead or whatever. This is a valid point, being brought up for discussion.

 

[candle glow]

Granted, but are civil governments called by God to follow the same dictates given those whom Jesus has called to follow him, i.e. the Church?

Two issues. I believe there is a difference between a government which is "called" by God and a government which God allows to exists. God allows all kinds of evil in the world; it doesn't mean he calls for it to happen.

Second, we are all called to follow the "dictates" of God. Governments are not an exception.

Yes, the authority of this scripture still stands.

I didn't ask if it "still" stands. I asked if it stands regardless of the morals being implemented by the government in question.

To be clearer, I believe we are to submit to civil authorities up to the point our submission does not violate our submission to our Lord. Defining that point is a matter of conscience. And when our conscience leads us to disobey the civil authority, we are to submit to the penalty to which the civil authority subjects us. Thus, we may be called to glorify God by suffering for him at the hands of the civil authorities that he has set in place.

I very much agree. Thank you for making this point, hospes.

In short, yes. Case in point: when the most horrendous evil of all time was carried out by the Roman and Jewish authorities, it was "coming from God", i.e. he used the civil authorities to carry out his will for something even worse than war.

I strongly disagree. The context of this is that God creates military institutions to carry out his will on various governments, countries throughout the world.

God may use various militaries to punish or fight against others, but I don't believe he wants people to create these weapons of war, even though he may use them for his purpose at times.

The standard is Jesus' teachings. The mandate to the world is to follow his teachings. But, God is a super duper genius. Just because he is able to work around those who choose NOT to follow Jesus' teachings does NOT equate to his support of them.

BTW, am I right in thinking your question implies Paul's letter is not scripture, i.e. it is not "God breathed?"

If you want to create a thread devoted to "the Bible is the word of God, or not?" then I'll be very happy to go into details about my beliefs on that topic. Just let me know...

 

[SamsoniteBaggage]

Christian police and military should disarm, as Peter did.

As for maintaining law and order, non-lethal weapons should be relied on.

 

[Hospes]

Two issues. I believe there is a difference between a government which is "called" by God and a government which God allows to exists. God allows all kinds of evil in the world; it doesn't mean he calls for it to happen.

So would you describe the evil committed by the government against Jesus something that God did not call to happen? If so, I think there are a number of OT prophets that would disagree.

Second, we are all called to follow the "dictates" of God. Governments are not an exception.

So the government is to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them oto observe all that I have commanded you.”
And when Jesus said “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”, he was also instructing governments?
And if governments are to follow all of Jesus' instructions - not to mention the apostles' instructions - are you advocating an evangelical Christian theocracy? You and Constantine...

I didn't ask if it "still" stands. I asked if it stands regardless of the morals being implemented by the government in question.

I'm not quite sure of the difference.

I wrote:

In short, yes. Case in point: when the most horrendous evil of all time was carried out by the Roman and Jewish authorities, it was "coming from God", i.e. he used the civil authorities to carry out his will for something even worse than war.​

You answered:

"I strongly disagree."​

So you strongly disagree with Jesus when he tells Pilate "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above?"

If you want to create a thread devoted to "the Bible is the word of God, or not?" then I'll be very happy to go into details about my beliefs on that topic. Just let me know...

That answers my question, maybe in an evasive way, but nonetheless it answers my question.

 

[Blessedj01]

All nations. All authority. All means all, blessed. I'm not judging you. I'm looking at your words and believing you actually mean what you say. I guess I got that wrong, too, eh?

You just twist words around and play games, candle_glow. You're trying to say that all militaries, all taxes contributing to militaries and all Christians paying taxes that contribute to militaries, are wrong, automatically make us guilty and should make us subject to random acts of murder from overseas.

You are totally wrong. You are trying to usurp the God whom has given all authority, it's authority! Then you twist this scripture into your own biased argument by saying that Christians who are humble and obedient are supporting evil!

I never said anyone deserved to be murdered. I would challenge you to prove your accusation, but I know you won't because you can't. I also won't bother to ask you to apologize for falsely accusing me of something so nasty because you've done this several times now and I've rebuked you several times now, but it just keeps happening.

Actually, you did. A sample of your quotes:

"For example, in a previous post I suggested that the victims of 9/11 may not have been as innocent as America would like the world to believe..."

"...Did they pay taxes supporting a military agenda which impacted on the lives of the people who carried out the attack?"

Live by the sword die by the sword, right? The point I was making is that, if you help someone to buy guns, which they then go and use to kill people, how can you possibly expect the people who are being killed to distinguish between the gunmen and the financiers?

Having a military protecting your nation is not the same as "living by the sword."

Is that a standard you yourself would uphold if the people who financed al-queda claimed they were not responsible because they did not do the actual killing?

For starters, al-qaeda is not even a country or recognized state that can be held accountable to it's action. You're just trying to further distort the debate and argue in circles about things that shouldn't worry ordinary Christians. Stop guilt-mongering.

Can you see the HUGE hole in your reasoning? This is not me trying to "win" or "judge" you or insult the dead or whatever. This is a valid point, being brought up for discussion.

This is not a valid point. It's your obvious anti-American bias. Why don't you just come right out and say you're Anti-American and anti-Coalition?

Why don't you practice what you just preach and stop paying taxes. Don't try to extend your religiosity and guilt to the rest of us.

You won't get any further replies from me as I'm honestly done with this ridiculous nonsense. The only way I can show you love is by not encouraging you to argue about it.

 

[candle glow]

Actually, you did. A sample of your quotes:

"For example, in a previous post I suggested that the victims of 9/11 may not have been as innocent as America would like the world to believe..."

"...Did they pay taxes supporting a military agenda which impacted on the lives of the people who carried out the attack?"

Nope, nothing about murder or blame here. Just an honest examination of the situation.

If you get stung by a hornet and ask why did it happen, I see no problem with saying something like "well if you poke the nest with a stick that's probably what will happen".

For starters, al-qaeda is not even a country or recognized state that can be held accountable to it's action.

Good luck explaining to al-queda that they don't have the same rights as you to kill because you don't recognize them an a proper "authority". Let us know how it works out for you.

So the government is to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them oto observe all that I have commanded you.”

Governments are made up of individual people. These people most definitely should follow Jesus. If they choose not to on the basis that they are "the government" that is up to them.

It almost sounds like you are saying that being in government exempts people from following Jesus, or that it is ridiculous to expect government employees to follow the teachings of Jesus. I'm not saying that's how it is, but only that it sounds like that to me.

are you advocating an evangelical Christian theocracy? You and Constantine...

I suggest people start the kind of government that Jesus started.

So you strongly disagree with Jesus when he tells Pilate "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above?"

There is no need for you to put words in my mouth. If you don't understand something I say, feel free to ask for clarification.

I can understand how it looks like God planned the evil against Jesus. Because God is a genius he is able to make plans which take into account everyone's feelings, desires, mistakes, etc and plan around those things.

He is able to use his knowledge of how people will behave and what mistakes they will make to work around them and make plans to teach us what he wants to teach us.

So when we talk about God "calling pilate to crucify Jesus" it's not really God causing pilot to do so, but rather that God knew what was in Pilots heart and used that to illustrate a lesson about sacrifice and forgiveness.

Something similar happens with governments and militaries.

That answers my question, maybe in an evasive way, but nonetheless it answers my question.

Yeah right back at you. You've also answered heaps of my questions too, without me even needing to hear your answers or listen to your reasons. Doing it this way is so much easier, isn't it?

 

[Blessedj01]

You won't get any further replies from me as I'm honestly done with this ridiculous nonsense. The only way I can show you love is by not encouraging you to argue about it.

I mean it candle.

 

[Hospes]

Governments are made up of individual people. These people most definitely should follow Jesus. If they choose not to on the basis that they are "the government" that is up to them.

I am totally baffled:

1) You wrote governments are not exempted from following the dictates of God.
2) I quote one of the dictates Jesus gave us, trying to make the obvious point that what Jesus said was not a command meant for civil governments.
3) You, instead of recognizing my point, reply with some unrelated and uncontested statement about government being made up of individuals and individuals being called to follow Jesus.​

It almost sounds like you are saying that being in government exempts people from following Jesus, or that it is ridiculous to expect government employees to follow the teachings of Jesus. I'm not saying that's how it is, but only that it sounds like that to me.

I have no idea how you see any such thing in what I have written. Again, I'm baffled.

I suggest people start the kind of government that Jesus started.

Jesus started the Church, his body, his bride. It will outlive all governments and will one day reign with him. Civil government has as much to do with Jesus' bride as a motel swimming pool has to do with the ocean.

So when we talk about God "calling pilate to crucify Jesus" it's not really God causing pilot to do so, but rather that God knew what was in Pilots heart and used that to illustrate a lesson about sacrifice and forgiveness.

Did you miss the part about Jesus telling Pilate that the only reason that Pilate had any authority was because God had given it to him. Or the part in Isaiah where it describes Jesus as "smitten by God" and about Jesus: "It was the will of the LORD to crush him"? (BTW, to describe the incredibly glorious and powerful salvation the Jesus brought to those that trust in him as illustrating a lesson on sacrifice and forgiveness strikes me as immensely inadequate.)

 

[candle glow]

3) You, instead of recognizing my point, reply with some unrelated and uncontested statement about government being made up of individuals and individuals being called to follow Jesus.

If I said "the church should follow the teachings of Jesus" how do you see that happening in everyday practical life? Who does it? The building? The denomination? Or the people who make up the church? See, it's not so hard.

Jesus started the Church, his body, his bride. It will outlive all governments and will one day reign with him. Civil government has as much to do with Jesus' bride as a motel swimming pool has to do with the ocean.

I see, so the implementation of system governments was not part of what Jesus came to teach. So, why do we have them?

Did you miss the part about Jesus telling Pilate that the only reason that Pilate had any authority was because God had given it to him. Or the part in Isaiah where it describes Jesus as "smitten by God" and about Jesus: "It was the will of the LORD to crush him"?

No, I don't think I missed it. Allowing something to happen, or exist, is not the same thing as condoning or promoting it's existence. That is how the basic paradox of "if God is a God of love and he created everything, then where did evil come from"?

Obviously he created it, otherwise we must say some other intelligence created something besides what God created.

Evil came about as a result of certain freedoms God allowed to his creations. It was not his will, but when we say "his will" it's never a black and white situation. "God's will" also includes free will; the sincere, genuine, loving decision making of those who want to follow him.

In order to achieve a genuine result, he MUST allow his creations to also NOT follow him. That is where evil comes into play. But, despite the choices people make not to follow him, God is able to use those bad decisions to teach us WHY it is evil not to follow him.

So, when we talk about governments and adherence to their rules, it should ONLY be in the context of how willing those governments are to express genuine good will for people (i.e. love). Stopping at traffic lights is a good example of government rules we should follow, because there is a good reason for it which does not contradict the values of the Kingdom of Heaven.

(BTW, to describe the incredibly glorious and powerful salvation the Jesus brought to those that trust in him as illustrating a lesson on sacrifice and forgiveness strikes me as immensely inadequate.)

While "glorious" and "powerful" sound nice, those words don't really mean much at all without some practical context.

In the OT people sacrificed animals for their sins. Apparently, in some cases the animals (like a sheep) were meant to be taken into the household, like a pet, so that when the time came to sacrifice, it would hurt not only the animal, but the owners.

In today's Christian society there appears to be very little hurt. It's all about glory, power, joy, salvation, wonder, etc. There are many beautiful ways to describe Jesus' sacrifice for us, and to some extent those descriptions have their place.

But the point of Jesus' death is that sin requires punishment. That is just God's way. The OT folks got it so very wrong. What started as an attempt to teach people real sorrow for what they've done by taking life, they lost the plot and life-taking just became so much other ritualistic jargon for the sake of "the rules".

So God sent his son to die, to impress on people just how serious sin is, and that even he himself was not except from his own rules about sin and punishment. So, while my explanation seemed inadequate to you, it makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Hospes]

Nope, nothing about murder or blame here. Just an honest examination of the situation.

If you get stung by a hornet and ask why did it happen, I see no problem with saying something like "well if you poke the nest with a stick that's probably what will happen".



Good luck explaining to al-queda that they don't have the same rights as you to kill because you don't recognize them an a proper "authority". Let us know how it works out for you.



Governments are made up of individual people. These people most definitely should follow Jesus. If they choose not to on the basis that they are "the government" that is up to them.

It almost sounds like you are saying that being in government exempts people from following Jesus, or that it is ridiculous to expect government employees to follow the teachings of Jesus. I'm not saying that's how it is, but only that it sounds like that to me.



I suggest people start the kind of government that Jesus started.



There is no need for you to put words in my mouth. If you don't understand something I say, feel free to ask for clarification.

I can understand how it looks like God planned the evil against Jesus. Because God is a genius he is able to make plans which take into account everyone's feelings, desires, mistakes, etc and plan around those things.

He is able to use his knowledge of how people will behave and what mistakes they will make to work around them and make plans to teach us what he wants to teach us.

So when we talk about God "calling pilate to crucify Jesus" it's not really God causing pilot to do so, but rather that God knew what was in Pilots heart and used that to illustrate a lesson about sacrifice and forgiveness.

Something similar happens with governments and militaries.



Yeah right back at you. You've also answered heaps of my questions too, without me even needing to hear your answers or listen to your reasons. Doing it this way is so much easier, isn't it?

If I said "the church should follow the teachings of Jesus" how do you see that happening in everyday practical life? Who does it? The building? The denomination? Or the people who make up the church? See, it's not so hard.



I see, so the implementation of system governments was not part of what Jesus came to teach. So, why do we have them?



No, I don't think I missed it. Allowing something to happen, or exist, is not the same thing as condoning or promoting it's existence. That is how the basic paradox of "if God is a God of love and he created everything, then where did evil come from"?

Obviously he created it, otherwise we must say some other intelligence created something besides what God created.

Evil came about as a result of certain freedoms God allowed to his creations. It was not his will, but when we say "his will" it's never a black and white situation. "God's will" also includes free will; the sincere, genuine, loving decision making of those who want to follow him.

In order to achieve a genuine result, he MUST allow his creations to also NOT follow him. That is where evil comes into play. But, despite the choices people make not to follow him, God is able to use those bad decisions to teach us WHY it is evil not to follow him.

So, when we talk about governments and adherence to their rules, it should ONLY be in the context of how willing those governments are to express genuine good will for people (i.e. love). Stopping at traffic lights is a good example of government rules we should follow, because there is a good reason for it which does not contradict the values of the Kingdom of Heaven.




While "glorious" and "powerful" sound nice, those words don't really mean much at all without some practical context.

In the OT people sacrificed animals for their sins. Apparently, in some cases the animals (like a sheep) were meant to be taken into the household, like a pet, so that when the time came to sacrifice, it would hurt not only the animal, but the owners.

In today's Christian society there appears to be very little hurt. It's all about glory, power, joy, salvation, wonder, etc. There are many beautiful ways to describe Jesus' sacrifice for us, and to some extent those descriptions have their place.

But the point of Jesus' death is that sin requires punishment. That is just God's way. The OT folks got it so very wrong. What started as an attempt to teach people real sorrow for what they've done by taking life, they lost the plot and life-taking just became so much other ritualistic jargon for the sake of "the rules".

So God sent his son to die, to impress on people just how serious sin is, and that even he himself was not except from his own rules about sin and punishment. So, while my explanation seemed inadequate to you, it makes a lot of sense to me.

Such a target rich post, but I am tired and am pretty sure my effort at addressing what you've written would prove fruitless. Farewell.

 

[candle glow]

Such a target rich post, but I am tired and am pretty sure my effort at addressing what you've written would prove fruitless. Farewell.

Well, there's probably not many people (me included) who appreciate being a target during what is supposed to be a genuine discussion. It's just too bad you decided to use your swan song as a hit and run.