as I mentioned earlier, there are numerous passages in the bible that can be used to support the doctrine that not only is war SOMETIMES justifiable, it is a SOMETIMES a moral obligation.
The Bible is just a lot more complicated than just a bunch of feel-good platitudes and one-liners. Do I understand it all? Not really ...
What I do know is that there is no "official" biblical statement on war. You have to take the book, the whole book, and try to deduce for yourself what it has to say.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
as I mentioned earlier, there are numerous passages in the bible that can be used to support the doctrine that not only is war SOMETIMES justifiable, it is a SOMETIMES a moral obligation.
The Bible is just a lot more complicated than just a bunch of feel-good platitudes and one-liners. Do I understand it all? Not really ...
What I do know is that there is no "official" biblical statement on war. You have to take the book, the whole book, and try to deduce for yourself what it has to say.
What passages are you referring to, in the NT?
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
i'm having a hard time understanding your question. does faith have a context? in what way? i can speak about faith in a biblical way, or i can speak about it in a philisophical way... or tie them both together. Does the message vary from situation to situation? Like how? i'm not sure what you're asking. i mean, i could say, no, the message doesn't vary from situation to situation. the message is still the same... but i need to make sure what you're asking before i can answer you with a more elaborate one.
Well, okay, let me see if I can straighten out my own thoughts on this...
As far as faith justifying a war, which is the issue here... Would Christianity - or, more specifically, the Bible - justify World War 2 for the Allies? And to go deeper, could it Hitler use the Bible to justify his side?
In the same way, would Christianity/the Bible justify the war against "terror", which could be called a war against radical Islam? And I'm not necessarily talking about the war on terror in an idealistic "fighting the terrorists" way, but taking into account the fallout we're seeing in Iraq...
So - that's a loaded question. Sorry:p
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Well, okay, let me see if I can straighten out my own thoughts on this...
As far as faith justifying a war, which is the issue here... Would Christianity - or, more specifically, the Bible - justify World War 2 for the Allies? And to go deeper, could it Hitler use the Bible to justify his side?
In the same way, would Christianity/the Bible justify the war against "terror", which could be called a war against radical Islam? And I'm not necessarily talking about the war on terror in an idealistic "fighting the terrorists" way, but taking into account the fallout we're seeing in Iraq...
So - that's a loaded question. Sorry:p
no, it's good that you ask. cause i wasn't understanding you. i think i couldn't understand you because what you're asking here doesn't apply to me. the bible doesn't justify war at anytime. the Old Testament's fury was a fury for another place and another time... but I can never wrap my mind around the idea how war could be justified by using the bible.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
There is no agreement that a fetus is not a human and where the line is drawn, but you liberals go ahead and kill it anyway. So stop being holier than thou and realize that people can disagree over the Bible's message (although in the end only one interpretation is correct).
no, it's good that you ask. cause i wasn't understanding you. i think i couldn't understand you because what you're asking here doesn't apply to me. the bible doesn't justify war at anytime. the Old Testament's fury was a fury for another place and another time... but I can never wrap my mind around the idea how war could be justified by using the bible.
So the Bible doesn't justify war, but would you say it necessarily advocates pacifism?
(Also: there's a whole other issue I want to get into about the Bible, but I'll ask another time...:D)
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
So the Bible doesn't justify war, but would you say it necessarily advocates pacifism?
(Also: there's a whole other issue I want to get into about the Bible, but I'll ask another time...:D)
it's more of a mindset rather than advocating pacifism... it doesn't condemn you if you slap someone back... it's mainly saying that there's another way of winning a war... the weapon is love. love can beat anything... and i truly believe this.... at least, the kind of love that Jesus was advocating, which is more than just a quasi-feeling.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
it's more of a mindset rather than advocating pacifism... it doesn't condemn you if you slap someone back... it's mainly saying that there's another way of winning a war... the weapon is love. love can beat anything... and i truly believe this.... at least, the kind of love that Jesus was advocating, which is more than just a quasi-feeling.
Which would seem to me to be the basis of morality... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, all that noise. So it basically just leads back into the argument over whether morality is intrinsically linked to religion...
Which I really don't want to get into, and I'm sure you don't.:p
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Which would seem to me to be the basis of morality... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, all that noise. So it basically just leads back into the argument over whether morality is intrinsically linked to religion...
Which I really don't want to get into, and I'm sure you don't.:p
well, that only depends what you think of me. i don't think morality is something linked to religion... i think that by nature we are who we are... but it doesn't negate the fact (edit: or the idea) that there was a creator who constructed us with these facets.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
well, that only depends what you think of me. i don't think morality is something linked to religion... i think that by nature we are who we are... but it doesn't negate the fact (edit: or the idea) that there was a creator who constructed us with these facets.
I was gonna argue until you edited.:D And don't worry, I think very highly of you right now. You seem to able to argue for religion without resorting to blind faith, and I respect that.
So while I've got your attention, I'm gonna go off-topic for just a little bit...:p
If you read the the first link I posted on the first page, the Catholic magazine calls acceptance of homosexual behaviour "low moral standards". I know this is based on a line from the bible (man shall not lie with fellow man or something?)
Basically, I was wondering if you'd consider homosexuality a sin, or does today's more tolerant world (and perhaps, expanded understanding of the human condition) make the hardline "homosexuality is wrong" mindset outdated?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
There is no agreement that a fetus is not a human and where the line is drawn, but you liberals go ahead and kill it anyway. So stop being holier than thou and realize that people can disagree over the Bible's message (although in the end only one interpretation is correct).
there can be no doubt that the foetus growing inside a human woman is in fact human. it can not be classed as anything else.
if two people interpret the bible differently and yet both still lead righteous lives, does that not make both their interpreattaions correct?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
there can be no doubt that the foetus growing inside a human woman is in fact human. it can not be classed as anything else.
if two people interpret the bible differently and yet both still lead righteous lives, does that not make both their interpreattaions correct?
I agree with you on the fetus being human.
I do not think that two separate interpretations can be correct if the underlying facts are consistent (i.e., murder vs. self-defense would be two different fact patterns regarding the killing of another person). What is your definition of righteous? Perfect? Sinless? If that is the case, than the subject being interpreted was either not a sin issue, and or there can be two interpretations that are right (I just don't see this though).
Example:
Baptism - lots of disagreement on this issue, but in the end only one answer can be correct. But, if the answer is it is not required, then I guess those that thought it was are still going to be okay. But, their interpretation was still wrong.
Christians don't really believe in the words of Christ
Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.
You see, to me that's really the basis of this thread. If they believed in the words of Christ and if they were truly doing what Jesus would do, then they wouldn't ever justify killing. Even in self-defense.
I was gonna argue until you edited.:D And don't worry, I think very highly of you right now. You seem to able to argue for religion without resorting to blind faith, and I respect that.
So while I've got your attention, I'm gonna go off-topic for just a little bit...:p
If you read the the first link I posted on the first page, the Catholic magazine calls acceptance of homosexual behaviour "low moral standards". I know this is based on a line from the bible (man shall not lie with fellow man or something?)
Basically, I was wondering if you'd consider homosexuality a sin, or does today's more tolerant world (and perhaps, expanded understanding of the human condition) make the hardline "homosexuality is wrong" mindset outdated?
this is where you make me walk on ice... see, as a believer i'm always being judged by what i say because it might seem as if i'm condemning someone who has other standards of living... i wouldn't call it a "low moral standard" myself though. it's important to understand that i believe in the bible... and it's also important for me to understand that there are those who don't. so while i might give an answer i might be offending others... to sum it up, the bible never agrees with homosexuality... if a person wants to condemn the bible's message for it then sobeit. why then should we get into this argument? why try to convince unbelievers?
if someone believes homosexuality is wrong, then take it as such, a belief. if someone believes it's ok, then take it as such. otherwise we'd both be going in circles. i could never convince someone it is wrong.... so i will never wasste my time living with that hardline miindset. outdated or not... there are just different values that we all have to face with. like smoking marijuana, or drinking beer... sleeping with countless number of sex partners... not stopping to help someone with a flat tire, or vice-versa.... or preaching the "word of God". just take 'em at face value, i guess, it's my stance.
my conclusion is that if someone wants to understand the real juice of it.... if someone wants to see and understand the way a believer would, then we'd have to open our minds to what the Bible really has to say.... like the scripture itself says, "faith comes from hearing... and hearing by the word of God."
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
You see, to me that's really the basis of this thread. If they believed in the words of Christ and if they were truly doing what Jesus would do, then they wouldn't ever justify killing. Even in self-defense.
well, see this is where you are misunderstanding the mindset of Christ then. i understand what you are saying... and i agree. but it's more important to understand the mindset that Christ was offering. I don't condone killing... so don't get me wrong here. but in rare cases like self-defense... if someone were to come with a gun and try rape my girlfriend and kill me i'm going to fight back. we have to learn to use common sense with these things. like i said, i understand what you are saying, but it is more a mindset than it is a set of rules. Jesus did not write the law of "turning the other cheek" on a tablet of stone... Jesus came to deliver our minds from the constant ideas of the world. it's not an idea about "paying back" cause then you will gather where his mindset is. and i've always interpreted that scripture as such... that it's not about revenge... it's about forgiveness... but when it comes to defending yourself that's a whole other ballpark.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
yes, it sucks for us... cause in reality the bible is absolutely right.... do you know what righteous means? upright? perfect? that's what it means... a perfect being. a perfect man. is that what you are trying to be, a perfect man? i mean, it would be nice... i'd like to be perfect but it's impossible because of my human characteristics. the bible says that there is no one perfect but it also says that perfection can be achieved through faith. "the righteous shall live by faith"
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
You see, to me that's really the basis of this thread. If they believed in the words of Christ and if they were truly doing what Jesus would do, then they wouldn't ever justify killing. Even in self-defense.
How do you know what Jesus would do? Again, it's only your interpretation.
Maybe if Christ wasn't so preoccupied with dying for everyone's sins, he might have kicked some ass.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
How do you know what Jesus would do? Again, it's only your interpretation.
Maybe if Christ wasn't so preoccupied with dying for everyone's sins, he might have kicked some ass.
This is a strange idea. What do you mean by "kicking ass"? Fighting people? Jesus came specifically for the purpose of NOT fighting people, in a physical sense. He rebuked the Zealots of the Jewish community - like Peter - who wanted to rebel and overthrow the Roman occupation. He told them they had missed the idea completely by thinking force could establish the true Kingdom. I'd say what Jesus did do wasn't a preoccupation or a lack of kicking ass. It kicked ass as much as was/is possible.
Also, I'd ask you again. I am honestly asking what passages or ideas in the New Testament may lead you to believe that Christians shouldn't be pacifist. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. You said there were passages that said war is a moral obligation. What are they?
And from what I can find on the early Church, they were anything but violent for the first 3 or 4 hundred years. They allowed themselves to be murdered by the Romans in the most gruesome of ways. Not until after Constantine were there "Christian wars" or rulers thinking they could fight with the endorsement of Christ.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
and he did not redeem Israel... the bible never says it. He redeemed humanity. Israel still has certain things pending and they have not claimed Christ as the true Messiah.
Ooh. Have to disagree with you there. True, some of Israel denied him and his Kingdom. But Christ redeemed it whether some of them were on board or not. The entire OT points to Israel's redemption through a Messiah. Most of them thought that meant a physical Kingdom that would defeat Rome. When it didn't, Jesus wasn't fully received. But nevertheless, he accomplished his goal of redemption. Israel - the people not today's country - was redeemed along with everyone else.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
And i'm sure that many will disagree with me, even other Christians, but Jesus is not God. and the scripture that say I and my Father are one doesn't mean that. it's a spiritual meaning.
What about this famous exchange:
"13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ."
Lets also consider this from the OT book of Daniel:
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
Let us remember that Jesus often referred to himself as the "son of man". Obvious reference to this passage.
There are many others (this is really to complicated for a message board).
Jesus claiming to forgive sinners (even those whose transgressions were not committed against him personaly), a practice in Jewish custom that was highly blasphempous as only God had the authority to do such a thing, his claim to have come "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" etc...
You may not believe that Jesus was God incarnate (the word made flesh), a divine extension of the Godhead, that is, by all means, your perogative. But the fact that Jesus staked claim to OT messianic propohecy, that he did indeed make divine claims of himself, is pretty much undeniable.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Ooh. Have to disagree with you there. True, some of Israel denied him and his Kingdom. But Christ redeemed it whether some of them were on board or not. The entire OT points to Israel's redemption through a Messiah. Most of them thought that meant a physical Kingdom that would defeat Rome. When it didn't, Jesus wasn't fully received. But nevertheless, he accomplished his goal of redemption. Israel - the people not today's country - was redeemed along with everyone else.
hmmmm..... i will put further study into this. I'm not entirely sure this is true... cause there are still millions of Jews whom God will not leave out in his plan for salvation. His promise is still to Abraham and God never forgets His promises. I'm guessing you're not entirely convinced about the millenium reign in which God will deal completely with the Jews? there's further detail into this than meets the eye, i'm sure you know.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
"13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ."
Lets also consider this from the OT book of Daniel:
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
Let us remember that Jesus often referred to himself as the "son of man". Obvious reference to this passage.
There are many others (this is really to complicated for a message board).
Jesus claiming to forgive sinners (even those whose transgressions were not committed against him personaly), a practice in Jewish custom that was highly blasphempous as only God had the authority to do such a thing, his claim to have come "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" etc...
You may not believe that Jesus was God incarnate (the word made flesh), a divine extension of the Godhead, that is, by all means, your perogative. But the fact that Jesus staked claim to OT messianic propohecy, that he did indeed make divine claims of himself, is pretty much undeniable.
no, I never denied the divinity of Jesus. I believe that the Logos (word) that "spoke into the darkness and created the light" is the same Logos that was incarnate in the man Jesus. Thus, making him do such miracles. This same Logos, which is the Word of God, is incarnate also in us who believe. "to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" And it is by what we preach and believe that makes us one body in Christ... "having put on the mind of Christ". And when all of this is over, as it's stated in I Cor. 15, when everything has been subjected under his (Christ) feet, even death, he will then turn to the Father and give everything to Him so that He may be God in all. There are so many scriptures that I am chasing right now that shows you why Jesus is not God.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
hmmmm..... i will put further study into this. I'm not entirely sure this is true... cause there are still millions of Jews whom God will not leave out in his plan for salvation. His promise is still to Abraham and God never forgets His promises. I'm guessing you're not entirely convinced about the millenium reign in which God will deal completely with the Jews? there's further detail into this than meets the eye, i'm sure you know.
I do not believe in the rapture or the millennium. They are both misinterpretations of the figurative/apocalyptic language used in the Bible of things that have already happened. The Daniel passages, some parts of the Gospels, Revelation, etc. All that stuff is taken so literally by people and they create the most bizarre ideas.
My overall point about Jesus and Isral is this - everything Jesus did had either a symbolic or direct meaning in redeeming Israel. People have to remember what was going on in Jerusalem when He lived. We place our culture and viewpoints on Jesus and make him something He was not.
The Jews were convinced that God would deliver them from Rome and oppression, and most thought that meant rebuilding the Temple and military victory. The Qumran group - who provided the Dead Sea Scrolls i think - the Pharisees, King Herod. They were all trying to redeem Israel to God, and that kind of chaos and tension is what Jesus walked into.
Jesus was a Revolutionary because He upended everything, brought salvation to Israel, extended it elsewhere, and completely undermined the political realities of Jewish society. His message was NOT, "Believe in me so you won't go to Hell." That may be a part of it, but it's not why He came. His message was, believe in me because MY version of the Kingdom is the one you've been waiting for.
I guess my point is, when we forget what was happening when Jesus lived, we project our own cultures in to fill in the gaps. Most people don't see Jesus' message as the restoration of a Kingdom that has room for all. They see it as a moralistic message of individual piety so you don't go to Hell. That is not what the Church is based on. The Pharisees were the most pious and "moral" people around, and God totally rejected their attempts at redemption.
Everything about what Jesus did was counter-culture and counter-mainstream. Not only do you not hit back, you TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. Not only do you not sleep around, you don't even THINK lustfully. He turned the establishment on its head. My question about pacifism is related to that.
Are Christians simply projecting the cultures they've been raised in and molding Jesus into it? Do we truly embrace the radical message he preached? Do we truly bring the same kind of radical redemption to the world that Jesus brought to Israel, and everyone else?
I mean, what would people think if Christians got up and said, "Osama bin Laden, we forgive you because Christ forgave us. We love you because you are God's child. We will not fight back. We will not kill others."
To me, that sounds more like the kind of radical message Christ preached than somehow morphing conservative (or liberal) politics with Christ. Or being just as - or close to - concerned with being a good "patriot" as being a good CHristian, and seeing them as basically the same things.
Keep in mind, you are talking to a Conservative Republican. I voted for George Bush and have always been basically conservative in my view of the world. But some recent thinking and reading has made me question the idea that my Christianity could so easily adapt to something like the Republican/Democratic agenda. Jesus was a radical. Not in the sense of our radicals or our politics, but in the sense that he flipped it all upside down. And his Church was brutalized in Rome as a result. They were martyred, tortured, etc. Yet, the message lived on and spread. Now, we compare our faith to theirs when we are anything but radical. We endorse a sort of individual morality - which is a part of faith but not its basis - and a sort of private worship attitude. It's just not what Jesus preached, IMO. None of it. Not the Conservatism. Not the Leftist/Marxism. Not the hippie attitude. It's all been attached to Christ and it just doesn't fit....
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
I do not believe in the rapture or the millennium. They are both misinterpretations of the figurative/apocalyptic language used in the Bible of things that have already happened. The Daniel passages, some parts of the Gospels, Revelation, etc. All that stuff is taken so literally by people and they create the most bizarre ideas.
My overall point about Jesus and Isral is this - everything Jesus did had either a symbolic or direct meaning in redeeming Israel. People have to remember what was going on in Jerusalem when He lived. We place our culture and viewpoints on Jesus and make him something He was not.
The Jews were convinced that God would deliver them from Rome and oppression, and most thought that meant rebuilding the Temple and military victory. The Qumran group - who provided the Dead Sea Scrolls i think - the Pharisees, King Herod. They were all trying to redeem Israel to God, and that kind of chaos and tension is what Jesus walked into.
Jesus was a Revolutionary because He upended everything, brought salvation to Israel, extended it elsewhere, and completely undermined the political realities of Jewish society. His message was NOT, "Believe in me so you won't go to Hell." That may be a part of it, but it's not why He came. His message was, believe in me because MY version of the Kingdom is the one you've been waiting for.
I guess my point is, when we forget what was happening when Jesus lived, we project our own cultures in to fill in the gaps. Most people don't see Jesus' message as the restoration of a Kingdom that has room for all. They see it as a moralistic message of individual piety so you don't go to Hell. That is not what the Church is based on. The Pharisees were the most pious and "moral" people around, and God totally rejected their attempts at redemption.
Everything about what Jesus did was counter-culture and counter-mainstream. Not only do you not hit back, you TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. Not only do you not sleep around, you don't even THINK lustfully. He turned the establishment on its head. My question about pacifism is related to that.
Are Christians simply projecting the cultures they've been raised in and molding Jesus into it? Do we truly embrace the radical message he preached? Do we truly bring the same kind of radical redemption to the world that Jesus brought to Israel, and everyone else?
I mean, what would people think if Christians got up and said, "Osama bin Laden, we forgive you because Christ forgave us. We love you because you are God's child. We will not fight back. We will not kill others."
To me, that sounds more like the kind of radical message Christ preached than somehow morphing conservative (or liberal) politics with Christ. Or being just as - or close to - concerned with being a good "patriot" as being a good CHristian, and seeing them as basically the same things.
Keep in mind, you are talking to a Conservative Republican. I voted for George Bush and have always been basically conservative in my view of the world. But some recent thinking and reading has made me question the idea that my Christianity could so easily adapt to something like the Republican/Democratic agenda. Jesus was a radical. Not in the sense of our radicals or our politics, but in the sense that he flipped it all upside down. And his Church was brutalized in Rome as a result. They were martyred, tortured, etc. Yet, the message lived on and spread. Now, we compare our faith to theirs when we are anything but radical. We endorse a sort of individual morality - which is a part of faith but not its basis - and a sort of private worship attitude. It's just not what Jesus preached, IMO. None of it. Not the Conservatism. Not the Leftist/Marxism. Not the hippie attitude. It's all been attached to Christ and it just doesn't fit....
the book of Revelation was not intended to bring about the prophecies promised for Israel. the book of Revelation was written to the church... i will get into this later with you... i gotta go to work.... but just one thing... there are things that we have to take literal but there are also things we must take as metaphorical. what passages of the gospels are you speaking of by which we must take as metaphorical?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Comments
as I mentioned earlier, there are numerous passages in the bible that can be used to support the doctrine that not only is war SOMETIMES justifiable, it is a SOMETIMES a moral obligation.
The Bible is just a lot more complicated than just a bunch of feel-good platitudes and one-liners. Do I understand it all? Not really ...
What I do know is that there is no "official" biblical statement on war. You have to take the book, the whole book, and try to deduce for yourself what it has to say.
for the least they could possibly do
What passages are you referring to, in the NT?
Well, okay, let me see if I can straighten out my own thoughts on this...
As far as faith justifying a war, which is the issue here... Would Christianity - or, more specifically, the Bible - justify World War 2 for the Allies? And to go deeper, could it Hitler use the Bible to justify his side?
In the same way, would Christianity/the Bible justify the war against "terror", which could be called a war against radical Islam? And I'm not necessarily talking about the war on terror in an idealistic "fighting the terrorists" way, but taking into account the fallout we're seeing in Iraq...
So - that's a loaded question. Sorry:p
So the Bible doesn't justify war, but would you say it necessarily advocates pacifism?
(Also: there's a whole other issue I want to get into about the Bible, but I'll ask another time...:D)
Which would seem to me to be the basis of morality... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, all that noise. So it basically just leads back into the argument over whether morality is intrinsically linked to religion...
Which I really don't want to get into, and I'm sure you don't.:p
I was gonna argue until you edited.:D And don't worry, I think very highly of you right now. You seem to able to argue for religion without resorting to blind faith, and I respect that.
So while I've got your attention, I'm gonna go off-topic for just a little bit...:p
If you read the the first link I posted on the first page, the Catholic magazine calls acceptance of homosexual behaviour "low moral standards". I know this is based on a line from the bible (man shall not lie with fellow man or something?)
Basically, I was wondering if you'd consider homosexuality a sin, or does today's more tolerant world (and perhaps, expanded understanding of the human condition) make the hardline "homosexuality is wrong" mindset outdated?
there can be no doubt that the foetus growing inside a human woman is in fact human. it can not be classed as anything else.
if two people interpret the bible differently and yet both still lead righteous lives, does that not make both their interpreattaions correct?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I agree with you on the fetus being human.
I do not think that two separate interpretations can be correct if the underlying facts are consistent (i.e., murder vs. self-defense would be two different fact patterns regarding the killing of another person). What is your definition of righteous? Perfect? Sinless? If that is the case, than the subject being interpreted was either not a sin issue, and or there can be two interpretations that are right (I just don't see this though).
Example:
Baptism - lots of disagreement on this issue, but in the end only one answer can be correct. But, if the answer is it is not required, then I guess those that thought it was are still going to be okay. But, their interpretation was still wrong.
You see, to me that's really the basis of this thread. If they believed in the words of Christ and if they were truly doing what Jesus would do, then they wouldn't ever justify killing. Even in self-defense.
if someone believes homosexuality is wrong, then take it as such, a belief. if someone believes it's ok, then take it as such. otherwise we'd both be going in circles. i could never convince someone it is wrong.... so i will never wasste my time living with that hardline miindset. outdated or not... there are just different values that we all have to face with. like smoking marijuana, or drinking beer... sleeping with countless number of sex partners... not stopping to help someone with a flat tire, or vice-versa.... or preaching the "word of God". just take 'em at face value, i guess, it's my stance.
my conclusion is that if someone wants to understand the real juice of it.... if someone wants to see and understand the way a believer would, then we'd have to open our minds to what the Bible really has to say.... like the scripture itself says, "faith comes from hearing... and hearing by the word of God."
How do you know what Jesus would do? Again, it's only your interpretation.
Maybe if Christ wasn't so preoccupied with dying for everyone's sins, he might have kicked some ass.
for the least they could possibly do
This is a strange idea. What do you mean by "kicking ass"? Fighting people? Jesus came specifically for the purpose of NOT fighting people, in a physical sense. He rebuked the Zealots of the Jewish community - like Peter - who wanted to rebel and overthrow the Roman occupation. He told them they had missed the idea completely by thinking force could establish the true Kingdom. I'd say what Jesus did do wasn't a preoccupation or a lack of kicking ass. It kicked ass as much as was/is possible.
Also, I'd ask you again. I am honestly asking what passages or ideas in the New Testament may lead you to believe that Christians shouldn't be pacifist. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. You said there were passages that said war is a moral obligation. What are they?
And from what I can find on the early Church, they were anything but violent for the first 3 or 4 hundred years. They allowed themselves to be murdered by the Romans in the most gruesome of ways. Not until after Constantine were there "Christian wars" or rulers thinking they could fight with the endorsement of Christ.
Ooh. Have to disagree with you there. True, some of Israel denied him and his Kingdom. But Christ redeemed it whether some of them were on board or not. The entire OT points to Israel's redemption through a Messiah. Most of them thought that meant a physical Kingdom that would defeat Rome. When it didn't, Jesus wasn't fully received. But nevertheless, he accomplished his goal of redemption. Israel - the people not today's country - was redeemed along with everyone else.
What about this famous exchange:
"13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ."
Lets also consider this from the OT book of Daniel:
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
Let us remember that Jesus often referred to himself as the "son of man". Obvious reference to this passage.
There are many others (this is really to complicated for a message board).
Jesus claiming to forgive sinners (even those whose transgressions were not committed against him personaly), a practice in Jewish custom that was highly blasphempous as only God had the authority to do such a thing, his claim to have come "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" etc...
You may not believe that Jesus was God incarnate (the word made flesh), a divine extension of the Godhead, that is, by all means, your perogative. But the fact that Jesus staked claim to OT messianic propohecy, that he did indeed make divine claims of himself, is pretty much undeniable.
I do not believe in the rapture or the millennium. They are both misinterpretations of the figurative/apocalyptic language used in the Bible of things that have already happened. The Daniel passages, some parts of the Gospels, Revelation, etc. All that stuff is taken so literally by people and they create the most bizarre ideas.
My overall point about Jesus and Isral is this - everything Jesus did had either a symbolic or direct meaning in redeeming Israel. People have to remember what was going on in Jerusalem when He lived. We place our culture and viewpoints on Jesus and make him something He was not.
The Jews were convinced that God would deliver them from Rome and oppression, and most thought that meant rebuilding the Temple and military victory. The Qumran group - who provided the Dead Sea Scrolls i think - the Pharisees, King Herod. They were all trying to redeem Israel to God, and that kind of chaos and tension is what Jesus walked into.
Jesus was a Revolutionary because He upended everything, brought salvation to Israel, extended it elsewhere, and completely undermined the political realities of Jewish society. His message was NOT, "Believe in me so you won't go to Hell." That may be a part of it, but it's not why He came. His message was, believe in me because MY version of the Kingdom is the one you've been waiting for.
I guess my point is, when we forget what was happening when Jesus lived, we project our own cultures in to fill in the gaps. Most people don't see Jesus' message as the restoration of a Kingdom that has room for all. They see it as a moralistic message of individual piety so you don't go to Hell. That is not what the Church is based on. The Pharisees were the most pious and "moral" people around, and God totally rejected their attempts at redemption.
Everything about what Jesus did was counter-culture and counter-mainstream. Not only do you not hit back, you TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. Not only do you not sleep around, you don't even THINK lustfully. He turned the establishment on its head. My question about pacifism is related to that.
Are Christians simply projecting the cultures they've been raised in and molding Jesus into it? Do we truly embrace the radical message he preached? Do we truly bring the same kind of radical redemption to the world that Jesus brought to Israel, and everyone else?
I mean, what would people think if Christians got up and said, "Osama bin Laden, we forgive you because Christ forgave us. We love you because you are God's child. We will not fight back. We will not kill others."
To me, that sounds more like the kind of radical message Christ preached than somehow morphing conservative (or liberal) politics with Christ. Or being just as - or close to - concerned with being a good "patriot" as being a good CHristian, and seeing them as basically the same things.
Keep in mind, you are talking to a Conservative Republican. I voted for George Bush and have always been basically conservative in my view of the world. But some recent thinking and reading has made me question the idea that my Christianity could so easily adapt to something like the Republican/Democratic agenda. Jesus was a radical. Not in the sense of our radicals or our politics, but in the sense that he flipped it all upside down. And his Church was brutalized in Rome as a result. They were martyred, tortured, etc. Yet, the message lived on and spread. Now, we compare our faith to theirs when we are anything but radical. We endorse a sort of individual morality - which is a part of faith but not its basis - and a sort of private worship attitude. It's just not what Jesus preached, IMO. None of it. Not the Conservatism. Not the Leftist/Marxism. Not the hippie attitude. It's all been attached to Christ and it just doesn't fit....