I'd appreciate the Christian members of wol explaining to me how they can support war when Jesus seems to outright say not to do things like that.

Be creative!

War is horrible. Its fun tp play war games like wol but in real life its horrible. ppl killing ppl brother against brother babies fighting babies? k maby thats too far but u get the idea right?

you know there are plenty of instances of god helping a side in a war. Like the story of david and goliath. The little kid KILLED goliath with god's help. christianity dosent condone violence, but the bible does recognise that you cant stop war and disputes between two or more sides.

he has a point but wat about wars nowadays doesnt seem like god or jesus justifie it

Mog
I think it's very interesting how this thread got started after making the comments that follow:

"Since religion relies on faith and not reason, you cannot expect fanatically zealous religionists to think reasonably about these serious issues. They need to be sidelined and thoughtful, moral people with no axe to grind put in power."-Mog

Also to be perfectly honest I think the two comments are contradictory concerning the bias that is supposedly intended to be eliminated and I'm sorry if you or anyone else doesn't see it.

I have stated in another thread from the Catholic encyclopedia how war can be reconciled by Christians as being the right of proper authorities to keep order and whether anyone cares to agree the USA did get the right to act from the United Nations.
The proper conduct of a human being is stated quite well in that Catholic encyclopedia and amazingly is very close to international statutes.

There is also reference to the word violence under a separate topic and again the Catholic Church is aligned with the statutes of man which make a distinction between acting in anger on impulse and premeditation. The Church refers to free will not being in control where there is impulsive anger and so as with man made rules there is a lesser degree of guilt if a man impulsively strikes back when struck.

I believe that the statement by Jesus,
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
and unto God that which is God's"
covers all aspects of how Jesus expected his followers to behave under authority.
I know that will cause controversy from Sweden to Whocaresville, but Jesus recognized the facts and the facts were that the Romans were conquerers, and were doing the best they could even though they were pagans to administer Roman government and peace in their conquered world even though it wasn't appreciated that they held the Parthian Empire at bay from the Near East;
and Roman government is at the basis of most of Western civilization even today so the Romans weren't all bad.
Were they?

There are some who try to say that Jesus tried to avoid a trap by saying,
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
and unto God that which is God's"
because supposedly somewhere in the Bible there is something said about not paying tribute to a heathen host or something like that, but personally I'm not into the Old Testament;
and IMO Jesus Christ Himself is a Contradiction to the Old Testament.

PS:
Pope John Paul II was very loved and very much a pacifist Pope, but this new Pope is making great strides already toward world peace and he's as I had hoped ... a Pope who knows "when to stop turning the other cheek" to all.

TR

PPS:
Sorry if this was supposed to be a fun thread.

TR

I meant it as a serious inquiry.

Also, I did make this thread as a thought from the other thread you mentioned. I decided to make it a separate thread though. I used the word fanatic to describe someone I think is unreasonable and I don't believe all people who are religiously inclined are unreasonable, just the fanatical ones! In any religion there is room for fanatical behavior.

I guess what I really want isn't the particular religious viewpoint, but a thoughtful explanation of individual beliefs about this matter.

I don't consider myself a Christian, I am agnostic. I just don't understand how anyone who heard what Jesus said in general could justify war. I am under no such restriction since I am not a believer, but I think war is generally the wrong answer.

Last Edited : Monday, 1 August 2005 - 00:16

No true Christian can support war, or any kind of violence. If they do support war they are ignorant of the true teaching.

I think this will be one of the longest threads on wol.
)

There is no doubt war is evil. However, there are situations that war has to be supported. Think of WWII and all the evil that the Third Reich did to nations of Europe in general, and to Jews in particular.

Think of the Holocaust, death camps and concentration camps, and forced labor, and all the people killed in combat or public executions. Do you think that it was not right and against the religion for Christians to support the war against the Third Reich?

It is right for Christians to support the Caesar (government), if it creates the living conditions for people, in which they can enjoy their freedom, and dignity, and can live closer to God.

War has to be avoided, but NOT at all cost. Sometimes it is the only way to make sure people live in freedom and peace and justice. This is a difficult choice, and it has to be remembered that the goal does not justify the means, but the choice has to be made, and has to be supported.

Final comment:
The above is a general comment about "christianity vs. war", and does not refer to any political discussions if any of the current war conflicts is right or wrong.

What one must do is to sepaate the old and new testament. The old is not written by christians and is about another religion (judaism) Its true christians borrowed a lot from it but neverthesame it often contradicts what Jesus taught. As a christian you should follow the words of Christ I belive. Its not an excuse to refer to the old testament when it fits your purposes. Read the the preaching at the mountain for guidelines

Seriusly, I had always been thinking about this. Everyone would thought that war was done by those who had authority so that it would brought the best of things. But come to think of it, It was actually (in my opinion) done by most of the authority-especially those of old like romans-so that power can be achieved. Reasons such as bringing the best for human are just reasons to ease the thinking of the citizens at the time. I wouldn't say the exact same thing for war nowadays though...

And another thing about the christian`s teaching that says something about giving your heart and all and at last those who did bad things will eventually be good. Who actually accept this...If you does accept this then why war? If not, then wouldn't it be opposing "HIM"?

Oh, there's another thing that i wanted to ask for quite long already and soree mog for using this thread to ask..:p
What's the difference between an agnostic and freethinker?
I`m one of those type myself so soree if i did opposed anyone...

Boe ... You gave an faily strong opinion with out giving any reasoning...

Reasoning is a good thing I want to know yours

Disturbed,
I can't blame your attitude toward the Romans on your not being familiar with the history of Western Civilization because there are those among us who are familiar with Western Civilization who will dogmatically find any excuse possible to portray the Romans as villians and glorify Hannibal and Carthage for almost defeating them, when the truth of the matter is that as I have said once before, if not for the Romans we would probably all in the West be caring for Carthagian war elephants today.

In ancient times the Mediterranean was full of pirates and Europe was full of warlike barbarians. The Romans started basicly as peaceful farmers who overthrew their oppessive Etruscan kings and established a republic with a senate but they had to defeat one warlike neighbor after another just to survive until they held the entire Italian peninsula. However, the Carthagians were raiding Greek colonies to the south of Italy and on Sicily so they had to go to sea even though they actually feared the sea to defeat Carthage which gave them Sicily, Spain and all of north Africa up to Egypt.

Again though even the glorified Greeks with their contributions of art, architecture, philosophy, literature and democracy not to mention that they initially stopped the Persians from invading Europe, were a union of pirate city states that terrorized the Mediterranean;
So they became the next victims of the Romans along with the territories of the eastern Mediterranean where the Greeks had spread their influence.

Basicly a similar scenario was behind the conquest of Europe where the legions of Julius Caesar defeated one barbarian tribe after another including the Franks of Gaul who were the most numerous and warlike. These tribes liked to pillage and raid peaceful settlers so they had to be Romanized.
Of course everyone knows the story of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra of Egypt and how Egypt came under the Roman yoke but in the Near East the Romans apparently found desert land and people difficult to tame while at the same time having to defend them against a formidable neighbor known at the time as the Parthian Empire.

Basicly the Romans allowed self-government and underlies how they were able to hold these lands and people so long but where the land was not productive and the people tended to be wanton, they tended to be rebellious and is really a big part of the problem today.
I think there is also a religious factor that I don't know is true that according to scriptures the land of the Near and Middle East was divided by Abraham among his descendants but I'm not very familiar with that story to be honest.

TR

Hmmm, I wont really believe errrr...I would say a lot of things actually. It was just the history and it was written that way to remember those who are "great".
Take for example the US now, they said about eliminating the terrorist from this world when they attacked Iraq(i`m sorry to change the meaning of this thread ...mog..)and I wouldn't 100 percent believe that you see. Just like the fighting of Romans against the bad. I would say there's surely something we don't know that are covered by the history.

Apparently, what i felt is that most of the war using god as their motivation were just simply covering up the real truth and of course-simply to motivate them. Human are fragile to be exact and needed something to rely on so god were created just like an imagination. Miracles happened but why did people said it was god? Why can't it be the devils-that's if you believe. I just can't find any reason to believe in any of these. People said god wanted us to experience the suffering when we are indeed suffering so that we can be matured. CRAP!!!...

Hmmm, i think i should stop typing here before i got anymore moody but i did once believe in god. And sorry for typing this in this sad and moody mood. Sorry to those who i offended.

Nobody has even come close to explaining to me how a purported Christian can support war yet. We're getting a lot of history and digressions, is this such a hard subject to face? I'd like a to hear someone's personal beliefs on this matter, not what the church says to say. Doesn't it seem odd that 80% of the US armed forces profess to be "Born Again" Christians but they have found a way to reconcile killing others with Jesus' very clear injunctions against this sort of thing?

"Render unto Caesar" was in response to being asked if people should pay taxes, it wasn't about other moral teachings. Jesus was being rather coy in this, and many other responses he gave to authority. He didn't give a dern about the system in place, it wasn't important to him. He made it very clear that nothing in life mattered except following God and doing God's will.

He went so far as to say that if one's family didn't like your beliefs, to drop them out of your life.


As to Freethinking vs Agnosticism, I'm not sure just what the difference is. Agnosticism is defined as the belief that the ultimate nature of the universe is unknown and probably unknowable. Atheism is the dogmatic belief that there is no God and cannot be one.
Deism is the belief that a God exists, in whatever form.

Have any of you actually struggled with this seeming dichotomy? Have you had to make a decision about whether to use violence or not, predicated on your Christian beliefs? I know some Christians will not be part of war, such as the Quakers and Amish.

I really am curious to know how anybody who professes to believe in Jesus' teachings could support war in any form.

I am a saved and baptized christian, Fundamental Baptist..
I believe that while war is not a good thing, it is necessary.. The only way to get rid of war would be to get rid of governments entirely; then of course, there would be wars between individuals.. wars on smaller scales..
What I'm saying is that war is inherent to our existence, animals war against each other, Birds kill insects.. Snakes kill rats, and so on.. We all have ideas as a nation of people, and other nations have theirs, when the ideas clash.. someone has to give in, which leads to War..
I haven't read anything in the King James version of the Bible that says 'We should not be involved in War'.. the Book of Revelations says that God himself will make War on earth to establish his Kingdom.. Armageddon is the last battle in a War.. God supported David against Goliath and the Philistines.. He's also supported many other wars against the enemies of Israel.. Brought plagues upon Egypt, allowed Samson to kill thousands with the Jaw of a donkey..
Those weren't exactly nice things, but the world isn't a always a peachy place.. sometimes blood has to be spilled..
the Bible tells us to follow the laws of the land.. Whether this is going to war or driving 55 mph.. I think it also says to follow God's commandments above men's.. But following God would be to obey the laws of men when God tells us to.. I think Jesus was making a very plain statement about giving Caeser what's Caesar's and God's what is God's.. Rome wanted it's tax money, so he told them to give them their tax money... If our countries laws told us to go out and rape women, steal and rob and so on.. then we should not follow those laws because it is a violation of God's laws.. But it is not God's law run from War when needed.. He says to let your cheek be slapped, then turn the other cheek if it will stop the person.. He also says to forgive someone 7 times seven times, which basically says that you are not supposed to be at fault at starting a fight and being belligerent if you can help it.. I think that if someone pulled a knife on you, and you had done what you could to keep that person from doing that.. then you would not be at fault for killing that person.. I don't think just going to the Bible, pulling out a chapter or verse and running with it will help someone to understand anything.. you have to look at the whole thing..

P.S.: Mog, where did you get that "80% of US armed forces are born again christians" thing?

Last Edited : Monday, 1 August 2005 - 19:13

You are using old testament examples, not what Jesus said to do. However, in the 10 Commandments there is one about not killing. Early Christian martyrs went willingly to death rather than go against what Jesus said to do, turn the other cheek, i.e. show no resistance to evil since the reward for such behavior was in heaven.

I think that to say you are a Christian and to say in the next breath that war is necessary is one real good reason I could never follow your faith, it is too cruel. War is never necessary, it is just used by evil people to advance their agendas. People like Hitler, who waged war for his own gain. All over the world there are people who will fight for whatever cause they think is just instead of relying on compromise and reason to solve their problems. That is why there are wars, people want what they want and won't play fair. This includes every country and race and religion.

If your God says he will come and make war on earth, I don't need that teaching, thanks!

I got that 80% from the news recently, do your own search, please, I don't want to spend the time on proving it, it has been reported widely recently. The article I read said that people in the services who weren't fundamentalists were being pressured to believe or be ostracized.

Please, more personal experiences and less reliance on scripture. How do YOU yourself balance the clear teachings of Jesus with having a violent nature? Have you ever struggled with this or is it just a case of "I'm saved so I can do what I like?"

Sorry I haven't read the thread.


Who really cares what jesus would do. Didn't god use his power to kill millions of egyptians because they didn't believe in him? How can you ask us to be better than the being we worship? Remember by many peoples beliefs this war is occuring by the will of god!

All of life is part of gods design, which makes him the bigest murder of all.

So far I haven't been struck by lightning but if I disappear from WOL within a few days, you'll know I hit a nerve.

That IS how I personally balance the nature of Jesus's teachings with War. I never said I would just 'do what I like' because I'm saved; That is what I believe and so it is how I govern my life.. Everyone is driven by something Mog, you can't get around it; You're agnostic, you believe that, it evidently makes better sense to you than a known God.. That's what drives your argument.. I believe what I said I believe, it makes sense to me and that's where we hit heads.. On top of that we're talking about something which we could never have all the facts to, or ever fully understand while still living.. I myself hate war, I wish it wasn't happening, that we could all get along.. But that's up to God.. The mere fact that I'm posting this, that anyone posts anything.. that you hate war, that some like it; or even the fact that the concepts of thinking and feeling exists are because of God, for God, and for the Glory of God.. I can't justify war myself, except to say that it is obviously God's will; There's no way to convince someone else except to say "Believe this" or "Believe that".. If you won't believe it, there's nothing else I can say.. Faith is the substance of things hoped for..If you can see them, why hope for them? That is the real problem isn't it?

P.S.: I would never believe or not believe something on the basis that it is 'too cruel'.. it either is or isn't, if you believe what makes you feel good, then why not go off and be a hedonist? I don't see how the belief that we just sort of live, pointlessly roaming along with our useless and temporary lives until we die is any less cruel than war..

Obviously you are at peace with your belief system, theLix, good for you. But isn't what you said fatalistic? You stated that war is "God's will" and shrug your shoulders. Faith and hope are synonymous, I'm very hopeful of the future though I don't have your faith. I'm at a loss to understand the kind of simplistic, and in reality, hopeless view of the world where one thinks we can't change the world, or make it better, or learn more about it, or understand it. Not belittling your beliefs, just don't get it.

Anyone watch the HBO show "Deadwood"? The Doctor had a great quote: "I think God may be omnipotent, I know He is myopic." Or something close to that.

Last Edited : Monday, 1 August 2005 - 22:45