SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : A thread about violence

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
Agent001
Member



Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 Re:

nobody:

A minor correction - Luke 3:14 - it was John the Baptist who said, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay." (However, this does not change your argument).

All:

I find two strands of thought on the use of violence in scripture.

First, the biblical ideal is definitely non-violence and non-resistance. Anyone who takes Jesus' sermon on the mount seriously will have to acknowledge this.

Second, there is no indication that being a soldier is inherently immoral - Luke 3:14. There is also endorsement of the authority of the earthly rulers as "agents of God's wrath to bring [b]punishment[/b] on the wrongdoer" who "does not bear the [b]sword[/b] for nothing" - Romans 13:4. So God does allow for limited use of force in this present age for law, justice, and order.

Ultimately, your personal stand is a matter of conscience.


_________________
Sam

 2004/3/3 8:43Profile
Chad
Member



Joined: 2003/11/17
Posts: 56
JC MO

 Re: uhh, Way off base...

:-o When I first posted the message, I meant Spiritual Warfare. Apparently I should be more specific.
:-P I've got a lot to learn about differing views and the way they are interpreted.
God bless.


_________________
Chad Lough

 2004/3/3 9:26Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Chad
Ah, the group dynamics of emails... It is an entirely different mode of communication. In many ways it combines the worst of all worlds. The ability to react instantly, almost without thought but the permanency of something written in stone. Added to that you have instant communication with a whole world of people that you have never had a chance to make a relationship with.

If ever we need to 'bear and forbear' it is with emails. We all rattle each others chains at times without intention (and sometimes with intention. :-D Don't worry about it, we are all learning here.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/3/3 10:00Profile









 Re:

Nobody,

Quakers have no problem with armed police. Somebody has to keep order.

Myself, I live in a somewhat dangerous urban neighborhood and keep a heavy walking stick handy to defend my house. I will break the knee caps of anyone who breaks in and threatens my household. (But would not resort to lethal violence.)

My problem is with standing armies and with the enourmous amount of $$$$$$ spent by the US and other countries on the military. These are unnecessary for the defense of our country. The whole war on terrorism is a waste and is creating more terrorists.

To think that 911 could have been easily prevented by some forward thinking engineers, and that it is being used to justify more $$$$ for the military is sad, wasteful and dangerous. After all, for how long have people been hijacking airplanes? You would think by now that they would have figured out that no one should be able to enter the cockpit, and made it impossible.

George Washington opposed standing armies because he though they would be used against the people. Well, in a sense they are. Against the poor, against the uninsured, against those with AIDS, against children with special needs, against the homeless. etc.

You may be interested in the prevention movement. It uses priniciples developed by fire fighters in the foreign and military policy arena. Originally fire fighters emphasized how quickly they could respond to an alarm. Later they figured out that preventing fires from starting in the first place was easier and more effective, so they got regulations put in place for fire retardant materials to be required in buildings, and other policies that helped prevent the fires from starting. There are equivalent approaches to foreign and military policy -- international cooperation and rule of Law, preventative diplomacy and peace operations, arms control and disarmament, human rights and good governance, sustainable development and human security -- that could greatly reduce the threat of war. But our nations continue to invest in armaments and war making. This is against God.

Jake

 2004/3/3 10:25
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Jake writes Quakers have no problem with armed police. Somebody has to keep order.

Myself, I live in a somewhat dangerous urban neighborhood and keep a heavy walking stick handy to defend my house. I will break the knee caps of anyone who breaks in and threatens my household. (But would not resort to lethal violence.)

Hi Jake
This one took me by surprise. I checked a couple of times to make sure you weren't quoting someone else.

This makes it sound as though you are in favour of pre-meditated, limited, pre-emptive violence. The Lord's manifesto on the mount was surely not directed to governments but to individuals. If your position is sustainable wouldn't this mean that a government should also allow pre-meditated, limited, pre-emptive violence? And isn't that what the USA would claim it is doing?

If you feel responsibility for your household should a government not feel responsibility for its citizens? You say 'someone has to keep order'. Does a bigger brother nation (super-power) have any responsibility to 'keep order'?

I know that this is a very delicate and complicated issue but would you imagine the Lord with a heavy walking stick in preparation for an attack on his household?

Here's a little bit of info that might interest you. Israel's kings were forbidden to 'multiply horses'. The horse was the equivalent of a tank, a formidable weapon of war particularly when attached to a chariot. They were allowed to have mules which were the equivalent of a 4x4 and a great agricultural tool. So God banned aggressive war preparation but then Israel was God's nation and He was honour bound to defend it as necessary.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/3/3 12:55Profile
Agent001
Member



Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 Re:

Philologos (Ron) says:

Quote:
Here's a little bit of info that might interest you. Israel's kings were forbidden to 'multiply horses'. The horse was the equivalent of a tank, a formidable weapon of war particularly when attached to a chariot. They were allowed to have mules which were the equivalent of a 4x4 and a great agricultural tool. So God banned aggressive war preparation but then Israel was God's nation and He was honour bound to defend it as necessary.

I have a problem with this interpretation of Deuteronomy 17:16. The literary context does not seem to me to have any reference to war. I admit I do not know enough of its historical context to ascertain whether "horses" are symbolic of military might (I doubt it though).

I find applying Christian ethics in the political arena to be very tricky. The issues are not as clear-cut as it seems. For instance, allowing Hitler to have his way is probably not a good option (I agree with Bonhoeffer on this). On the other hand, dropping the atomic bomb to stop a war was a tough decision (as a Chinese I welcome it; but precious souls would have been lost either way).

My thinking on Christian ethics is not mature yet, but I think mere talk of principles often reduce the complexity and dilemma involved in making a moral decision.


_________________
Sam

 2004/3/4 10:29Profile
Chad
Member



Joined: 2003/11/17
Posts: 56
JC MO

 Re: okay...SPIRITUAL WARFARE, FOLKS!!!

I am kinda disturbed that this has gone as far as it has!! Spiritual Warfare!!! Go down, read the original post, pray, then respond. Good grief.
I didn't want a debate, I wanted to hopefully get someone's attention about not taking a stand.
Perhaps I should edit my title...
God bless.


_________________
Chad Lough

 2004/3/4 11:51Profile









 Re:

Philologos,

Well, I guess it is premeditated to keep a stick handy. However, it is not pre-emptive. The only way I would use it is if someone had already broken into my house. In this instance, using it would prevent a greater violence from happening.

If another nation invades the U.S. (what, Mexico, Canada???) we should repel them.

When asked why they perpetrated 911, Al Queda mentioned the presence of U.S. troops in the 'holy land' which, for them, is Saudi Arabia. Thus our foreign military presence is a menace to our own society as it aggrevates others against us.

The U.S. has no responsibility to keep order in the world. Believing we have such a responsibility and acting on it has been the cause of much hatred against us and has not made us safer or the world safer.

Pre-emtive war is a very bad policy as it encourages other countries to do the same. What would happen if all the countries of the world set out to strike down perceived (but nonexistent) threats against them?

Jake

 2004/3/4 12:02
Chad
Member



Joined: 2003/11/17
Posts: 56
JC MO

 Re: JAKE...READ MY POSTS

Okay, Jake, I want to be peaceful and gentle, yet this now irritates me. This post is about SPIRITUAL WARFARE!!! So, with all gentleness, I ask you, start your own thread and debate violence or whatever.
God bless...
Chad Lough


_________________
Chad Lough

 2004/3/4 12:29Profile









 Re:


What is spiritual warfare? Sounds like an oxymoron -- randomly organized, larger half, genuine imitation naughahide -- if I ever heard one.

Jake

 2004/3/4 12:41





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy