Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He may have. How would the angels have protected the woman? Scripture suggests by some form of violence most likely involving fire.

---

Yet Jesus rebukes James and John for wanting to call down fire on the unrepentant towns. Upthread I referred to the Son to using a different (and higher) way to OT methods of divine justice. (I don't think that puts me in Club Marcion, but come on - there is a different tone and higher teaching introduced with the New Covenant).

Maybe the angels would have thrown a protective shield around her. (Oh boy - how very Harry Potter! But a similar thing seems to have happened when an angry crowd wanted to push Jesus over a cliff and He just walks calmly through them.)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
precious little biblical support for it beyond a few proof texts.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
precious little biblical support for it beyond a few proof texts.

---

The irony! The irony! It burns!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Laurelin - so Jesus' condemnation of killing is just to be ignored?

---

quote:

---

You either obey Jesus or you don't, surely?

---

quote:

---

Us not funding the arms industry would be a nice start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Is there an example from scripture of angels using shields?

---

Of course not, which I'm sure you know.

I believe He would have stopped the men from stoning the woman, and would have done so. Heck - He did so!

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
It wasn't Jesus IngoB.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I've repeatedly said scripture taken as a whole. I've yet to see anybody arguing for pacifism engage with the significant amount of scripture that contradicts the claim. Doing so means accepting Marcionism as orthodoxy and even then you have to ignore large portions of scripture.

---

Surely the texts quoted by mousethief upthread present a pretty powerful case against killing ... words directly from the Master Himself. Taking Scripture as a whole surely also means regarding Jesus' interpretation of the Torah as definitive.

I take the Bible's teaching on judgment seriously. That doesn't mean I literally see Jesus as a killer.

I respect pacifists, and I think they have a genuine biblical case to make.

I just can't be one myself.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Laurelin - so Jesus' condemnation of killing is just to be ignored?

---

I could probably choose to be a pacifist for my own sake. I think I would find it an impossible position to take on behalf of others. That doesn't mean I think Jesus is OK with us killing people.

quote:

---

You either obey Jesus or you don't, surely?

---

As if any of us find that easy. This is why one of my heroes is Bonhoeffer - his life and death illustrate these kinds of moral complexities. A man who felt led to try to kill Hitler. Sums up the dilemma well.

quote:

---

Us not funding the arms industry would be a nice start.

---

Fine by me!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Is there an example from scripture of angels using shields?

---

Of course not, which I'm sure you know.

I believe He would have stopped the men from stoning the woman, and would have done so. Heck - He did so!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I understand that it is difficult and that things are complex....but then you get into 'did God really say to do that' territory.

---

quote:

---

I can understand accepting war as the better of two evils, but that does mean accepting it as an evil and not calling it a just war. It's never just, it can only be less unjust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Which one of Mousthiefs proof texts address use of violence by a ruler against those doing evil? All of his texts from Matthew deal with revenge, murder, and hatred in interpersonal relationships. Again, Jesus on multiple occasions uses rulers using violence to describe the kingdom of heaven and never implies the violence in the OT was wrong. Paul confirms that in Romans 12. Add to that John's command to the soldiers and the case for pacifism from scripture crumbles.

---

I'm having a mighty hard time, though, trying to reconcile Jesus of Nazareth supporting the killing of Canaanite babies. I truly, truly am.
(John's command to the soldiers? Sorry, I don't get the reference ...)

I see the actions of the state as totally separate from the kingdom of God. Perhaps I'm straying into Luther's concept of the two kingdoms here. I do see the state as being subject to the sovereignty of God, which is why I can read Romans 13 and not blow a gasket. And it's why I don't think that it's wrong for Christians to serve in the army, or in counter-intelligence.

But I do NOT see the state as being synonymous with God's rule. (Especially as the state can be, and often is, anti-God.)

The idea of Jesus picking sides in any war is ludicrous and obscene. We can't co-opt Him for our nationalisms and pathologies. But that doesn't mean I think we were wrong to declare war on the Third Reich. Poland had been invaded, people were suffering, a whole programme of genocide was about to be unleashed. The aggressor puts everyone in a difficult position.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What impresses me is how long you will fight this losing battle. Lost for two thousand years actually. Till you die. Long after I do. You and IngoB. But love wins mate. Even though it won't, can't for two hundred thousand. There will be people like you regarding the bible and its one God as an indecipherable flat cookbook. When ...

---

Do you honestly believe that the human race will ever lose its war gene? You might as well tell people to stop arguing on a messageboard.

The only way to eliminate the violence within us is through spiritual regeneration, and I'm not convinced that everybody actually wants this. I'm not convinced that everybody wants to be on board with the peaceful, better way of Jesus. There will be groups like IS for as long as the human race is around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
As I'm sure the overwhelmingly Christian Waffen SS will. And Hitler again.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is some question whether Bonhoeffer really was involved in the plot, I understand - but I don't understand why so many of you think he was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler (if he actually did).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right. It is a theological position held by people who think war is OK but assassination of the instigator of the holocaust is not. Riiight.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Whom are you sarcasting here? I never suggested war is OK. I disagree with just war theory for the same reason I think assassinating anybody is sinful. However I also believe that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we don't get a choice between something that's sinful and something that's not. Sometimes every option we have before us will result in us transgressing God's will for humanity in some way. But this is taking us far afield perhaps from the question at hand.

---

Posted                       

Barnabas62 – thanks, great post. You and I seem to be on the same page. Yes, I do think there is a trajectory. Definitely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Looks like you're successfully repressing yours Laurelin.

---

quote:

---

No one can. Ever. If His war gene is unrestrained, is somehow ineffably justified in His mind, there can be no hope for ours.

---

quote:

---

When Andrew, Justin and George repent and lead as true shepherds, there will be hope. But they won't. They can't. It's not their fault. They are fecklessly innocent. JUST like IS and the SS.

---

IS and the SS are not fecklessly innocent. I can't stand this kind of moral flat-lining. We don't have to fall into the trap of demonising or 'othering' people whilst still finding their crimes abhorrent. (And why is it all up to Andrew, Justin and George? They're not the only voices around.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
...I also believe that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we don't get a choice between something that's sinful and something that's not. Sometimes every option we have before us will result in us transgressing God's will for humanity in some way. But this is taking us far afield perhaps from the question at hand.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”

19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Laurelin

You posted recently that scripture has a trajectory. A somewhat meandering one, no doubt. But I think it is possible to argue that the journey from killing enemies to loving enemies reveals a growing and changing human understanding of God. From tribal God above all Gods to the One God and Father of us all.

I'm not sure if the trajectory understanding is an acceptable view of revelation in scripture as Catholics see it. Nor is it the traditional evangelical view. As it happens, it's my view. I think Marcion was wrong to see two Gods, of course, but we've always tended to argue that what was hidden in the OT is revealed in the NT. So I think trajectory understandings are reasonable consistent both with the content of scripture and earlier understandings as well.

The tensions over pacifism tend to reveal these underlying differences over trajectory. As I understand him, Martin60 sees the ultimate end of this trajectory, that God will be all in all, as a command to eschew all violence today.

I think these are also different responses to the underlying dilemma of the human tendency to violence. The kingdom is both now, and not yet. So we differ over the outworking of "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven'. Ends and means?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I didn't say it would stop them. I said it was following the example of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, but surely the point is that if we can't discount the actions of IS as inherently ungodly (i.e. God wouldn't ask people to do shit like that, because that's nasty and God isn't), then what standard can we use to measure the IS claim that they are working for the deity? Doesn't that take out one simple plank?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please illustrate how wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have achieved aims by the Western powers that 'won' them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
ISTM that modern wars have absolutely never achieved the aims of protecting the innocent, because modern warfare is unable to do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
It wasn't Jesus IngoB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I just find it a bit puzzling that the command to not kill is brushed aside like that - not saying you're brushing it aside, but that the articles in the opening post seem to be (and other Christian non-pacifists do).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
There will be people like you regarding the bible and its one God as an indecipherable flat cookbook.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I've said nowhere in this thread that I support the idea of a 'just war', I'm not sure I believe there is such a thing. ... My position is that war is regrettably sometimes a necessary evil ...

---

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success; and
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
The idea of Jesus picking sides in any war is ludicrous and obscene. We can't co-opt Him for our nationalisms and pathologies. But that doesn't mean I think we were wrong to declare war on the Third Reich.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There's this little verse here.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

Martin60: Looks like you're successfully repressing yours Laurelin.

---

Laurelin: Please don't presume to tell me what I am, or am not, repressing. Thanks.

---

That was a complement thanks. And that's passive aggression in response to yours. Thanks. That we need to fully EXpress. With a higher narrative. To be able to work through our war gene expression.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Martin: No one can. Ever. If His war gene is unrestrained, is somehow ineffably justified in His mind, there can be no hope for ours.

---

Laurelin: I get you. But then you lose me with this:

quote:

---

Martin: When Andrew, Justin and George repent and lead as true shepherds, there will be hope. But they won't. They can't. It's not their fault. They are fecklessly innocent. JUST like IS and the SS.

---

Laurelin: IS and the SS are not fecklessly innocent.

---

quote:

---

Laurelin: I can't stand this kind of moral flat-lining.

---

quote:

---

Laurelin: We don't have to fall into the trap of demonising or 'othering' people whilst still finding their crimes abhorrent.

---

quote:

---

Laurelin: (And why is it all up to Andrew, Justin and George? They're not the only voices around.)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
...I also believe that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils.
Sometimes we don't get a choice between something that's sinful and something that's not.
Sometimes every option we have before us will result in us transgressing God's will for humanity in some way.
But this is taking us far afield perhaps from the question at hand.

---

No, I don’t think it’s taking us far afield. I agree with Martin that this is on point and pretty much at the heart of the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62: I think it does, Martin60.

There is an understanding that martyrdom is a calling. One to which not everyone is called. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62: For all those in Rome who were martyred, there were others, who worshiped in secret, found ways of co-existing with the oppression all around them, and also helped to keep the flame alive.
It seems likely that some of them were soldiers, some slaves.

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62: It seems to me wrong to draw distinctions about who found the better way. We weren't in their shoes.

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62: From the immortal line in "A Man for all Seasons", we are all called to serve the Lord wittily, in the tangle of our minds.
If those tangled minds come up with different answers sometimes, that isn't surprising.
As mousethief, accurately, observed, life can get pretty tangled sometimes.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I didn't say it would stop them. I said it was following the example of Christ.

---

No, it wouldn't be. If there was an IS caliphate, and you were a dhimmi subject in it, then Christ's actions in the gospel might provide a direct pattern for yours. But that's not the situation you find yourself in.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pomona:
The idea of Jesus picking sides in any war is ludicrous and obscene. We can't co-opt Him for our nationalisms and pathologies. But that doesn't mean I think we were wrong to declare war on the Third Reich.

---

quote:

---

And the killing of a mass murdering tyrant is evil according to what Christian scripture or doctrine, please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
We ALL are. All. IN our fecklessness, we are innocent. We have been for at least two hundred thousand years.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

However, I do believe that we can see what improves human flourishing, by observing human life - and violence and war generally do not help. They are, at best, "therapeutic" in the sense of removing a greater evil. At worst, they ruin the lives of everybody, including of the supposed victors. And in between we find the majority of cases, where the lot of one group of people is improved at the expense of another group. Now, I believe a coherent religious view of God has to take this into account, i.e., how humans flourish in an everyday, average sense cannot be independent of God's will. But this limits how much violence and war one can possibly attribute to God's will, if God is to be coherent.

In summary, I believe that one can reasonably argue that attributing violence and war to God has to be a special and rare occasion, and furthermore, that such violence and war has to point to some goal beyond itself (cannot be a good just in and by itself). Otherwise this becomes incoherent with the will of God we see at work in people's everyday lives.

Now, I'm not familiar enough with the ideological claims of IS to say whether they would satisfy these conditions. If not, then I think one can validly argue against their faith. But if they do, then I indeed think that moral accusations against them are basically pointless. An exceptional mission from God cannot be logically blocked by everyday rules from God. Then it really boils down to faith vs. faith, i.e., it's the fact that I think their prophet is false, and on top of that, that their interpretation of their prophet's teaching is likely also false, which allows me to reject their claim to have an exceptional mission from God. This however leaves the realm of reasoned argument, and basically sets will against will.

---

quote:

---

That's tyrannical - and as for every tyrant, it is then just to resist you and remove you from power, if necessary by force.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Laurelin:
m having a mighty hard time, though, trying to reconcile Jesus of Nazareth supporting the killing of Canaanite babies. I truly, truly am.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
'Evangelical' is probably unfair, since there are certainly evangelical pacifists and evangelicals committed to spiritual and other kinds of poverty. But why is it that the most prominent Christian pacifists I know are Catholic (Pax Christi)?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Laurelin:
m having a mighty hard time, though, trying to reconcile Jesus of Nazareth supporting the killing of Canaanite babies. I truly, truly am.

---

I don't know why. Jesus makes it clear on several occasions that the Jews were God's chosen people. Why not expect God to favor Israel over their neighbors in the brutal fight for cultural survival that existed in the ancient world. The Hittites once ruled a vast empire. When was the last known sacrifice to Inara?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I see no reason to go through the motions of worshiping an idol of my own making.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
You sub-contract that out to Bronze and Iron Age savages.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
'Evangelical' is probably unfair, since there are certainly evangelical pacifists and evangelicals committed to spiritual and other kinds of poverty. But why is it that the most prominent Christian pacifists I know are Catholic (Pax Christi)?

---

You haven't met the strong tradition of Welsh Nonconformist pacifism, then? Mind you, five minutes with them makes me want to join the army.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is some question whether Bonhoeffer really was involved in the plot, I understand - but I don't understand why so many of you think he was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler (if he actually did).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
And IngoB, it was JTB, who, like Mary, isn't a member of the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Then we disagree fundamentally. At best, we agree on the basis of scripture, and disagree on the basis of the Holy Spirit. But the disagreement is still there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So - how many men, women and children would you kill to stop an idea like IS?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to accomplish the task? Your own? Your children's? This is not an abstract conversation. Figures would be useful.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And that doesn't even appear to be a verbal flourish, you really do seem to believe that abortion might justify violence.
link to thread

---

WTF?! I have said nothing on that thread (or in the linked post) that would even remotely suggest that. Are you out of your mind?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
WTF?! I have said nothing on that thread (or in the linked post) that would even remotely suggest that. Are you out of your mind?

---