SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : "Killing on the battlefield is not a sin."

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 )
PosterThread
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: Lest we forget the real heros

also from the web:

World War II was also the setting for some of the most dramatic accounts of intercession in the twentieth century. Rees Howells founded the Bible College of Wales and during the critical days of the war, intercessors there cried out to Heaven for divine intervention. Some of their most fervent and desperate prayers came during the Battle of Britain. The German Luftwaffe pounded England in preparation for a German invasion. Outmanned and outgunned, the plucky Royal Air Force stood between the British Isle and the German onslaught. Yet as the British Spitfires went up in the air to face a foe of far superior numbers, it seemed as if an unseen hand shifted the outcome of the battle. Here’s the conclusion of the battle as described in Rees Howells: Intercessor.

Mr. Churchill, in his War Memoirs, gives September 15 (1940) as ‘the culminating date’ in that Battle of the Air. He tells how he visited the Operations Room of the Air. He tells how he visited the Operations Room of the R.A.F. that day and watched as the enemy squadrons poured over and ours went up to meet them, until the moment came when he asked the Air Marshal, ‘What other reserves have we?’ ‘There are none,’ he answered, and reported afterwards how grave Mr. Churchill looked, ‘and well I might,’ added Churchill. Then another five minutes passed, and ‘it appeared the enemy were going home. The shifting of the discs on the table showed a continuous eastward movement of German bombers and fighters. No new attack appeared. In another ten minutes the action was ended.’ There seemed no reason why the Luftwaffe should have turned for home, just at the moment when victory was in their grasp. But we know why.

After the war, Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding, Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain, made this significant comment: ‘Even during the battle one realized from day to day how much external support was coming in. At the end of the battle one had the sort of feeling that there had been some special Divine intervention to alter some sequence of events which would otherwise have occurred.’

Do you believe this?
Why might the history books have left this out?
Who won the war?

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2007/3/15 8:34Profile
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re:

Quote:

SteveHale wrote:
Also in Matthew 8,Jesus meets the Centurion. A lot of people forget that a Centurion is a leader in the Army.Yet Jesus said to those following him that he had not found anyone in Israel with such faith.



Is it possible that Jesus was emphasising a greater point here? Consider how the illustration of faith being comprehended by a soldiers understanding of subordination to superiors would have broken down had he contented against the soldier's violence. After all, his violence was mostly the result of obeying orders.


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2007/3/15 8:43Profile
vico
Member



Joined: 2005/5/25
Posts: 258


 Re:

Krispy said:

Quote:
Tell ya what... why dont we all lay down our arms and do nothing to prevent evil in this world. Lets see how long we last.

It's real easy for people to say we should be pacifists when we have never really had to face an enemy on our own soil. We've never had someone break into our homes and threaten our families.

It's all talk.



Ok, so this is going back to the beginning of this thread, but i just had a question about this and would appreciate some input.

My Great, Great Grandparents came to Canada from Russia. They were German Mennonites as were their parents for at least five generations previous. They came to Russia from Germany and Prussia, escaping the persecution of the Anabaptists in the 1700's. Around the 1860's the Russians began to persecute the Mennonites because of their religious beliefs, especially their stance on pacifism.

Krispy, They did break into their homes, they did threaten their families, they came into their homes and took the fathers and sons away during the night, never to be heard from again. Many were taken to Siberia, to the labor camps, they were overworked and underfed, dieing away from everyone they loved. The Russians went through the Mennonite communities raping the mothers and young women, they stole, and they killed.

My great great grandparents were some of the fortunate and were able to escape, only to make a dangerous journey across Europe, during which many people died, some were stopped and arrested before they ever got out.

Now my question is, was that all for nothing?

I won't take it personally if you think that they laid down their lives for a worthless cause.

Should they have taken up arms?

during WW1 and WW2 many Mennonites were sent to labor camps because they couldn't fight with a clear conscience. Was that wise?

What should they have done?

Will someone please comment.

 2007/3/15 10:46Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Quote:

vico wrote:
Krispy said:
Quote:
Tell ya what... why dont we all lay down our arms and do nothing to prevent evil in this world. Lets see how long we last.

It's real easy for people to say we should be pacifists when we have never really had to face an enemy on our own soil. We've never had someone break into our homes and threaten our families.

It's all talk.



Ok, so this is going back to the beginning of this thread, but i just had a question about this and would appreciate some input.

My Great, Great Grandparents came to Canada from Russia. They were German Mennonites as were their parents for at least five generations previous. They came to Russia from Germany and Prussia, escaping the persecution of the Anabaptists in the 1700's. Around the 1860's the Russians began to persecute the Mennonites because of their religious beliefs, especially their stance on pacifism.

Krispy, They did break into their homes, they did threaten their families, they came into their homes and took the fathers and sons away during the night, never to be heard from again. Many were taken to Siberia, to the labor camps, they were overworked and underfed, dieing away from everyone they loved. The Russians went through the Mennonite communities raping the mothers and young women, they stole, and they killed.

My great great grandparents were some of the fortunate and were able to escape, only to make a dangerous journey across Europe, during which many people died, some were stopped and arrested before they ever got out.

Now my question is, was that all for nothing?

I won't take it personally if you think that they laid down their lives for a worthless cause.

Should they have taken up arms?

during WW1 and WW2 many Mennonites were sent to labor camps because they couldn't fight with a clear conscience. Was that wise?

What should they have done?

Will someone please comment.




Vico,

They did what was right. The early Christians had to do what your family members did. It wasn't a waste, they were obeying Christ.

Jordan


_________________
Jordan

 2007/3/15 20:28Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: what if you are on the weaker side

Quote:
It's real easy for people to say we should be pacifists when we have never really had to face an enemy on our own soil. We've never had someone break into our homes and threaten our families


Actually, for the vast majority in the world who are being oppressed in this manner, the sword does them no good. Their tormenters are far too powerful. In fact, their sword will merely incite the wrath of their oppressor. That’s what the Jews discovered in 70 AD when they tried to liberate themselves from the Romans using the sword. Not a good idea. God had a better idea: submit to the Romans, and join another kingdom: the Kingdom of God.

My parents and grandparents sure knew about having the enemy walk into their homes, take their valuables, their furniture, their food, shoot whomever they want. For them, during Nazi occupation in Holland, their sword was useless. So what could they do?

Those relatives of mine who had true faith, moved ahead, and did a lot of rescuing and hiding: shot down Canadian pilots, Jews, etc, They had to find food for them, ration tickets, clothes, etc. The ones who did not have faith were ineffective, to say the least. For them, terror, was their constant experience.

The sword can’t even be considered unless one is sure of winning. You first have to make sure you have enough allies, or you are more power than your enemy (at least you believe so).

Admit it, when you are the most powerful nation in the world, your sword sounds reasonable. But it is not that way for most of the world.

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2007/3/15 22:34Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

I sense the tide is shifting...

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2007/3/15 23:08Profile
vico
Member



Joined: 2005/5/25
Posts: 258


 Re:

Don't get me wrong, my family did not suffer in Russia exactly like the early Christians did. Their pacifistic beliefs were the religious beliefs they were persecuted for. Some may say that that is not exactly suffering for Christ's sake. But that is the way that they seen it. They simply believed that taking up arms is against the teachings of Jesus, so they refused when they the law required that that all eligible aged men join the army.

Did they suffer for Christ's sake? or did they suffer because they were mislead and mistaken?

 2007/3/16 12:19Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Quote:
Did they suffer for Christ's sake? or did they suffer because they were mislead and mistaken?



Was Christ glorified? Did the world see something that it feared?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2007/3/16 21:23Profile









 Re:

These things may have been said already but this is a long thread and no real time to read it all. Just a few thoughts then:

1. "Thou shalt not kill" actually means don't do murder. Nothing to do with killing someone in a war.

2. In the Old Testament taking vengeance for murder was the duty of the next of kin, if able. In the case of manslaughter, where someone was killed by accident, the killer could flee to the nearest city of refuge, so that the "avenger of blood" (Hebrew goel) shouldn't be able to kill him, as he hadn't meant any harm.

An example is in 2Samuel 2:18 to 3:33. In time of civil war, Asahel the brother of Joab, David's general, was killed by Abner, the enemy general.

Afterwards David made peace with Abner. But Joab killed Abner in revenge for the death of his brother.

Abner didn't want to kill Asahel, who was running after him to try and kill him, and told him to chase someone else. But Asahel was a very fast runner and wouldn't stop coming after Abner, so Abner had no choice but to kill him.

War is horrible, but its often a case of kill or be killed, and there was no bloodguilt, or duty of revenge for a soldier who was killed in battle.

But Joab murdered Abner in peacetime, and by stealth. He justified it by thinking it was his duty as the "goel", but it was not.

I'm not sure how that principle applies today, but there is a difference between a war and a peace situation. Killing someone in battle is not the same as murder.

jeannette

 2007/3/26 16:51









 Re:

It is a symplification, but then that is why He came, to make things simpler in a complicated and corrupt world: Jesus was a pacifist.

Bub

 2007/3/26 17:49





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy