Another Question About Christianity...

[liberalogic]

While I still disagree with many opinions held by those of the Christian right, I have to say that the last few threads have allowed me to understand that perspective a bit better.

Here's a question that has troubled me, though, for a while. Christianity is based on compassion, love, and all of the other beautiful ideas that Christ preached. With that said, how can Christians rectify the use of war under any circumstances if they are truly followers of Christ? I heard that when George Bush was asked if he consulted his father (41), he responded by saying, "I consulted with a higher father." What I find as hypocritical here, is that he uses the name of God for social purposes (sanctity of marriage, abortion, stem cells, etc.), but then he claims that God supported his decision to go to war. I don't see the connection here-- does anyone have any ideas to make sense out of this?

 

[dilloduck]

While I still disagree with many opinions held by those of the Christian right, I have to say that the last few threads have allowed me to understand that perspective a bit better.

Here's a question that has troubled me, though, for a while. Christianity is based on compassion, love, and all of the other beautiful ideas that Christ preached. With that said, how can Christians rectify the use of war under any circumstances if they are truly followers of Christ? I heard that when George Bush was asked if he consulted his father (41), he responded by saying, "I consulted with a higher father." What I find as hypocritical here, is that he uses the name of God for social purposes (sanctity of marriage, abortion, stem cells, etc.), but then he claims that God supported his decision to go to war. I don't see the connection here-- does anyone have any ideas to make sense out of this?

So your question is how can a Christian support a war?
I don't think they do---but it's either that or sit back and watch a group of assassins murder everyone.

 

[Nuc]

Their strategy is to claim that they talk to God, therefore negating the need to follow the precepts of the religion. Maybe they really think they talk to God?

God made the rules supposedly, so if God tells you to go against them, that's OK.

 

[dilloduck]

Their strategy is to claim that they talk to God, therefore negating the need to follow the precepts of the religion. Maybe they really think they talk to God?

God made the rules supposedly, so if God tells you to go against them, that's OK.

The terrorist talk to God and don't follow the teachings in the koran? Your losing me here .

 

[Nuc]

The terrorist talk to God and don't follow the teachings in the koran? Your losing me here .

If Bush claims to talk to God and Osama Bin Laden claims to talk to God they are both making the same claim.

If we don't accept that the terrorists are talking to God we shouldn't accept it from the leader of the most advanced country in the history of the world. If he wants to think he's talking to God, fine, but he should keep it to himself and make his argument in favor of the war based on reason. If he must resort to appealing to the supernatural to justify his actions, that's weak. We need strong leadership.

 

[dilloduck]

If Bush claims to talk to God and Osama Bin Laden claims to talk to God they are both making the same claim.

If we don't accept that the terrorists are talking to God we shouldn't accept it from the leader of the most advanced country in the history of the world. If he wants to think he's talking to God, fine, but he should keep it to himself and make his argument in favor of the war based on reason. If he must resort to appealing to the supernatural to justify his actions, that's weak. We need strong leadership.

He's done a lot more than talk to God on this one. Your argument is what's weak.

 

[GotZoom]

If Bush claims to talk to God and Osama Bin Laden claims to talk to God they are both making the same claim.

If we don't accept that the terrorists are talking to God we shouldn't accept it from the leader of the most advanced country in the history of the world. If he wants to think he's talking to God, fine, but he should keep it to himself and make his argument in favor of the war based on reason. If he must resort to appealing to the supernatural to justify his actions, that's weak. We need strong leadership.

Funny. I don't remember President Bush telling the world that his reason for going after OBL and SH was that God told him to.

Guess I missed that press conference.

 

[Nuc]

Funny. I don't remember President Bush telling the world that his reason for going after OBL and SH was that God told him to.

Guess I missed that press conference.

Read the first post in this thread. It was news at the time.

 

[Bonnie]

Their strategy is to claim that they talk to God, therefore negating the need to follow the precepts of the religion. Maybe they really think they talk to God?

God made the rules supposedly, so if God tells you to go against them, that's OK.

OR.....people may pray to god for wisdom since we as humans dont' always know the right answers even if we follow religious doctrine.

 

[GotZoom]

Read the first post in this thread. It was news at the time.

No...wrong.

The President did not tell the American people that God told him to do this.

He said he talked with God..guidance; Am I doing the right thing, etc.

Huge difference.

 

[Nienna]

While I still disagree with many opinions held by those of the Christian right, I have to say that the last few threads have allowed me to understand that perspective a bit better.

Here's a question that has troubled me, though, for a while. Christianity is based on compassion, love, and all of the other beautiful ideas that Christ preached. With that said, how can Christians rectify the use of war under any circumstances if they are truly followers of Christ? I heard that when George Bush was asked if he consulted his father (41), he responded by saying, "I consulted with a higher father." What I find as hypocritical here, is that he uses the name of God for social purposes (sanctity of marriage, abortion, stem cells, etc.), but then he claims that God supported his decision to go to war. I don't see the connection here-- does anyone have any ideas to make sense out of this?

While the above bolded section is important, that IS NOT the basis of Christianity. Christianity is based on the individual's decision to be restored to his rightful created status. It is about recognizing that we were made for God's pleasure and purpose, not our own. It is about choosing every minute of the day to give up what we want for our lives in favor of what God wants us to do.

In general, God wants us to be loving and compassionate to others. But, above all, we are to OBEY. That is how we show that our love and allegience to Him are greater than to anything else on earth.

Since God is a loving God, He doesn't want us to declare war for any little thing. For instance, we are not to declare war on people because their religious beliefs differ from ours. God wants each individual to choose Him of his own free will. However, declaring war out of self-defense, or even IN DEFENSE of innocent people is perfectly just.

 

[dmp]

While I still disagree with many opinions held by those of the Christian right, I have to say that the last few threads have allowed me to understand that perspective a bit better.

Here's a question that has troubled me, though, for a while. Christianity is based on compassion, love, and all of the other beautiful ideas that Christ preached. With that said, how can Christians rectify the use of war under any circumstances if they are truly followers of Christ? I heard that when George Bush was asked if he consulted his father (41), he responded by saying, "I consulted with a higher father." What I find as hypocritical here, is that he uses the name of God for social purposes (sanctity of marriage, abortion, stem cells, etc.), but then he claims that God supported his decision to go to war. I don't see the connection here-- does anyone have any ideas to make sense out of this?

www.biblegateway.com Get it straight from the horse's mouth....in many translations.

 

[Nienna]

www.biblegateway.com Get it straight from the horse's mouth....in many translations.

I love BibleGateway!

 

[007]

I've always been under the impression that Christianity was a "faith" based religon, and some have more faith than others.

 

[Bonnie]

While the above bolded section is important, that IS NOT the basis of Christianity. Christianity is based on the individual's decision to be restored to his rightful created status. It is about recognizing that we were made for God's pleasure and purpose, not our own. It is about choosing every minute of the day to give up what we want for our lives in favor of what God wants us to do.

In general, God wants us to be loving and compassionate to others. But, above all, we are to OBEY. That is how we show that our love and allegience to Him are greater than to anything else on earth.

Since God is a loving God, He doesn't want us to declare war for any little thing. For instance, we are not to declare war on people because their religious beliefs differ from ours. God wants each individual to choose Him of his own free will. However, declaring war out of self-defense, or even IN DEFENSE of innocent people is perfectly just.

Great post...Many people think that because Jesus turned the other cheek he was advocating being a door mat. That was not the case at all, when he said "turn the other cheek" he was instructing people to stick up for themselves as turnning one's cheek was considered a defiant response in those days.

 

[liberalogic]

While the above bolded section is important, that IS NOT the basis of Christianity. Christianity is based on the individual's decision to be restored to his rightful created status. It is about recognizing that we were made for God's pleasure and purpose, not our own. It is about choosing every minute of the day to give up what we want for our lives in favor of what God wants us to do.

In general, God wants us to be loving and compassionate to others. But, above all, we are to OBEY. That is how we show that our love and allegience to Him are greater than to anything else on earth.

Since God is a loving God, He doesn't want us to declare war for any little thing. For instance, we are not to declare war on people because their religious beliefs differ from ours. God wants each individual to choose Him of his own free will. However, declaring war out of self-defense, or even IN DEFENSE of innocent people is perfectly just.

Ok, but first off, remember the commandment-- "thou shall not kill." The commandment has no circumstantial precept. What I mean is that the commandment does not say "don't kill for no reason;" it's a broad statement which implies that you shouldn't kill under any circumstances. And even if you don't agree with that, how can you justify the killing of A SINGLE civilian as "colateral damage?" Many Christians speak so passionately about the value of life (hence the strong position on abortion), yet while they may feel bad, they still say, "Well, we're at war. What do you expect? Civilians will accidentally be killed." The fact is that in any war, however accidental it might be, civilians, or the INNOCENT, will be killed. Chalking it up to colateral damage degrades the preciousness of life (and EVERY life is valuable in the eyes of God).

"Many people think that because Jesus turned the other cheek he was advocating being a door mat. That was not the case at all, when he said "turn the other cheek" he was instructing people to stick up for themselves as turnning one's cheek was considered a defiant response in those days."

I find this to be quite weak. There's a difference between standing up for yourself and warfare. War encompasses the killing of countless amounts of people-- even the innocent. Turning your cheek, while defiant, lacks any connection to murder or murder on a large scale, aka war.

It's funny because I was watching a documentary on the History Channel a few months ago about the prophesy of the "Anti-Christ." What struck me the most about it, was that after the "AC" committed gruesome atrocities, Christ descended from heaven and "slayed him with truth." Nothing makes more sense to me than hearing that phrase. I can't imagine how Christ, for whatever the reason, would advocate warfare.

 

[dilloduck]

Ok, but first off, remember the commandment-- "thou shall not kill." The commandment has no circumstantial precept. What I mean is that the commandment does not say "don't kill for no reason;" it's a broad statement which implies that you shouldn't kill under any circumstances. And even if you don't agree with that, how can you justify the killing of A SINGLE civilian as "colateral damage?" Many Christians speak so passionately about the value of life (hence the strong position on abortion), yet while they may feel bad, they still say, "Well, we're at war. What do you expect? Civilians will accidentally be killed." The fact is that in any war, however accidental it might be, civilians, or the INNOCENT, will be killed. Chalking it up to colateral damage degrades the preciousness of life (and EVERY life is valuable in the eyes of God).

"Many people think that because Jesus turned the other cheek he was advocating being a door mat. That was not the case at all, when he said "turn the other cheek" he was instructing people to stick up for themselves as turnning one's cheek was considered a defiant response in those days."

I find this to be quite weak. There's a difference between standing up for yourself and warfare. War encompasses the killing of countless amounts of people-- even the innocent. Turning your cheek, while defiant, lacks any connection to murder or murder on a large scale, aka war.

It's funny because I was watching a documentary on the History Channel a few months ago about the prophesy of the "Anti-Christ." What struck me the most about it, was that after the "AC" committed gruesome atrocities, Christ descended from heaven and "slayed him with truth." Nothing makes more sense to me than hearing that phrase. I can't imagine how Christ, for whatever the reason, would advocate warfare.

You ask Christians to explain war and then procede to lecture them on what the 10 commandments mean? Funny.

 

[GotZoom]

You ask Christians to explain war and then procede to lecture them on what the 10 commandments mean? Funny.

Another example of how he feels that people are entitled to the only acceptable and correct opinion there is.

His.

 

[liberalogic]

You ask Christians to explain war and then procede to lecture them on what the 10 commandments mean? Funny.

I'm not lecturing, I'm inquiring. I did ask Christians to explain war to me, but I'm just throwing ideas back at them. Ideas that they may not have considered in order to rectify something that I see as hypocritical.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not lecturing, I'm inquiring. I did ask Christians to explain war to me, but I'm just throwing ideas back at them. Ideas that they may not have considered in order to rectify something that I see as hypocritical.

In other words you want someone to prove to you that Christianity isn't hypocritical ?