Pacifism

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I think you missed my point. I wasn't implying that the sword in question was of necessity only a utilitarian tool. As I said, animals or highway robbers. My point was, that the contrast Jesus was making was between the two states they had experienced; the previous being one of hospitality, the one to come, one of hostility. He already told them to run away if they were persecuted, not stand and fight for liberty. It's silly.

All of these arguments make me rather ill actually, because they remind me of the ones I used to hear while a JW. The issue of "community responsibility" was always used to justify wholesale slaughter of non-JWs by God. How do you know, JR, that there weren’t any resisters to Nazi tyranny among the victims of Dresden’s fire-bombing? These types of arguments are cute ploys to avoid the harsh realities of the actions of people in defending their side of the conflict. And Jesus handily dispensed with the supremacy of the OT when he told us "You heard it was said....But I say to you...." "Moses, allowed for.....But I say to you".

This isn't a matter of whether or not I personally prefer this country to any other, or whether I would have rather seen a different outcome to WW2. This has to do with Jesus holding us individually accountable according to our deeds. "I was just following orders" is not going to be acceptable to God when the final judgment comes and Old Glory lies on the ash-heap of history with every other nation.

Regards, Brenden.

[thrombomodulin]

I am not talking about minor offences ...

I am. I've raised this issue because this category of offenses, in my opinion, does provide a reason why one should not support the State through direct participation in enforcing its rules (police, soldiers). Eventually, I would like to make the case that the State cannot continue exist as we know it (to enforce a monopoly of its services) without necessarily punishing certain types minor offenses. Thus it is relevant to Jaydam's question.

Is it a righteous or wicked action for the rulers of Indiana to punish those who buy alcohol on Sunday?

The people elected the state authorities, the down side of democracy ... What is the length of a skirt, how much alcohol is legally drunk, how fast can you drive on the road?

A reason that I am using the above example is to learn if you believe God has given the State authority over its subjects that is absolutely unlimited, besides the sole exception that it cannot require other men to sin. The alternative would be that you view God as having given the State a lesser amount of authority, because additional limitations apply to what he may require of other men. Your answer to the question is unclear. If you had answered that you think God views the States actions of punishing those who buy alcohol on Sunday as wrongdoing, then you hold the view that the State's authority is limited beyond the sole exception I mentioned above. This would also imply that the police officer who acts as the States agent by enforcing certain man made laws is participating in that wrongdoing. On the other hand, if you had answered in the opposite way then it implies that the States authority and power are vast, and the objection I am raising about minor offenses is invalid because it is not wrong (though imprudent) for Caesar to make and enforce any law whatsoever. Which of the above views do you hold?

but you have to draw a line somewhere ... it is difficult to draw the line for other people.

Drawing a line for someone else is a fitting description of the nature of what the State does to its subjects. I'm not sure how a police officer or soldier could fulfill their function besides by drawing lines for other people, so the subject can't be avoided just because it is difficult.

As far as soldiers are concerned, the main topic of this thread, they do not hold trials. (Thomb, Aug 28, pg2)

Military has Courts Martial and Military Tribunals...

Please supply two numbers. I'd like to know their ratio. Numerator: How many people have been tried in a military court since the founding of the USA? Denominator: In the same period how many people have been killed by the military of the USA? I'll agree that my statement was inaccurate or misleading if that ratio is higher than about 0.05.

[robbyyoung]

Hi Pete, we're probably talking at one another, at this point, instead of "to" each other. So let me do a better job at conversing with you Brother. (response in RED)

Robby,

Could you explain how the "fruit of the spirit" ( love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness) is consistent with taking someones life for the State? These strike me as opposites. I say these are opposites because its not obvious why taking the life of a person, who hasn't committed any particular wrongdoing, is loving them. (Pete, I've never said this. If a Christian deems The State of violating God's principles, then The Christian should exercise his liberty outlined in Gal 5 and possibly suffer the consequences of The State. If another Christian deems The State to be correct in administering death, within the righteous bounds of God's law, and becomes an instrument in this judgment, his faith should sustain him. For God uses MAN to carry out HIS purposes.) Many years ago I heard a speech by one of the air force men who was onboard the aircraft which dropped a nuclear weapon on either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I don't remember which it was. He was a professing Christian and said that he had a clear conscience, no regrets about his actions, and would repeat the action if placed in a similar situation. Would you go so far as to say that he was exercising the fruit of the Spirit and there is nothing wrong with such exercises of Christian liberty? (No, he did not apply Gal 5 in this situation. But it doesn't make him any less of a Child of God and therefore Romans 14 is affirmed.) Rather, that's just a disputable issue about which Christians shouldn't judge each other (Romans 14).

Edit to add a second example: I'm not sure of the faith of John wilks booth, but supposing that he were a Christian. Would there be anything wrong with his defense by claiming that he was fighting on behalf of the south, and that his conscience was clear when he assassinated Lincoln? (Pete, he did not hold to Gal 5 either. If indeed he did sin, again, does that make him any less of a Child of God as any other sinful act amongst his brethren? Romans 14 stands firm.) If Christian's shouldn't judge him, then perhaps you would hold the opinion that he shouldn't be prosecuted for his act? (God has given that power to The State. And if a Christian sits in a position of authority, and chooses to enact Gal 5, God says, "against such there is no law." Therefore, The Christian may be run out on a rail because of his conviction.)

Peter

God Bless.

[jriccitelli]

I would like to make the case that the State cannot continue exist as we know it… (Thomb)

I would have to agree. We are doomed, but Jesus is coming back.

You may be misunderstanding this, I am not saying I think our government (or any govt.) has been scripted by God, nor does God expect us to agree with, police and prosecute everything, even if we are in the service. We should obey orders and others, but that is way to complex even for here (I will debate politics all day on another forum, but not here) I was only discussing the use of force, and how far do we go as Christians in and when protecting someone from an attack (and capital punishment).
(I will note that if military or police start taking away constitutional rights I will not support them, if i was a police officer I would not take away someone’s gun or bible, we are getting close to that though now)

I’m not sure what your proposing the solution is, you can’t just say everything is wrong and sit there. Are you proposing anarchy or Theocratic law? We have had, and tried theocracy, but without Jesus here, who’s going to hold court? Us? If the Protestants install a theocracy now imagine who might get elected; Joel Olsteen or Al Sharpton? If you want a theocracy now, we have Vatican city, do you want a Church run govt? We had the Byzantine empire, and well we can elect Christian leaders, but who’s a Christian Jimmy Carter or George Bush? Before I go shoot myself for lack of hope, maybe I can just be patient and wait for the true Judge to return. Without God here, who is going to make the law? Lobbyists, and crooks, that’s all we got, sometimes we learn to live with it, so before a Baptist outlaws dancing and drinking on Sundays again, enjoy your freedoms and live with what we got. We have to have ‘some’ law and order.

Which of the above views do you hold? (Thomb)

I am being lighthearted here, I take this seriously, but Govt. is a mess. A great radio politics and humor show with whom I wholeheartedly agree is the Armstrong and Getty show, they are libertarians, and that would describe my views, albeit I’m abit undecided.

[thrombomodulin]

Hi Pete, we're probably talking at one another, at this point, instead of "to" each other. So let me do a better job at conversing with you Brother. (response in RED)

Robby, thank you for the clarifications. I'll make a better effort as well.

does that make him any less of a Child of God as any other sinful act amongst his brethren? Romans 14 stands firm.

I'm not calling into question whether a person who engages in the military is saved or unsaved, but only when the actions of a person in the military are righteous or wicked.

[John wilks booth] did not hold to Gal 5 either. If indeed he did sin, again,...

.

I think the citizens of the Confederate government would not see it this way. To them, Lincoln was the enemy leader of an invading army. Supporters of the South have a good case to view Booth's assassination as a righteous act in the administration of justice against a guilty Lincoln. He is a military hero. That is to say, I'm not yet seeing why, by your criteria, Booth's defense is invalid. I wonder if believers in the North shouldn't have judged him, let alone have killed him, for exercising his Christian liberty acting as an agent of the Confederate government. If one looks at it this way, then Boston Corbett, who killed Booth, is a murder guilty of killing a righteous man.

What I am trying to use the example to say is that, in practical application, it is difficult to avoid arriving at a situation where Christians, who support different States, both think that they are righteous in killing each other, and regard the other to be guilty of murder. They can't both be "right", so following conscience alone seems to be inadequate. How do you resolve this?

[robbyyoung]

What I am trying to use the example to say is that, in practical application, it is difficult to avoid arriving at a situation where Christians, who support different States, both think that they are righteous in killing each other, and regard the other to be guilty of murder. They can't both be "right", so following conscience alone seems to be inadequate. How do you resolve this?

Hi Pete,

Sometimes you can't resolve it. When sin begets sin, and rages on, God is the only one who can bring sanity back to the forefront.

God Bless.

[thrombomodulin]

I will debate politics all day on another forum, but not here) I was only discussing the use of force, and how far do we go as Christians in and when protecting someone from an attack (and capital punishment).

I agree that we are only discussing the of force. But the job of the solider necessarily requires following orders to attack certain individuals regarded as the enemy regardless of whether those individuals have done anything wrong.

I will note that if military or police start taking away constitutional rights I will not support them

IMHO, that point was passed a long time ago.

I’m not sure what your proposing the solution is, you can’t just say everything is wrong and sit there ... We have to have ‘some’ law and order.

That is a good question. All of the views of the State that I am aware of have serious problems. I find the view that presents the least difficulties is the anarchocapitialist view, see this short book Chaos Theory. This view does not reject the idea of law, order, or even the use of force. It does reject the idea of the State as a monopoly. It affirms that it is never OK to kill those who have not engaged in a definite wrongdoing. I find this last point inexorably leads to self-contradictory ideas with all views that affirm the existence of the State as we know it (a territorial monopoly). I could not in good conscience enlist and go to a foreign country (e.g. Iraq) to shoot at people when I don't have a clue who they are, or if they have personally done any action that makes them worthy of the death. I could also not in good conscience take the role of a solider or police officer to enforce the vast array of arbitrary rules, or those rules that perpetuate the States monopoly on its services. That ancap solution isn't perfect, but I know of nothing better.

[thrombomodulin]

Sometimes you can't resolve it. When sin begets sin, and rages on, God is the only one who can bring sanity back to the forefront.

I'm not sure "sin begets sin" is consistent with the view you've been expressing, because I think you were saying that the execution of justice is not sinful (e.g. Booth killing Lincoln, was not sinful -- in the view of some). Perhaps this brings the topic to a point of closure between you and I. I feel unable to adopt your view, in large part, because I just can't see a way past the difficulty of avoiding the arbitrary assignment of hero vs. villain status whenever men act as an agents of the State. I have appreciated the discussion, thanks for your graciousness and patience in working through several misunderstandings along the way.

[jaydam]

The story of Cornelius is interesting, as it describes him as a God-fearing, just and upright man working in the Roman army or police, prior to the gospel, but... This doesn't seem like it carries any real weight to answer the question of Christians and the military.

I agree that the Centurion story is not enough to stand on its own, but I do believe it is a significant piece to consider.

I found it helpful to understand that non-violence is not inaction. Avoiding reciprocal violence doesn't mean that one does nothing. In fact, love demands action in the cases you list above and others, for both the victim and the aggressor. This may mean deflecting the harm onto oneself to protect someone else, physical restraints, etc.

So you throw yourself in front of the victim and tell the murderer that he has to kill you first to get to the intended victim. So he does. Have you really protected the victim effectively?

As an example, what if the aggressor in the above scenario was your brother, son or best friend? Sure, you want to stop the evil action, but the aggressor becomes more than a target.

Some would say God inflicted violence upon his Son to stop the actions of sin and death.

I doubt victims of violence would ever view violence as potentially neutral.
However, you bring up a good point. I don't know. I mitigate this tension by letting the life of Jesus, his teaching and example guide me primarily, before I look to Old covenant passages for guidance.

Violence can only be a neutral action relative to the actor. If you insist on the life of Jesus, then he inflicted violence to cleanse his Father's house.

It might not be enjoyable to receive it, but enjoyment does not relate to being good or bad.

And the example Peter still stand I believe where Jesus corrected his timing, not so much the act.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[schoel]

My apologies for the delay in response...Life, etc.

I found it helpful to understand that non-violence is not inaction. Avoiding reciprocal violence doesn't mean that one does nothing. In fact, love demands action in the cases you list above and others, for both the victim and the aggressor. This may mean deflecting the harm onto oneself to protect someone else, physical restraints, etc.

So you throw yourself in front of the victim and tell the murderer that he has to kill you first to get to the intended victim. So he does. Have you really protected the victim effectively?

It does sound terrible inefficient and impractical, I know and it is something I struggle with as well. However, when has following Christ been practical? His commands often seem contrary to common sense or practice, but perhaps that's because we are steeped in a culture so disassociated from God's way.

Also, I'm reminded of the story of Telemachus in Foxe's book of Martyrs. He was so grieved and offended by the current practice of the gladiator games that he leaped out of the stands onto the sand and interjected himself between two combatants, pleading with them to stop. As the story goes, one of the gladiators promptly ran him through and Telemachus died right there in the arena. Impractical and ineffective right? The story continues with the bloodthirsty crowd going silent and leaving the stadium prior to the end of the day's battles. After that, the people of Rome seemingly lost their appetite for the gladiator events and they eventually cancelled them for lack of interest within a few years. The initial sacrificial action and death may have looked pointless at the time, but was actually used by God to end the terrible violence.

Who knows how God will use our peaceable actions in the hearts of the victim and the aggressor?

As an example, what if the aggressor in the above scenario was your brother, son or best friend? Sure, you want to stop the evil action, but the aggressor becomes more than a target.

Some would say God inflicted violence upon his Son to stop the actions of sin and death.

I think God was in Christ, absorbing the violence of evil men, so as to reconcile people to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). I find it difficult to want to be reconciled to a God who brutally murders an innocent man in my place, then turns to me and says,"That's better, now lets be friends" The Jesus I read about in the Gospels, who is explicitly stated to be the exact representation of who God is, doesn't fit that mold.

I doubt victims of violence would ever view violence as potentially neutral.
However, you bring up a good point. I don't know. I mitigate this tension by letting the life of Jesus, his teaching and example guide me primarily, before I look to Old covenant passages for guidance.

Violence can only be a neutral action relative to the actor. If you insist on the life of Jesus, then he inflicted violence to cleanse his Father's house.

The temple cleansing references in the Gospels (Matt 21, Luke 19, Mark 11 and John 2) tell a story of Jesus turning over tables, driving cattle and sheep out and telling the merchants to leave. This seems stretched to apply it to a scenario of how a follower of Jesus should react when someone is violently aggressing towards another.

<8/28 12:15>
I do find it interesting that when Peter cut off the slaves ear at Jesus' arrest, this shows:

1. Jesus walked with a sword carrier

2. Jesus' response was not to rebuke the violence (although Jesus states a seemingly neutral saying about the sword and those who depend upon it - which many turn into a negative), but Jesus' response was to rebuke the timing and attempt to prevent what must happen.

Matthew 26:52-54
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now? How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?”


1. Jesus also walked with a thief and his betrayer (Judas), some Zealots who wished him to kill Gentiles, and many with other ideas, practices and behaviors that He may or may not have approved of. Peter carrying a sword doesn't necessary imply what Jesus' feelings were about it. In fact, when Peter used the sword, Jesus' response was one of disapproval.

2. I'm confused as to your references to Jesus' rebuke about timing. Is there something in Jesus rebuke that would make you think He would be OK with violence towards enemies at a different time? Jesus' actually heals the victim of Peter's violence! I consider Jesus' rebuke here within the context of the His earlier command:


Matthew 5:43-46
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they?