Christianity and War

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But this sounds like you expect the attacked to stay within their border trying to end the war with anti-aircraft guns, while their ability to produce arms and trained fighting men are bombed and attacked over, and over again. No crossing borders to bomb and attack the enemy’s war industry, supply lines, bases, where concentrations of troops and equipment are massed? How long would that have lasted? You might as well surrender and save your own population the burden of being the only and concentrated battleground.

Well, no, initiating the war is wrong. If I had to cross my neighbor’s property lines to fully stop him from hurting my family I would do it in a heartbeat. But, this assumes I have already been attacked – and not just threatened with it. To be just, I would only take out the threat itself and not his entire family tree, for example.[/quote]

What if he’s shooting up your property from inside his house? Would you risk firing into his house, possibly striking his child?

102

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

As far as I know and understand, common people are always forced to fight for ideas that are not their own. That is a historical fact. You need to understand that first and foremost before you can understand any of my arguments.

Therefore your arguments come from an elitist’s perspective. The common man is an idiot and not capable of comprehension of his actions?[/quote]

First of all, I am an elitist which is why oppose government in the first place.

I would counter your argument by posing the question when did a common person ever wage war against another country and then steal from you to fund it and also lie to you to get you to go along with it? The majority of people – the commoners – are indeed idiots when it comes to understanding the motives of the elite power seekers. It isn’t necessarily the elected officials or bureaucrats that are evil but rather those that come seeking a place to feed at the troughs. Representative Democracy is a perfect form of government for the evil elite who wish to abuse it.

103

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
I would also argue that a people that does not rise up against its government is not ready for a republic.

Introducing one by force will do no good.

And that’s probably a better arguement. But it does doom the willing minority to share the fate of a broken, subjagated, and unwilling majority.

And that is any different in the US?

Well, we’re not being run through shredders. Or, seeing wives dragged off to rape rooms for improper political speech.[/quote]

No, but you have nursing wives shot by FBI snipers and grandmothers killed in no knock raids.

Hundreds of thousands in cages for non-violent crimes, government tests of WMD´s on soldiers and civilians and so further, and so on.

Not even close to Iraq but hardly an utopia either.

I take it that you would have an issue with the Chinese invading to help you out?

104

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
I would also argue that a people that does not rise up against its government is not ready for a republic.

Introducing one by force will do no good.

And that’s probably a better arguement. But it does doom the willing minority to share the fate of a broken, subjagated, and unwilling majority.

And that is any different in the US?

Well, we’re not being run through shredders. Or, seeing wives dragged off to rape rooms for improper political speech.

No, but you have wives shot by FBI snipers and grandmothers killed in no knock raids.

Hundreds of thousands in cages for non-violent crimes, government tests of WMD´s on soldiers and civilians and so further, and so on.

Not even close to Iraq but hardly an utopia either.

I take it that you would have an issue with the Chinese invading to help you out?
[/quote]

Wouldn’t that be a downgrade in freedoms?

105

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Will you, anarchist citizen of no nation, call upon your non existent army, navy, and airforce to fight off the full military might of actual nations? Or, is their some romanticized last stand on your porch, as you alone (maybe with a few hired private guards) stand against a modern military?
[/quote]

As an anarchist, who would I be threatened by that I cannot defend against on my own? I can supplicate myself to a tyrannical government as much as I do to the US of A. There is no difference, except that one is more honest than the other.

If the USA was attacked and I had to either face death by fighting an unwinnable war or be subjected to a more harsh form of government I would either just try and leave or fake the funk under this new form of government until I was able to leave. Let’s put it this way, my family comes first and I would not do anything that would put their safety in jeopardy.

A romantic, I am not!

106

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
I would also argue that a people that does not rise up against its government is not ready for a republic.

Introducing one by force will do no good.

And that’s probably a better arguement. But it does doom the willing minority to share the fate of a broken, subjagated, and unwilling majority.

And that is any different in the US?

Well, we’re not being run through shredders. Or, seeing wives dragged off to rape rooms for improper political speech.

No, but you have wives shot by FBI snipers and grandmothers killed in no knock raids.

Hundreds of thousands in cages for non-violent crimes, government tests of WMD´s on soldiers and civilians and so further, and so on.

Not even close to Iraq but hardly an utopia either.

I take it that you would have an issue with the Chinese invading to help you out?

Wouldn’t that be a downgrade in freedoms?[/quote]

Is that not also true for most Iraqis and Vietnamese?

Especially for those that died?

107

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

As an anarchist, who would I be threatened by that I cannot defend against on my own? I can supplicate myself to a tyrannical government as much as I do to the US of A. There is no difference, except that one is more honest than the other.
[/quote]

Who? Um, gangs of bandits and maruaders. But, on a grander scale, entire nations.

What is the difference? That doesn’t make sense. Your anarchists days just ended. We were speaking as if you lived in a geogrpahical region which was a former nation, on your private property, which is being swallowed up by a neighboring nation with a full scale military to back it. Or maybe even just by large gangs/hordes of bandits and marauders.

Doesn’t sound like much of a living. When one has no certainty about the future of property, and what he can accomplish with it before some organized forced takes it from him.

108

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
journeyman you sound like a muslim. hiding in sheep’s clothing.

otherwise you like to pick and chose from the bible and attend the hippie free love church of some of the bible

I don’t really understand your first comment. Journeyman’s posts have not been pro Muslim, nor anti-Christian in any way.

As for your second comment, perhaps, but a lot of church leaders are also very guilty of doing this, and seemed to be the gist of what Rockwell was saying in his speech.

In other words, most Christians are pro life because they believe it’s wrong to take an innocent life. But, then turn around and support war, which also always results in the taking of innocent lives. Kind of hypocritical when you think about it.[/quote]

True and I know I have my faults, I have a nasty temper, I know that.

It was only recently I found a church where the pastor taught the whole word, it is nice, when I first started going I I told my wife he aggravated me, because it seemed like every message was directed right at me. But I realized this was not the case.

As for the first comment, most people who are of other sects looking to sway or tear apart christians actually no more abou the scriptures and the history of the religion then those followers. They know how to twist and manipulate it to support what they say and very educated in doing it.

It is only when you look at everything as a whole that it becomes evident. And honestly the pieces of scripture as well as people he has quoted sound very similar to muslims who understand christianity and try to rip it apart or convert followers. He may not be, just sounds like it.

109

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What if he’s shooting up your property from inside his house? Would you risk firing into his house, possibly striking his child?[/quote]

Why waste bullets by firing at an unseen target? I would wait for him to cease fire and then I would charge his property (under the cover of darkness) and attempt to take him out that way – preferably without killing him so I can collect for damages against my property. Hopefully, he doesn’t have an unlimited supply of ammunition like they always seem to in the movies.

Have you ever read the “Art of War”? It’s a great book to read for the libertarian minded individual who wishes to not have to engage in war.

110

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

As an anarchist, who would I be threatened by that I cannot defend against on my own? I can supplicate myself to a tyrannical government as much as I do to the US of A. There is no difference, except that one is more honest than the other.

Who? Um, gangs of bandits and maruaders. But, on a grander scale, entire nations.

What is the difference? That doesn’t make sense. Your anarchists days just ended. We were speaking as if you lived in a geogrpahical region which was a former nation, on your private property, which is being swallowed up by a neighboring nation with a full scale military to back it. Or maybe even just by large gangs/hordes of bandits and marauders.

Doesn’t sound like much of a living. When one has no certainty about the future of property, and what he can accomplish with it before some organized forced takes it from him. [/quote]

The type of government I am forced to live under is of no consequence to me. I cannot just be a “fair-weather anarchist”.

There is a difference between fighting off an invading army and fighting off gang warriors. I do not equate the two. Marauders usually do not have “unlimited” resources to fight war. The laws of economics are usually quicker to catch up to those types of attacks.

111

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Doesn’t sound like much of a living. When one has no certainty about the future of property, and what he can accomplish with it before some organized forced takes it from him. [/quote]

Well, in truth, there is no guarantee that our rights will be protected by the government who is entrusted to protect them. There is never any certainty about anything concerning the actions of human beings. I am much better off knowing and understanding that than deluding myself with notions of a theoretically just form of government.

Individual rights can only exist because individuals are willing to defend them for themselves.

112

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
journeyman you sound like a muslim. hiding in sheep’s clothing.

otherwise you like to pick and chose from the bible and attend the hippie free love church of some of the bible

I don’t really understand your first comment. Journeyman’s posts have not been pro Muslim, nor anti-Christian in any way.

As for your second comment, perhaps, but a lot of church leaders are also very guilty of doing this, and seemed to be the gist of what Rockwell was saying in his speech.

In other words, most Christians are pro life because they believe it’s wrong to take an innocent life. But, then turn around and support war, which also always results in the taking of innocent lives. Kind of hypocritical when you think about it.

True and I know I have my faults, I have a nasty temper, I know that.

It was only recently I found a church where the pastor taught the whole word, it is nice, when I first started going I I told my wife he aggravated me, because it seemed like every message was directed right at me. But I realized this was not the case.

As for the first comment, most people who are of other sects looking to sway or tear apart christians actually no more abou the scriptures and the history of the religion then those followers. They know how to twist and manipulate it to support what they say and very educated in doing it.

It is only when you look at everything as a whole that it becomes evident. And honestly the pieces of scripture as well as people he has quoted sound very similar to muslims who understand christianity and try to rip it apart or convert followers. He may not be, just sounds like it.[/quote]

Fair enough.

If your pastor teaches the whole word, he must admit that there is a fair amount (at least in the old testament) that is not adhered to, nor would be in accordance with Jesus’s teachings. So, a fair amount, of the Old testament at least, has to be taken with a grain of salt and taken in the context in which it was written.

113

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
As for the first comment, most people who are of other sects looking to sway or tear apart christians actually no more abou the scriptures and the history of the religion then those followers. They know how to twist and manipulate it to support what they say and very educated in doing it.

It is only when you look at everything as a whole that it becomes evident. And honestly the pieces of scripture as well as people he has quoted sound very similar to muslims who understand christianity and try to rip it apart or convert followers. He may not be, just sounds like it.[/quote]

I would suggest that you capitalize the C in Christian and the M in Muslim. Both religions deserve that amount of respect.

I have been quoting what I feel is the major themes of the New Testament. I am still surprised that Luke 22 is used to justify the use of the sword. I do not like to quote chapter and verse, but rather chapters. At least once you get past the Pentateuch, chapters are usually quite short. In the case of Luke 22, what I remember most clearly was the story of the Garden of Gethsemane. In that section, a follower of Jesus actually took up the sword. Jesus rebuked him and healed the Roman who was injured. So to me, Luke 22 shows the folly of using the sword, it does not justify it. I believe that was the last miracle of Jesus (until, of course, the Resurrection).

I will make no apologies for being a liberal. Archbishop Romero stated, ‘May this Body immolated and this Blood sacrificed for Mankind nourish us also, that we may give our body and our blood over to suffering and pain, like Christ – not for Self, but to give harvests of peace and justice to our People.’ He was speaking of the Eucharist, not of his own body. But moments later, he was martyred by right-wing thugs of the Salvadoran death squads.

The man who ordered his assassination was Roberto D’Aubuisson, who worked closely with Oliver North. Roberto D’Aubuisson’s nickname was Blowtorch Bob, because of his favorite method of torture.

Today, Blowtorch Bob is dead and reviled. Romero is dead too, but he being canonized. I’ll stick with liberation theology over torturers and assassins in any discussion of morality.

War is not the Christian response.

114

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
As for the first comment, most people who are of other sects looking to sway or tear apart christians actually no more abou the scriptures and the history of the religion then those followers. They know how to twist and manipulate it to support what they say and very educated in doing it.

It is only when you look at everything as a whole that it becomes evident. And honestly the pieces of scripture as well as people he has quoted sound very similar to muslims who understand christianity and try to rip it apart or convert followers. He may not be, just sounds like it.

I would suggest that you capitalize the C in Christian and the M in Muslim. Both religions deserve that amount of respect.

I have been quoting what I feel is the major themes of the New Testament. I am still surprised that Luke 22 is used to justify the use of the sword. I do not like to quote chapter and verse, but rather chapters. At least once you get past the Pentateuch, chapters are usually quite short. In the case of Luke 22, what I remember most clearly was the story of the Garden of Gethsemane. In that section, a follower of Jesus actually took up the sword. Jesus rebuked him and healed the Roman who was injured. So to me, Luke 22 shows the folly of using the sword, it does not justify it. I believe that was the last miracle of Jesus (until, of course, the Resurrection).

I will make no apologies for being a liberal. Archbishop Romero stated, ‘May this Body immolated and this Blood sacrificed for Mankind nourish us also, that we may give our body and our blood over to suffering and pain, like Christ – not for Self, but to give harvests of peace and justice to our People.’ He was speaking of the Eucharist, not of his own body. But moments later, he was martyred by right-wing thugs of the Salvadoran death squads.

The man who ordered his assassination was Roberto D’Aubuisson, who worked closely with Oliver North. Roberto D’Aubuisson’s nickname was Blowtorch Bob, because of his favorite method of torture.

Today, Blowtorch Bob is dead and reviled. Romero is dead too, but he being canonized. I’ll stick with liberation theology over torturers and assassins in any discussion of morality.

War is not the Christian response.

[/quote]

I don’t understand why you’d bring in the whole left wing/right wing thing. It’s not like leftists haven’t killed religious folks by the truckload.

116

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
journeyman you sound like a muslim. hiding in sheep’s clothing.

otherwise you like to pick and chose from the bible and attend the hippie free love church of some of the bible

I don’t really understand your first comment. Journeyman’s posts have not been pro Muslim, nor anti-Christian in any way.

As for your second comment, perhaps, but a lot of church leaders are also very guilty of doing this, and seemed to be the gist of what Rockwell was saying in his speech.

In other words, most Christians are pro life because they believe it’s wrong to take an innocent life. But, then turn around and support war, which also always results in the taking of innocent lives. Kind of hypocritical when you think about it.

True and I know I have my faults, I have a nasty temper, I know that.

It was only recently I found a church where the pastor taught the whole word, it is nice, when I first started going I I told my wife he aggravated me, because it seemed like every message was directed right at me. But I realized this was not the case.

As for the first comment, most people who are of other sects looking to sway or tear apart christians actually no more abou the scriptures and the history of the religion then those followers. They know how to twist and manipulate it to support what they say and very educated in doing it.

It is only when you look at everything as a whole that it becomes evident. And honestly the pieces of scripture as well as people he has quoted sound very similar to muslims who understand christianity and try to rip it apart or convert followers. He may not be, just sounds like it.

Fair enough.

If your pastor teaches the whole word, he must admit that there is a fair amount (at least in the old testament) that is not adhered to, nor would be in accordance with Jesus’s teachings. So, a fair amount, of the Old testament at least, has to be taken with a grain of salt and taken in the context in which it was written.[/quote]

yes we do, he actually comes over when I get pay per view fights, because he enjoys the martial arts.

here is the website.

most of the sermons are streamable and podcast.

117

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I don’t understand why you’d bring in the whole left wing/right wing thing. It’s not like leftists haven’t killed religious folks by the truckload.[/quote]

I quite agree, Communists have killed as well. I have been accused of being a Muslim, apparently because my responses resemble a Muslim’s view of Christianity. I have tried to respond to questions about the OP. I have tried to respond with scriptural references. I don’t claim that my understanding of scripture is infallible, but I am trying to answer honestly.

I suspect that my differences with apbt55 are related to a difference in political views. I am sick and tired of having conservative Christians acting like they have a monopoly on Biblical understanding So I am rather thin skinned about some of these comments.

Why have there been no questions about LIFTICVSMAXIMVS discussing Libertarian/Anarchist views of war? That seems at least as off-topic as my reference to pacifist Archbishop that was killed largely for his condemnation of a violent regime. BTW, I often enjoy Lifty’s comments, and I certainly would not launch an ad hominem attack by describe him as a ‘weak principled man’ because 1) i know that ‘principled’ is an adjective so it should be qualified with the adverb weakly, and more significantly 2) Lifty has shown himself to be strongly principled, even if his principles differ significantly than mine. If I wanted to discuss topics with only the like minded, I would go same something nice about Obama on HuffPo.

118

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I don’t understand why you’d bring in the whole left wing/right wing thing. It’s not like leftists haven’t killed religious folks by the truckload.

I quite agree, Communists have killed as well. I have been accused of being a Muslim, apparently because my responses resemble a Muslim’s view of Christianity. I have tried to respond to questions about the OP. I have tried to respond with scriptural references. I don’t claim that my understanding of scripture is infallible, but I am trying to answer honestly.

I suspect that my differences with apbt55 are related to a difference in political views. I am sick and tired of having conservative Christians acting like they have a monopoly on Biblical understanding So I am rather thin skinned about some of these comments.

Why have there been no questions about LIFTICVSMAXIMVS discussing Libertarian/Anarchist views of war? That seems at least as off-topic as my reference to pacifist Archbishop that was killed largely for his condemnation of a violent regime. BTW, I often enjoy Lifty’s comments, and I certainly would not launch an ad hominem attack by describe him as a ‘weak principled man’ because 1) i know that ‘principled’ is an adjective so it should be qualified with the adverb weakly, and more significantly 2) Lifty has shown himself to be strongly principled, even if his principles differ significantly than mine. If I wanted to discuss topics with only the like minded, I would go same something nice about Obama on HuffPo.

[/quote]

Personally I have no problem with either of you as people. Maybe I’ve attacked your positions strongly, but I hope I’ve never attacked either one of you as people. I’m sure both of you would make for good, kind, and peaceful neighbors.

119

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Personally I have no problem with either of you as people. Maybe I’ve attacked your positions strongly, but I hope I’ve never attacked either one of you as people. I’m sure both of you would make for good, kind, and peaceful neighbors. [/quote]

I like a vigorous, principled debate as well. I have enjoyed your positions, questions and comments - especially because they are different than mine.