To kill or not to kill that is the question

[TG123]

However deeply felt this statement is it is utterly false. You are talking about collateral damage as murder. Targeting innocents is murder but not collateral damage in a war. That's just sloppy soldering. There must be accountability for that in a civilised and disciplined army but it is not murder. In the same way the friendly fire incidents in various wars in which Americans have killed British soldiers for instance is not murder but careless or sloppy military practice with extreme consequences. Or the various examples in Afghanistan when tribes men have fired in the air at a wedding and have thereby become the target of military airstrikes because this arms fire was mistakenly perceived as aggressive by circling air units. Again not murder but poor intelligence and target checking by the air units and blind stupidity on the part of the Afghans in the current context.

Interesting, but false. Killing innocent people is murder, and it could have been avoided had no war been being waged in the first place. A robber who attacks a bank only meaning to steal but then panicking and shooting a teller would still be accused of murder.

Also your definition fails to allow for just war scenarios when a group of soldiers attacks an enemy position. Just cause one group attacks another does not make them murderers.

My definition fails to allow for a just war scenario because the just war doctrine is a heresy and I don't abide by it.

It is speculation whether this was true of the men under his command or not. Whereas the centurions love of Jews and support of them was common knowledge.ndeed it is more likely that in the case of a man with such understanding of authority that the men under his command were better behaved and more disciplined than you guess. So there was nothing to say there.

Really? Where does the Bible say he loved and supported Jews? Do you have any idea of how the Roman occupiers treated their Jewish subjects?

IJesus did not criticise a soldier because he had no problem with what he did.

That is an assumption you are making.

When it came to a rich young man he had no worries in going straight to the main problem.

We agree.

Fine this is our call on the personal level , it is different when acting with state authority.

So are you saying that you are only a Christian in your personal life, and are willing to set your faith aside when in public?

I can love someone so much I will prevent them from committing any more evils that will be held to their account by ending their lives before it is too late for them.

If they do not believe in Jesus and you kill them, you send them straight to hell. Also, would you apply that same logic with your children or friends?

There are specific incidents where violence was inappropriate and indeed interfered with his mission. That is not a general prohibition on violence. None of Jesus disciples were soldiers and yet they were allowed by Jesus to wear swords is the more interesting point here.

There are no cases where Jesus allowed the use of violence. The one time it was used He rebuked the disciple who did. There are several cases where He told His disciples to not strike back and to love their enemies. There are no instances of anyone in the Book of Acts using violence... except for the enemies of the early church. I think it is pretty clear that we are not allowed to use violence, if we want to be faithful to Him.

Yes, He told His disciples to carry swords. He did not say for what, and it is pretty clear from everything else He said that it wasn't for violence.

You are not a Jew nor living in the Jewish theocracy and the Sabbath requirement and laws of jubillee need to be understood in the light of Christs fulfilment of their meaning. Nonetheless the principle of the Sabbath remains for Christians.

The principle remains but not all the Law's applications of that time.

It is possible to love the people you kill. On Christmas Eve 1914 German and British troops celebrated Christmas together between the trenches. Within a few months these brothers in Christ had mainly been slaughtered at each others hands. One can kill with a degree of sadness for the one who dies and still believe one is doing the right thing as an obedient soldier.

And many soldiers after the war expressed disgust at their leaders who waged it, and believed it was a terrible waste of human life. You cannot kill someone you truly love. Many Christians during the First World War opted for prison rather than fighting. Also, even if the soldiers truly felt Christian love for the people they were killing (which I doubt), they did not turn the other cheek, did they?

Not one jot or letter of the law will pass away...Math 5. Unless you are a Marcionite heretic you cannot simply dismiss the Old Testament like that.

You yourself said that some parts of the law applied only to Jews in that time- like being executed for breaking the Sabbath. Ergo killing in war. I do not dismiss the Old Testament. I realize though that God can and does change what He expects from us. He is God, He can do whatever He wants.

Jesus did not abandon the Law, He revealed it in its true entirety. The Jews in the OT had part of the Law, not all of it. The full Law as revealed by Jesus makes it clear, among other things, that enemies are to be loved and that we are to turn the other cheek.

By embracing the Just War theory, you reject the fullness of the Law that He revealed. By doing so, you obey the words of man and disobey the Word of God.

There is continuity and discontinuity and you have not properly reckoned with the continuity.

No my friend, it is you who have not done so.

How can you possibly argue that there are no authorities with the God given power of the sword today empirically? How could you possibly support the disappearance of such authorities as this from scripture?

Name me a government today that only uses the sword to fight evildoers and that does not harm the innocent.
BTW if Romans 13 applies to governments today then the war against the Taleban and Hitler's Germany was wrong because they too were governments. Also, that must mean that the Nuremburg tribunals too were wrong because the men tried and convicted and executed for crimes against humanity were only being loyal to Hitler, their leader.

All governments ultimately rule by force. Or do you think everyone would pay their taxes if there was not the threat of coercion hanging over them?

And all governments (at least those who are engaged in wars today and the last several centuries) have harmed the innocent and have waged war against some evildoers while allying themselves with others.

I can feel how much you want that to be true but you cannot support that view from scripture and have offered no support for it.

I said there is no command by Jesus to use swords against others. There isn't. To prove me wrong, show me where He has given a command to Christians to do that.

Church government and practices are different from those of civic authorities.

I disagree on that, we are called to be Christians everywhere. Jesus makes no distinction between our 'personal' and 'church' and 'public' and 'civic' lives... we are to follow Him everywhere and at all times. If you were in the army and your president ordered you to attack Israel and bomb the Wailing Wall, would you do it?

Roman authorities saved Pauls life on a number of occasions by a display and sometimes no doubt a use of military might. Paul was affirming of the law and order role of military authorities.

Roman authorities also executed Paul, under Nero. Was he a legitimate ruler btw, a man who wielded the sword against evildoers and not the innocent, a man who Christians should have followed and obeyed?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Interesting, but false. Killing innocent people is murder

Correct. At best "collateral damage" (bad euphemism) would be the equivalent of negligent homicide. If civilians did it they would probably get hard time. If they had good reason to believe civilians would be killed and they do it anyway it would go well beyond negligent homicide too.

are you sure you know Christ

Yes, I'm a Christian. I pray to him every day. I'm just not a Judeo-christian or old testament Christian. Valentinus, Mani, Marcion , .... those types are more influential on my Christianity.

 

[mindlight]

Interesting, but false. Killing innocent people is murder, and it could have been avoided had no war been being waged in the first place. A robber who attacks a bank only meaning to steal but then panicking and shooting a teller would still be accused of murder.


My definition fails to allow for a just war scenario because the just war doctrine is a heresy and I don't abide by it.

Ok you just threw away 2000 years of Christian tradition which in my view was based on scripture. This argument may be futile.

Really? Where does the Bible say he loved and supported Jews? Do you have any idea of how the Roman occupiers treated their Jewish subjects?

Actually I am confusing Math 8 and Acts 10 together but the same principle applies with Acts 10 Peter and the Roman centurion

So are you saying that you are only a Christian in your personal life, and are willing to set your faith aside when in public?

No I am arguing the biblical based idea of citizenship of two kingdoms. Romans 13 implies duties to respect the authorities which God has appointed and which have not been abrogated.

If they do not believe in Jesus and you kill them, you send them straight to [hell. Also, would you apply that same logic with your children or friends

Some people who were going to go to hell anyway may get there earlier as a result of the actions of Gods appointed authorities.

There are no cases where Jesus allowed the use of violence. The one time it was used He rebuked the disciple who did. There are several cases where He told His disciples to not strike back and to love their enemies. There are no instances of anyone in the Book of Acts using violence... except for the enemies of the early church. I think it is pretty clear that we are not allowed to use violence, if we want to be faithful to Him.
[/font]
Yes, He told His disciples to carry swords. He did not say for what, and it is pretty clear from everything else He said that it wasn't for violence.

The whole OT is Jesus being violent, Revelation and angels sent to execute Kings in the NT are the same. Do you think Judgment day will be a picnic for those he will send to hell. Jesus came to give everyone a chance to survive the judgment we all deserve. Some people in this life and for all eternity choose to defy this and will burn for that. The church images God , some are called to be soldiers and some Kings. These exercise the power of the sword for the common good as with Rom 13 v 7 .

The principle remains but not all the Law's applications of that time.


And many soldiers after the war expressed disgust at their leaders who waged it, and believed it was a terrible waste of human life. You cannot kill someone you truly love. Many Christians during the First World War opted for prison rather than fighting. Also, even if the soldiers truly felt Christian love for the people they were killing (which I doubt), they did not turn the other cheek, did they?


You yourself said that some parts of the law applied only to Jews in that time- like being executed for breaking the Sabbath. Ergo killing in war. I do not dismiss the Old Testament. I realize though that God can and does change what He expects from us. He is God, He can do whatever He wants.

Jesus did not abandon the Law, He revealed it in its true entirety. The Jews in the OT had part of the Law, not all of it. The full Law as revealed by Jesus makes it clear, among other things, that enemies are to be loved and that we are to turn the other cheek.

By embracing the Just War theory, you reject the fullness of the Law that He revealed. By doing so, you obey the words of man and disobey the Word of God.


No my friend, it is you who have not done so.


Name me a government today that only uses the sword to fight evildoers and that does not harm the innocent.
BTW if Romans 13 applies to governments today then the war against the Taleban and Hitler's Germany was wrong because they too were governments. Also, that must mean that the Nuremburg tribunals too were wrong because the men tried and convicted and executed for crimes against humanity were only being loyal to Hitler, their leader.


And all governments (at least those who are engaged in wars today and the last several centuries) have harmed the innocent and have waged war against some evildoers while allying themselves with others.


I said there is no command by Jesus to use swords against others. There isn't. To prove me wrong, show me where He has given a command to Christians to do that.


I disagree on that, we are called to be Christians everywhere. Jesus makes no distinction between our 'personal' and 'church' and 'public' and 'civic' lives... we are to follow Him everywhere and at all times. If you were in the army and your president ordered you to attack Israel and bomb the Wailing Wall, would you do it?

Roman authorities also executed Paul, under Nero. Was he a legitimate ruler btw, a man who wielded the sword against evildoers and not the innocent, a man who Christians should have followed and obeyed?

Needless to say we disagree.

Paul urged obedience to these authorities and this is something that should be instructive to you in your reading of the Palestinian situation. revolution and intifadah are not biblical principles.

You may wish to read a little about the two kingdom doctrine before commenting further.

Jesus commanded the invasion of Canaan, the execution of Herod , the plagues of revelation , the execution of Ananias and Saphira. You need to get to know Him better (as do we all of course)!

On matters of worship and evangelism there are no authorities of this earth that can prohibit Christian action on most other matters they do have the right to set boundaries.

 

[mindlight]

Christians are urged to respect authority, pay taxes and support the states mandate to resist and punish evil. Coming on the back of the OT this is a clear affirmation of the use of force by governments. There is nothing that says these principles are not just as valid for Christians today as in NT times.:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

2:13 Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme 2:14 or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. 2:15 For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. 2:16 Live as free people, not using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but as God’s slaves. 2:17 Honor all people, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Another big argument against Christian pacifism is the historical one. The pacifism of the early church arguably led to the fall of Rome for instance as Christians no longer felt the call to fight. As a result of the barbarian invasions we had the dark ages from which we took almost 600 years to recover from. Christians led the call for pacifist appeasement in Chamberlains negotiations with Hitler with disastrous consequences and the loss of more than 50 million lives.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Why trust a man who would kill a child as a way of coercing his father. There is no guarantee that such a man would not just kill them anyway. To be sure to meet my kids again in the after life I would not renounce Christ.

Abraham also was told to be prepared to give up his child as a sacrifice to God. He did so reasoning that God was able to raise them from the dead. He is reckoned as the father of all those who have faith.

It is the idolatry and reduction of life to the small fragment of it that we experience now that is so questionable here.

You cast aside priceless things for your own sake, for greed. Your family is a treasure, beyond value. This life is of infinite importance, why else would God make it a test with infinite consequences?

Following the word of God is one thing, but one must always watch where it leads them.

To give up everything, even paradise itself, for another. Isn't that the most Christlike thing you can do?

 

[mindlight]

You cast aside priceless things for your own sake, for greed. Your family is a treasure, beyond value. This life is of infinite importance, why else would God make it a test with infinite consequences?

Following the word of God is one thing, but one must always watch where it leads them.

To give up everything, even paradise itself, for another. Isn't that the most Christlike thing you can do?

God is of infinite importance and the salvation of me and my children rest in his hands rather than those of some psychopath who wants to play mind games with my childrens lives. Paradise is not something we earn or bequeath to others - it is something we trust God for and his to give or take away.

 

[Tuddrussell]

God is of infinite importance and the salvation of me and my children rest in his hands rather than those of some psychopath who wants to play mind games with my childrens lives. Paradise is not something we earn or bequeath to others - it is something we trust God for and his to give or take away.

Who said anything about a killer giving salvation? I'm saying solve the problem through diplomacy (Renouncing god as he asks, then repenting when everyone's safe.) or vilolence (Killing or otherwise incapacitating the assailent.), I don't care which. If you have to go against the word of the law, do so. Even if it is God's law.

To do less than everything you can to save your loved ones makes you a coward or a failure. You fear hell more than you love your family. That makes you worse than scum in my eyes.

 

[mindlight]

Who said anything about a killer giving salvation? I'm saying solve the problem through diplomacy (Renouncing god as he asks, then repenting when everyone's safe.) or vilolence (Killing or otherwise incapacitating the assailent.), I don't care which. If you have to go against the word of the law, do so. Even if it is God's law.

To do less than everything you can to save your loved ones makes you a coward or a failure. You fear hell more than you love your family. That makes you worse than scum in my eyes.

You do not know or love God which is why you do not understand how it cannot be helpful to renounce Him . To be called scum by a godless man is a compliment.

 

[Tuddrussell]

You are not scum for your relationship with God, it is your relationship with man that makes you such. (Also the fact that you have not denied that you fear hell more than you love your family.)

 

[TG123]

Ok you just threw away 2000 years of Christian tradition which in my view was based on scripture. This argument may be futile.

I just showed you the Bible is against Christians going to war. Tradition that contradicts the Bible is false.

Actually I am confusing Math 8 and Acts 10 together but the same principle applies with Acts 10 Peter and the Roman centurion

It's ok, we all make mistakes. You said the Roman centurion loved the Jews. None of the above verses show that to be the case. Cornelius was not the Centurion who met Jesus. Given that the Roman Army persecuted Jews and that the Bible says nothing to show that the centurion who's daughter Jesus healed did not, it is just as likely that he persecuted Jews as that he waged war.

No I am arguing the biblical based idea of citizenship of two kingdoms. Romans 13 implies duties to respect the authorities which God has appointed and which have not been abrogated.

Then overthrowing Saddam and the Taleban and Hitler were wrong, since they too were authorities. Romans 13 btw speaks of governments that are just, and no government on earth today matches that description.

Some people who were going to go to hell anyway may get there earlier as a result of the actions of Gods appointed authorities.

God says He does not want any to be lost. By killing people we are not serving Him.

The whole OT is Jesus being violent, Revelation and angels sent to execute Kings in the NT are the same. Do you think Judgment day will be a picnic for those he will send to hell. Jesus came to give everyone a chance to survive the judgment we all deserve. Some people in this life and for all eternity choose to defy this and will burn for that.

I am not disputing that. Hell is a very real place, God's judgement is very real, and Judgement Day will be a horrific time for those who turned away or did not accept or disobeyed Jesus.

The church images God , some are called to be soldiers and some Kings. These exercise the power of the sword for the common good as with Rom 13 v 7 .

That is an assumption not based on Scripture. You may want it to be correct but it is not.

Also, Romans 13 does not have a word to say about Christians, but authorities. In Paul's time, there were no Christian rulers.

Needless to say we disagree.

Needless to say, we agree on that statement.

Paul urged obedience to these authorities and this is something that should be instructive to you in your reading of the Palestinian situation.

Your misunderstanding of Romans 13 would mean that Paul also urges obedience to Hamas, so you should consider that before advocating attacking them. Christ's teachings on how to treat enemies should be instructive to you as you continue to promote the just war heresy.

revolution and intifadah are not biblical principles.

That's great, because I was not advocating them.

You may wish to read a little about the two kingdom doctrine before commenting further.

Show it to me, I will do that.

Jesus commanded the invasion of Canaan, the execution of Herod , the plagues of revelation , the execution of Ananias and Saphira.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Let's look at each of these cases.
Canaan invasion- committed by Israelites under Old Testament Law, when God allowed war.
God killed Herod, not Christians.
God's angels, not Christians, will send the plagues.
Ananias and Saphira were killed by God, not Paul.

None of the above mentioned examples shows Christians killing anyone.

You need to get to know Him better (as do we all of course)!

Amen.

On matters of worship and evangelism there are no authorities of this earth that can prohibit Christian action on most other matters they do have the right to set boundaries.

The Bible does not say that, you made that up. But even your above statement is mistaken- Hitler ordered his subjects and others he occupied to persecute Jews and not hide them or help them. Many Christians did not go along and disobeyed. This was not a matter of worship or evangelism. Should they have turned them in to be killed? Would they have had been faithful to God if they listened?

 

[TG123]

Christians are urged to respect authority, pay taxes and support the states mandate to resist and punish evil. Coming on the back of the OT this is a clear affirmation of the use of force by governments. There is nothing that says these principles are not just as valid for Christians today as in NT times.

Thanks for these verses. Both mention governments and rulers who punish the wicked and give justice. No government today does this.
Would you use these verses to show that Christians who resisted Hitler or the USSR were doing wrong, or do we at least agree this does not apply to all governments?

Another big argument against Christian pacifism is the historical one. The pacifism of the early church arguably led to the fall of Rome for instance as Christians no longer felt the call to fight. As a result of the barbarian invasions we had the dark ages from which we took almost 600 years to recover from.

Rome was an imperialist, racist and slave owning society. Thank God it was destroyed. It would have fallen regardless.

Christians led the call for pacifist appeasement in Chamberlains negotiations with Hitler with disastrous consequences and the loss of more than 50 million lives.

And 'patriots' put sanctions on Germany after WW1 that made people desperate enough to vote a monster like Hitler into power.

Also, if every Christian in Germany was a pacifist, Hitler would have never conquered an inch of an another country or would have been able to persecute Jews and there would have been no war.

 

[Blackguard_]

So are you saying that you are only a Christian in your personal life, and are willing to set your faith aside when in public?

Yeah, I have a real problem myself with those who support pacifism in their personal lives but are OK with blood soaked State action.

It's hypocritical and idolatrous.

If they do not believe in Jesus and you kill them, you send them straight to hell. ...God says He does not want any to be lost. By killing people we are not serving Him..

As I said in another thread...

"when people focus on a criminal losing a chance to repent, they ignore his victims losing that chance as well.

It's presumtous to think like that. I can't know about the state of the criminal's salvation, or if he'll turn in the future or if he'll go on to kill unsaved people, so I'm not going to act like I can. I would stop him from hurting me and mine, and whatever happens past that is between him and God."

There are no cases where Jesus allowed the use of violence. The one time it was used He rebuked the disciple who did

Not for using violence though, but for trying to prevent what Jesus came to do.

There are no instances of anyone in the Book of Acts using violence... except for the enemies of the early church.

Do they encounter any highwaymen or the like in Acts?

I think it is pretty clear that we are not allowed to use violence, if we want to be faithful to Him.

Because you're cherry picking.

Yes, He told His disciples to carry swords. He did not say for what, and it is pretty clear from everything else He said that it wasn't for violence.

Jesus said to carry deadly weapons but it's a horrible sin to ever use one for it's intended purpose? Come on. Jesus doesn't even hint at another use. He says to acquire swords in the context of making very practical preparations.

 

[Blackguard_]

Also, if every Christian in Germany was a pacifist, Hitler would have never conquered an inch of an another country or would have been able to persecute Jews and there would have been no war.

If everyone in Germany were a pacifist, he could have persecuted and killed Jews to his little black heart's content. Who would have stopped him?

Pacifism crowns evil king.

And the only reason he "would have never conquered an inch of another country" is because those other countries weren't pacifists. If they were, Hitler would have free reign there too.

 

[mindlight]

You are not scum for your relationship with God, it is your relationship with man that makes you such. (Also the fact that you have not denied that you fear hell more than you love your family.)

You made the accusation, I do not need to justify myself to you and I am treating your comment with the contempt that it deserves.

 

[mindlight]

I just showed you the Bible is against Christians going to war. Tradition that contradicts the Bible is false.

Tradition that contradicts the bible is false. The verses I shared in full from Rom 13 and Peter support this view however.

It's ok, we all make mistakes. You said the Roman centurion loved the Jews. None of the above verses show that to be the case. Cornelius was not the Centurion who met Jesus. Given that the Roman Army persecuted Jews and that the Bible says nothing to show that the centurion who's daughter Jesus healed did not, it is just as likely that he persecuted Jews as that he waged war.

Cornelius is not the Roman centurion who met Jesus- TRUE.

However he is an example of my point and did love Jews. There were no grounds to criticise him for his treatment of Jews and he was not criticised for his job.

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.......
The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.”

Then overthrowing Saddam and the Taleban and Hitler were wrong, since they too were authorities. Romans 13 btw speaks of governments that are just, and no government on earth today matches that description.

The Taliban, Hitler and Sadam lost the protection of their sovereign rights as a nation when they invaded the sovereignty of others.

God says He does not want any to be lost. By killing people we are not serving Him......
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Let's look at each of these cases.
Canaan invasion- committed by Israelites under Old Testament Law, when God allowed war.
God killed Herod, not Christians.
God's angels, not Christians, will send the plagues.
Ananias and Saphira were killed by God, not Paul.

None of the above mentioned examples shows Christians killing anyone.

To say killing cannot serve Gods purpose is to contradict the entire scriptural record Old and New as the numerous verses that have been shared show. God directly orders killings by human beings on innumerable occasions and sanctions the authorities that have the power to do this also.

A Christian is someone who has a relationship with God as did various Old testament heroes of faith like Abraham, Moses and David all of whom waged war on Gods instruction and killed people. You make too radical a distinction between those who were saved as a result of Christs sacrifice before the cross and after it.

Killing is normal in the Bible as it is in real life. Some killings are illegitimate and some are not as in real life.

That (That authorities can be Christian and appointed by God) is an assumption not based on Scripture. You may want it to be correct but it is not.

Also, Romans 13 does not have a word to say about Christians, but authorities. In Paul's time, there were no Christian rulers.

In Pauls time there may not have been many examples of Christians in positions of military power although Cornelius is an example from Acts 10 of a man of God in authority. It is very possible that Cornelius's unit would have been deployed against unrest by zealots and even have killed revolutionary Jews.

Your misunderstanding of Romans 13 would mean that Paul also urges obedience to Hamas, so you should consider that before advocating attacking them. Christ's teachings on how to treat enemies should be instructive to you as you continue to promote the just war heresy.

The burden of proof on who has understood and who has not understood this passage or the 1 Peter 2 13-17 passage is on you as the majority of the church has historically understood it as I have described it.

The highest authority under God in the sovereign territory of Israel is the Israeli government. Hamas is elected to represent the Palaestinians. A role it does very poorly. It is also a terrorist organisation that directly attacks people in Israel and elsewhere. The Israeli government have the right as the legal authority to punish wrong doing by Hamas and if they one day represent a state of Palestine to wage war against them.

In the context Christ said turn the other cheek regarding a Roman soldier slapping you. To have done otherwise would have been a revolutionary act and shown disrespect to the authorities and would have been met by instant execution. His strategy was therefore both wise and illustrative of the respect he had for authority given by God. These guys would have had no authority were it not given to them from above.

If someone attacked me or my family with lethal force - I would kill them if necessary, or die trying, if it were in my power to do so in order to prevent them. I would have the right to do that Christianly. In the context of the laws of the land I would also have the right to use proportionate force.

Show it to me, I will do that.

Doctrine of the two kingdoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible does not say that, you made that up. But even your above statement is mistaken- Hitler ordered his subjects and others he occupied to persecute Jews and not hide them or help them. Many Christians did not go along and disobeyed. This was not a matter of worship or evangelism. Should they have turned them in to be killed? Would they have had been faithful to God if they listened?

OK that does need qualifying. The authorities forbade the early church in Acts from worshipping and from evangelism on many occasions but they still did it showing that the laws were not binding on these matters. Respect for civil authority and the laws of the land is a basic Christian principle but would not include committing immoral acts because it was a legal requirement. Where you cannot say if something is immoral then we should probably comply with it.

So no hiding Jews in the attic like Rahab at Jericho is totally biblical.

 

[mindlight]

Yeah, I have a real problem myself with those who support pacifism in their personal lives but are OK with blood soaked State action.

It's hypocritical and idolatrous.

Not sure what your meaning is here. I believe self defence is legitimate but vigilantism or revolution is not.

 

[interpreter]

We are to love our personal enemies, but kill the enemies of Jesus.

 

[TG123]

Tradition that contradicts the bible is false. The verses I shared in full from Rom 13 and Peter support this view however.

No they don't. Even if they meant that our governments today are just (they aren't and do not meet the descriptions provided), they still do not give Christians permission to wage war.

Cornelius is not the Roman centurion who met Jesus- TRUE.

However he is an example of my point and did love Jews. There were no grounds to criticise him for his treatment of Jews and he was not criticised for his job.

That's nice, but we weren't talking about Cornelius. We were talking about the Roman centurion who Jesus met.

The Taliban, Hitler and Sadam lost the protection of their sovereign rights as a nation when they invaded the sovereignty of others.

Both America and Israel have invaded other nations and their sovereignty as well, so they too have lost these rights. Romans 13 does not apply to either the US, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan or Nazi Germany.

To say killing cannot serve Gods purpose is to contradict the entire scriptural record Old and New as the numerous verses that have been shared show.

I wasn't arguing that, I am saying that CHRISTIANS cannot kill. The New Testament makes that very clear.

God directly orders killings by human beings on innumerable occasions

All in the Old Testament

and sanctions the authorities that have the power to do this also.

Authorities that are just, and punish the wicked while protecting the good. Not anyone ruling today.

A Christian is someone who has a relationship with God as did various Old testament heroes of faith like Abraham, Moses and David all of whom waged war on Gods instruction and killed people.

Correct. And like Abraham and Moses and David and Joshua waged war on God's instruction, we are to be non-violent... on God's instruction that came from His lips directly while He was on earth.

You make too radical a distinction between those who were saved as a result of Christs sacrifice before the cross and after it.

No distinction. The difference is that God expects different things from us than He expected from people before the cross. To me, He is worth listening to and following. I'll take His word over the doctrine of Augustine.

Killing is normal in the Bible as it is in real life. Some killings are illegitimate and some are not as in real life.

All killing done after Jesus by people who are His followers is illegitimate.

In Pauls time there may not have been many examples of Christians in positions of military power although Cornelius is an example from Acts 10 of a man of God in authority. It is very possible that Cornelius's unit would have been deployed against unrest by zealots and even have killed revolutionary Jews.

Now you are speculating. Cornelius was saved, we do not know what happened to him afterwards.

The burden of proof on who has understood and who has not understood this passage or the 1 Peter 2 13-17 passage is on you as the majority of the church has historically understood it as I have described it.

The majority of the church for centuries blamed all Jews for the death of Christ. More and more mainstream churches are adopting gay marriage. Doesn't mean it is right. The just war theory is far easier to accept than Christ's teaching of turning the other cheek and loving one's enemy while still striving for justice and preaching the Gospel.

To claim that 1 Peter or Romans gives Christians permission to wage or support war means ignoring the words of Jesus Himself. Neither Paul or Peter would have ever said Christians can wage war, because Jesus said we are to love our enemies. The just war proponents have it wrong, even if they are in the majority.

The highest authority under God in the sovereign territory of Israel is the Israeli government. Hamas is elected to represent the Palaestinians. A role it does very poorly. It is also a terrorist organisation that directly attacks people in Israel and elsewhere. The Israeli government have the right as the legal authority to punish wrong doing by Hamas and if they one day represent a state of Palestine to wage war against them.

The Israeli government violates the commandments by killing innocent Palestinians (murder), evicting people off their land (theft), falsely accusing people (lying) of assaulting soldiers when it is the soldiers who go psychotic during peaceful demos in Hebron and beat up and club people who are not resisting- I have seen it myself. The Israeli government engages in state terrorism against not only Palestinians but Bedouin in the Negev who do not attack Israel, it also engages in racist practices in Hebron and across the West Bank; protecting settlers as they terrorize and displace Palestinians from their homes. It is a terrorist organization no less than Hamas is. For Christians to back either of these 2 groups is shameful and in contradiction to the Gospel.

In the context Christ said turn the other cheek regarding a Roman soldier slapping you. To have done otherwise would have been a revolutionary act and shown disrespect to the authorities and would have been met by instant execution. His strategy was therefore both wise and illustrative of the respect he had for authority given by God. These guys would have had no authority were it not given to them from above.

Actually, it was to humiliate the soldier. The act of turning the other cheek makes the victim an equal to his oppressor and something that a slave would not do. It is a very open and non-violent act of defiance to the attacker. Ergo carrying a load for an extra mile for the soldier. By law, they were only allowed to force someone to carry a load for a certain distance. By carrying it further, the victim got the soldier into trouble.

Tradition that contradicts the bible is false. The verses I shared in full from Rom 13 and Peter support this view however.

No they don't. Even if they meant that our governments today are just (they aren't and do not meet the descriptions provided), they still do not give Christians permission to wage war.

Cornelius is not the Roman centurion who met Jesus- TRUE.

However he is an example of my point and did love Jews. There were no grounds to criticise him for his treatment of Jews and he was not criticised for his job.

That's nice, but we weren't talking about Cornelius. We were talking about the Roman centurion who Jesus met.

The Taliban, Hitler and Sadam lost the protection of their sovereign rights as a nation when they invaded the sovereignty of others.

Both America and Israel have invaded other nations and their sovereignty as well, so they too have lost these rights. Romans 13 does not apply to either the US, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan or Nazi Germany.

To say killing cannot serve Gods purpose is to contradict the entire scriptural record Old and New as the numerous verses that have been shared show.

I wasn't arguing that, I am saying that CHRISTIANS cannot kill. The New Testament makes that very clear.

God directly orders killings by human beings on innumerable occasions

All in the Old Testament

and sanctions the authorities that have the power to do this also.

Authorities that are just, and punish the wicked while protecting the good. Not anyone ruling today.

A Christian is someone who has a relationship with God as did various Old testament heroes of faith like Abraham, Moses and David all of whom waged war on Gods instruction and killed people.

Correct. And like Abraham and Moses and David and Joshua waged war on God's instruction, we are to be non-violent... on God's instruction that came from His lips directly while He was on earth.

You make too radical a distinction between those who were saved as a result of Christs sacrifice before the cross and after it.

No distinction. The difference is that God expects different things from us than He expected from people before the cross. To me, He is worth listening to and following. I'll take His word over the doctrine of Augustine.

Killing is normal in the Bible as it is in real life. Some killings are illegitimate and some are not as in real life.

All killing done after Jesus by people who are His followers is illegitimate.

In Pauls time there may not have been many examples of Christians in positions of military power although Cornelius is an example from Acts 10 of a man of God in authority. It is very possible that Cornelius's unit would have been deployed against unrest by zealots and even have killed revolutionary Jews.

Now you are speculating. Cornelius was saved, we do not know what happened to him afterwards.

The burden of proof on who has understood and who has not understood this passage or the 1 Peter 2 13-17 passage is on you as the majority of the church has historically understood it as I have described it.

The majority of the church for centuries blamed all Jews for the death of Christ. More and more mainstream churches are adopting gay marriage. Doesn't mean it is right. The just war theory is far easier to accept than Christ's teaching of turning the other cheek and loving one's enemy while still striving for justice and preaching the Gospel.

To claim that 1 Peter or Romans gives Christians permission to wage or support war means ignoring the words of Jesus Himself. Neither Paul or Peter would have ever said Christians can wage war, because Jesus said we are to love our enemies. The just war proponents have it wrong, even if they are in the majority.

The highest authority under God in the sovereign territory of Israel is the Israeli government. Hamas is elected to represent the Palaestinians. A role it does very poorly. It is also a terrorist organisation that directly attacks people in Israel and elsewhere. The Israeli government have the right as the legal authority to punish wrong doing by Hamas and if they one day represent a state of Palestine to wage war against them.

The Israeli government violates the commandments by killing innocent Palestinians (murder), evicting people off their land (theft), falsely accusing people (lying) of assaulting soldiers when it is the soldiers who go psychotic during peaceful demos in Hebron and beat up and club people who are not resisting- I have seen it myself. The Israeli government engages in state terrorism against not only Palestinians but Bedouin in the Negev who do not attack Israel, it also engages in racist practices in Hebron and across the West Bank; protecting settlers as they terrorize and displace Palestinians from their homes. It is a terrorist organization no less than Hamas is. For Christians to back either of these 2 groups is shameful and in contradiction to the Gospel.

In the context Christ said turn the other cheek regarding a Roman soldier slapping you. To have done otherwise would have been a revolutionary act and shown disrespect to the authorities and would have been met by instant execution. His strategy was therefore both wise and illustrative of the respect he had for authority given by God. These guys would have had no authority were it not given to them from above.

Actually, it was to humiliate the soldier. The act of turning the other cheek makes the victim an equal to his oppressor and something that a slave would not do. It is a very open and non-violent act of defiance to the attacker. Ergo carrying an extra mile for the soldier.

If someone attacked me or my family with lethal force - I would kill them if necessary, or die trying, if it were in my power to do so in order to prevent them. I would have the right to do that Christianly.

No, you wouldn't.

In the context of the laws of the land I would also have the right to use proportionate force.

You probably would.

Doctrine of the two kingdoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for sharing that. I am no fan of Martin Luther, but check out this part:

We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey it at all but rather lose our necks. Temporal authority and government extend no further than to matters which are external and corporeal.

Conscience means following God and to someone who is serious about following Jesus, it would mean loving one's enemies and not fighting them. It would also mean standing up for justice.

 

[TG123]

OK that does need qualifying. The authorities forbade the early church in Acts from worshipping and from evangelism on many occasions but they still did it showing that the laws were not binding on these matters. Respect for civil authority and the laws of the land is a basic Christian principle but would not include committing immoral acts because it was a legal requirement. Where you cannot say if something is immoral then we should probably comply with it.

Some things that governments require from us are not immoral. Like paying taxes. Or obeying traffic laws (or most other laws). Being silent or supportive of human rights abuses is different. It is immoral, and we cannot follow God and do that.

The invasion of Iraq was an immoral act, as are the human rights abuses committed against Palestinians, as is the raising of housing and food prices that drive people into the street in my city. So supporting these would be immoral. Supporting these would include going to war, it would also include vocally supporting such atrocities or voting for politicians who do nothing to help people in need. Being silent is another way of supporting injustice. The opposite of that is following Jesus and 'hungering and thirsting for righteousness', and if necessary, suffering for it. In the Book of Isaiah, God calls on His followers to break chains and yokes of oppression. In other parts of Scripture we are told to speak up for the widows and the orphans.

We are not called to be revolutionaries and topple governments and replace them with people who think like we do... in spite of what Bush has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we are called to defend victims of injustice. That is what I intend to continue doing.

So no hiding Jews in the attic like Rahab at Jericho is totally biblical.

Glad we agree on that. And so is opposing the wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, or going as human rights workers into the West Bank and Colombia and challenging armed soldiers and fighters who abuse human rights, or calling for an end to the atrocities of Bashir al Assad or Ahmedinejad.

 

[TG123]

Yeah, I have a real problem myself with those who support pacifism in their personal lives but are OK with blood soaked State action.

It's hypocritical and idolatrous.

I agree. Pacifists who just stay at home and twiddle their thumbs and never try to live out their practices are wimps and losers. Just like Republicans and Democrats (politicians and voters alike) who enthusiastically supported the war in Iraq without having the balls to venture off into a warzone.

As I said in another thread...

"when people focus on a criminal losing a chance to repent, they ignore his victims losing that chance as well.

It's presumtous to think like that. I can't know about the state of the criminal's salvation, or if he'll turn in the future or if he'll go on to kill unsaved people, so I'm not going to act like I can. I would stop him from hurting me and mine, and whatever happens past that is between him and God."

The difference is if a criminal kills someone and a victim cannot repent before death, he will face God and be held to account. If we do that to him, we will.

The point is whether or not you want to be loyal to Jesus. He said to turn the other cheek and to love one's enemies. By killing the criminal, you are disobeying Christ.

Not for using violence though, but for trying to prevent what Jesus came to do.

Actually, it was both. Why do you think He said "those who live by the sword will die by the sword"? If it was only a matter of trying to prevent what Christ came to do, He would have just needed to mention the part about Him having the power to command angels to save Him.

Do they encounter any highwaymen or the like in Acts?

Not mentioned. But they do encounter angry mobs and Roman soldiers, as well as a zealot who arrested whole families and took them away to be killed. How's that for standing up for your wife? Saul arrested and persecuted both men and women. According to your logic, the husbands should have defended their wives, not allowed the whole families to be butchered or their children to become orphans. There is no record of them doing that.

Because you're cherry picking.

No, you are.

Jesus said to carry deadly weapons but it's a horrible sin to ever use one for it's intended purpose? Come on. Jesus doesn't even hint at another use. He says to acquire swords in the context of making very practical preparations.

If He would have wanted His disciples to use swords to kill enemies, He would have said so. He didn't. He said earlier on they are to be loved and that the correct response is non-violent resistance like turning the other cheek. There is a difference between what the word of God and says and doesn't say, and what you wish it did or didn't.