Christians should not support the war on terror

[Avatar4321]

It would take me hours to respond to everyone's point...so I am going to make a general disclaimer:

The bible is open to every person's own interpretation. I stated why I believe all of those things are un-christian. Who knows, maybe they are Christian...I just offered my opinion. In the other thread today, you asked why I thought this: I chose a few passages explaining my points. I am sorry if I offended...it was not my intent.

Also:

As far as cherry picking to suit my points. That is how writing works...I could not re-type the whole bible so I picked a few passages that helped me shape my own personal beliefs.

Your disclaimer is utterly false. The Bible isnt open to everyones interpretation. Its only open to one person's: God.

Anyone who says they are free to interpret the Bible as they choose rather then rely on the Spirit are trusting on their own flesh and hence un-christian.

See I can do it too. And please dont pretend as those you didnt intend to offend people. None of us are that stupid.

 

[dmp]

People have calmed down - thread re-opened.

 

[5stringJeff]

Since this thread has nothing to do with the WOT and everything to do with Christian ethics, I've moved it to R/E.

 

[1549]

Heya - looks like we have another pseudo-intellectual "christian"....

When someone breaks into your home, rapes your wife, kills yer children.... why don't you explain to them how not owning a gun and "loving that criminal" worked out so well for you....

Yeah, while yer at it, why don't ya grab his hand while he's raping your wife and start singking "Kum-by-yah"....

Jeesh.. really.. can anyone here at USMB tell me where do tards like this come from?

Isn't it just sad when cousin's marry?

That situation is EXTREMELY rare. It happens in movies far more often than it happens in real life.

With that said, keeping a gun for peace of mind would not too much of a bad thing, if it did not so often result in accidental death or even make a break in situation worse than it already was.

Your disclaimer is utterly false. The Bible isnt open to everyones interpretation. Its only open to one person's: God.

Until judgement day it is open to everyone's interpretation. Well, at least every person on this Earth presumes so (find me a person who follows the bible word for word in their everyday life without some degree of interpretation)...If God decides it is not, I guess we are all going to hell. If that's the case, I will give you a call while we are down there...we can discuss how utterly worthless this argument turned out to be.

And please dont pretend as those you didnt intend to offend people.

This thread was an extension of a discussion in another thread. It was not brought up out of the blue, and I was asked to defend my claim with biblical references. I did so, not to offend, but to try to prove my point.

None of us are that stupid.

I didn't think so...but:

why don't ya grab his hand while he's raping your wife and start singking "Kum-by-yah"....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Everyone read that ^^^^

Very insightful comment.

Now look at how many rep points that poster has.

hey Avngr, did you give head for those or are they rewarded for inane ignorant comments that blatantly attack fellow posters rather than the topic at hand?

(if you are going to be an ass about something, at least shed the rep points)

Honestly? Option 2, all the way. you

 

[dmp]

Bro - you just need guidance. I have a brother-in-law who still sacrifices animals because he read about the practice in the bible.

Is he right? Heck no.

He lacks the ability to apply proper context to what he reads.

 

[5stringJeff]

I hold by my words from the previous thread: Christians who own guns, vote republican, and watch Pat Robertson are pissing on their own religion. That is not what Christianity is about. You wanted proof...here it is:

First, the most important reason:
Luke 7:27-30--"But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the personwho takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic".

-->Gun owners: Toss the gun and get a dog. If someone gets in your home just lock yourself in a room, call the cops...Break-ins are rarely ever for the purpose of homicide. You actually are at greater risk if you walk up to a robber with a gun, as he may have one too. Conservatives are mostly pro-war. In the case of the last war, they did not even exhaust diplomacy. Pat Robertson...well he once advocated the assasination of Hugo Chavez, how does a guy like that get a Christian TV show?

Before I begin, welcome to the board.

First, as to guns. Many times, merely the threat of a gun is enough to scare off would-be robbers, rapists, etc. In such a case, there is no violence done, which seems to be your big concern. And even if there were, it would be justified to protect your belongings, your family, and your own well being. Nowhere did Jesus say to roll over and allow people to take advantage of you.

Second, what does conservative diplomacy, or the supposed lack thereof, have to do with Christian ethics?

Third, who the hell cares about Pat Robertson? No one watches his show anyway.

Second, also regarding treatment of others:
Matthew 22:37-40--"He said to him, 'you shall love the lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

-->Guns are not the tool of love, that is all there is to say about that. Conservatives support the death penalty, is that loving your neighbor? Many christians may disagree with me on this, but I also believe in the right to abortion. No one fully knows a person's individual circumstances that lead them to abortion, and therefore the right should be granted. I am not necessarily for abortion, I just think the right should be extended. Pat Robertson said hindus should not be allowed in the United States. This shows his ignorance, he obviously has never talked to a hindu. Again, nothing Christian about his statement. Besides, the U.S. should be a secular nation, independent of religion. Whatever you are, you have as much right to be here as Pat Robertson.

If protecting one's family is a sign of love, then guns can very well be a tool of love. Showing love to one's neighbor does not negate the state's God-given authority (see Romans 12) to dispense justice. Abortion falls under the "Thou shalt not murder" category - and there are many ways that we can come alongside a scared soon-to-be mother to help her. And I repeat my comment about Pat Robertson.

Finally, regarding wealth
Luke 18:25--"For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven"

-->The conservative politics (republican and democrat) that dominate America are very critical of socialist ideas such as major reallocation of wealth and strict luxury taxes. Yet, we have no problem criticizing state welfare which is not enough to help poor families. It is near impossible for a poor person to make wealth in a society that already punishes the lower classes. The opportunities simply are not there. Yet most politicians are richer than sin...who do you think they are looking out for? Pat Robertson...well, he made a killing off of FM radio. Gun companies: the Government spends more money on tools of war than anything else.

The conservative stance is that the federal government, as per the U.S. Constitution, has no business being in the wealth redistribution game. If private charities want to help out the poor, that's great, but it's simply not the government's job. We have a free-market economy here, which allows both gun companies and Pat Robertson to become as wealthy as they want to be, if people buy their products. As far as what they should do with that money... that's another post, I suppose.

The only difference between Pat Robertson and Muslim extremists is that Robertson only verbally supports killing. Conservative politicians so often call themselves Christians, but they deviate extremely far from the passages above. And there is nothing Christian about a gun.

I'll only address conservatism here. Conservatives believe that the government which governs least governs best. Therefore, we allow wealth to be amassed, we allow guns to be purchased and used in self-defense, we allow wars to occur when necessary. It's quite clear that you are a politically liberal Christian, but for you to say that one cannot be a Christian and also be conservative is quite shortsighted of you.

 

[1549]

Bro - you just need guidance. I have a brother-in-law who still sacrifices animals because he read about the practice in the bible.

Is he right? Heck no.

He lacks the ability to apply proper context to what he reads.

I understand what you are saying and I certainly don't follow the bible word for word (I am probably not even in the ballpark, I have not been to church since my christmas break).

With that said, it seems that love, peace and charity are themes in the bible. I think they should be looked at in a different light than something like sacrifice or wearing clothes with tassles.

Its clear people have varying opinions on this, including priests. I know a protestant pastor who is a strict pacifist, a priest and my own catholic church is pretty conservative, and of course there have been many famous liberal clergy members and many famous conservative member.

 

[dilloduck]

I understand what you are saying and I certainly don't follow the bible word for word (I am probably not even in the ballpark, I have not been to church since my christmas break).

With that said, it seems that love, peace and charity are themes in the bible. I think they should be looked at in a different light than something like sacrifice or wearing clothes with tassles.

Its clear people have varying opinions on this, including priests. I know a protestant pastor who is a strict pacifist, a priest and my own catholic church is pretty conservative, and of course there have been many famous liberal clergy members and many famous conservative member.

I think you could get the support of lots of Americans (Christians and non- Christians) by saying that you think that people should not attack civilians as a means of promoting a religion or ideology.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

One of the moderators should change the name of this thread to "School for the retarded".

and yet, here you are.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Heya - looks like we have another pseudo-intellectual "christian"....

When someone breaks into your home, rapes your wife, kills yer children.... why don't you explain to them how not owning a gun and "loving that criminal" worked out so well for you....

Yeah, while yer at it, why don't ya grab his hand while he's raping your wife and start singking "Kum-by-yah"....

Jeesh.. really.. can anyone here at USMB tell me where do tards like this come from?

Isn't it just sad when cousin's marry?

nah, he couldnt hold the guys hand, HE IS HIDING IN THE BATHROOM WHILE HIS WIFE IS BEING RAPED, remember?

Could you imagine if everyone started doing that, hiding in the bathroom? Uh, you think the burglary rate would explode or what? SHIT, I might even get into it,,,JUSTKIDDING !

 

[Dr Grump]

If Chrisitanity in itself is opposed to all wars, then why were the Jews allowed and ordered by the CHRISTIAN God to go to war to defend their homeland and religion?

Can you expand a bit further on this??

 

[Dr Grump]

Here's the last rep you gave to him:

WTF? Mods have access to who gives who rep? How bizarre...and why?

 

[Hobbit]

WTF? Mods have access to who gives who rep? How bizarre...and why?

A) It's their board. Just like the bank can look at your financial transactions.

B) It helps investigation into abuses in the rep system.

 

[Hobbit]

Can you expand a bit further on this??

Read the books of Joshua and Judges. The Israelites fought vehemently and often successfully against many invading armies over the years. This was always at the behest of God (any time they did it without God's blessing, they lost). So, if Christianity is diametrically opposed to violence in all forms, then how come the same God would grant his blessing in so many wars.

Then there's this. What would have happened if all Christian people in the country had decided that war was inherantly wrong back in, say, the 1940s? How many million more would have died? How much evil would have been done while we sat by in silence, thinking that it was a sin to put a stop to the carnage?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Can you expand a bit further on this??

If the Christian, and hence Jewish God were a 100% pacifist, then He could NEVER have ordered anyone to go to war. If there were circumstances before in the past which allowed such an order, there could be some today also.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Read the books of Joshua and Judges. The Israelites fought vehemently and often successfully against many invading armies over the years. This was always at the behest of God (any time they did it without God's blessing, they lost). So, if Christianity is diametrically opposed to violence in all forms, then how come the same God would grant his blessing in so many wars.

Then there's this. What would have happened if all Christian people in the country had decided that war was inherantly wrong back in, say, the 1940s? How many million more would have died? How much evil would have been done while we sat by in silence, thinking that it was a sin to put a stop to the carnage?

The only possible way I could agree with total pacifism is if the person also practiced it at all levels. In other words, if someone was to rob them, or threaten to kill them or their family, they would still refuse to use force to stop them. THEN they would be consistent, but its extremely rare to hear a "so called" pacifist declare such. They admit using violence for self defense is ok.
Their inability is to see that sometimes when you attack another, it is self defense. The use of a police dept is self defense.

 

[jillian]

The only possible way I could agree with total pacifism is if the person also practiced it at all levels. In other words, if someone was to rob them, or threaten to kill them or their family, they would still refuse to use force to stop them. THEN they would be consistent, but its extremely rare to hear a "so called" pacifist declare such. They admit using violence for self defense is ok.
Their inability is to see that sometimes when you attack another, it is self defense. The use of a police dept is self defense.

Well, yes...and no. The Judeo-Christian ethic has always allowed self defense, defense of others and defense of property, so long as the use of force is reasonable under the circumstances.

 

[Dr Grump]

A) It's their board. Just like the bank can look at your financial transactions.

B) It helps investigation into abuses in the rep system.

It's Jimmy's board. How can the rep system be abused?

 

[dmp]

It's Jimmy's board. How can the rep system be abused?

Read the User Reputation thread already in existance.