Other religions..

[Elijah John]

For debate, (addressed primarily to Theists) :

Do you see other religions, (and people who practice other religions) as enemies? Competitors? Or allies in the quest to bring people to God and His ways?

[JehovahsWitness]

Except, of course, the wars in the "Old" Testament. How is that consistent?

If I may be so bold as to contribute to this point.

QUESTION: Do the Divine wars in the bible authorize Christians to participate in human conflicts?

The bible does not suggest all wars are wrong. Jesus himself, as Michael the archangel, has been commissioned to lead the angelic forces in the final war against all wickedness at Harmageddon and Jehovah Himself is described in scripture described as "the God of Armies". However the notion of "holy wars", wars directly commissioned by God, rests uniquely in the Hebrew scriptures as God's means to ensured the progress of His divine purpose.

In Eden God has promised "a seed" or "Messiah" that would eventually rule the earth and reestablish the paradise as per His (God's) original purpose. This "seed" (The Messiah) would appear through the family line of Abraham. Thus God took measures to protect Abraham and his descendants, the nation of Israel and provide them with a territory in which the promised Messiah could be born. God commissioned Joshua to fight for that nation and occasionally throughout their history, other individuals, even non Israelites, were used to discipline His people and other nations directly related to his people, the nation of Israel. Note however, the Israelites were never commissioned to seek global conquest through war, nor appointed to keep world peace, since that would be something achieved through the Messianic rule of His son Jesus.

With the advent of the Christian era, the purpose of those divine wars came to an end. Christians were commissioned to live peaceably in the territories that they found themselves, submit to the authorities, refrain from being "part of the world" of politics and love their spiritual brothers no matter where they lived on the planet. Christians were also commanded to "Love their enemies" not attempt to kill or dominate them. Thus participation in human wars has always been incompatible with CHRISTIAN living.


JW



RELATED POSTS

Early Christians and military service
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p788183

Is there a difference between using force and violence [definition]?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 40#p978440

Do the Divine wars in the bible authorize Christians to participate in human conflicts?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p827364

What did Jesus mean by "turn the other cheek"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 50#p773650

To read more please go to other posts related to POSTS RELATED to ...

RELIGION, WAR and ...BIBLICAL KILLING

[Elijah John]

Except, of course, the wars in the "Old" Testament. How is that consistent?

If I may be so bold as to contribute to this point.

QUESTION: Do the Divine wars in the bible authorize Christians to participate in human conflicts?

The bible does not suggest all wars are wrong. Jesus himself, as Michael the archangel, has been commissioned to lead the angelic forces in the final war against all wickedness at Harmageddon and Jehovah Himself is described in scripture described as "the God of Armies". However the notion of "holy wars", wars directly commissioned by God, rests uniquely in the Hebrew scriptures as God's means to ensured the progress of His divine purpose.

In Eden God has promised "a seed" or "Messiah" that would eventually rule the earth and reestablish the paradise as per His (God's) original purpose. This "seed" (The Messiah) would appear through the family line of Abraham. Thus God took measures to protect Abraham and his descendants, the nation of Israel and provide them with a territory in which the promised Messiah could be born. God commissioned Joshua to fight for that nation and occasionally throughout their history, other individuals, even non Israelites, were used to discipline His people and other nations directly related to his people, the nation of Israel. Note however, the Israelites were never commissioned to seek global conquest through war, nor appointed to keep world peace, since that would be something achieved through the Messianic rule of His son Jesus.

With the advent of the Christian era, the purpose of those divine wars came to an end. Christians were commissioned to live peaceably in the territories that they found themselves, submit to the authorities, refrain from being "part of the world" of politics and love their spiritual brothers no matter where they lived on the planet and love their enemies not attempt to kill or dominate them. Thus participation in human wars has always been incompatible with CHRISTIAN living.


JW

Interesting, except the Prophets constantly proclaim that God is interested in justice and compassion, presumably for justice and compassion's own sake.

To alleviate human suffering and be a corrective to human INjustice.

This goes well beyond ensuring the survival of the race of the Messiah, though it certainly includes that.

[Elijah John]

Let Hitler murder more Jews, Gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses? Yes, if that is the price of obedience to God so be it.


JW

This kind of thinking deters many from wanting anything to do with the God of the Bible..although I do not believe it is an accurate representation.

Should the police too, let murderers murder when by force of their side-arms or S.W.A.T can stop the murderer cold in their tracks, and thereby protect the innocent?

Should a father refrain from shooting an intruder when said intruder wants to torture and kill that man's family?

Does "loving your enemy" mean letting them do whatever they want? Even carrying out their evil intentions against the innocent?

I seriously doubt it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Does the fact that Jehovah protected his people through divine war mean he (God) is unconcerned with global justice?


Far from it. Jehovah is described as a God of justice and through his dealings with mankind he has repeatedly demonstrated his desire that people live in a world were everyone is respected and has the opportunity to serve Him freely and live happily free from oppression and fear. The question is, how has God arranged to ensure this for every human forever. The answer for this lies, not with human governments but with God's Government.

In the garden of Eden God promised a "seed" or descendant that would destroy Satan and repair the damage done by millions of years of human rule. As that purpose was developed through the establishment and protection of the nation chosen to produce that promised "seed" or MESSIAH, God continuously demonstrated to mankind his standards of love and justice. The Mosaic law for example (the 613 laws given to the Israelites) provided dictates to be kind and love one's neighbour, to be charitable and generous to the under privileged and not to exploit or oppress others. Non-Israelites were invited to worship God at his temple while they awaited the Messianic era that would open the way for all people of all nations to approach God and seek Divine justice.

In short, Jehovah has never shown himself to be indifferent to injustice and suffering but his means of establishing a permanent solution to such problems rests with one individual (the Promised Messiah) and his future global government. God has through Jesus instructed all humans to follow his son Jesus pattern of treating others with kindness and love which will to a limited extent "alleviate human suffering and be a corrective to human INjustice" Jesus never however commissioned his followers to KILL others or engage in war to achieve this end.






JW



Does the fact that Jehovah protected his people through divine war mean he (God) is unconcerned with global justice?
viewtopic.php?p=827368#p827368

Are Jehovah's Witnesses cowards and oportunists?
viewtopic.php?p=881988#p881988

[catnip]

[Replying to post 70 by catnip]

It is not the government and politics that I "have purely derided." My beef has always been mainly and pointedly with the leaders of RELIGIONS that have not taught the people of the world the truth about what Christ expects of us. The churches have been in bed with politicians for centuries, and have done nothing to stand up against the evils of war and other terrible things, to further their own gains in power and wealth.

Most churches do teach what Christ taught. That is the tradition. It is not required as an individual choice. On the other hand, Jesus did not apparently always teach only pacifism. And even though he didn't want any violence in his defense when he was arrested, he had warned his disciples to have swords--obviously for self-defense.

Luke 22: 36-38 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.�

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.�

“That’s enough!� he replied.

Jesus also complimented the faith of the Roman Centurion who asked that he heal his servant.

As Mahatma Ghandi once said, "If everyone on Earth followed the teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount, there would be no war."

And I admire Ghandi tremendously. On the other hand, pacifism didn't stop Hitler from invading Poland. The U.S. stayed out of the WWII until it became apparent that we were involved whether we wanted to be or not.

And again: We are not speaking of the individual choice as to whether or not to fight but about our Nation's right and responsibility to defend us militarily. You are welcome to make the choice for pacifism as are others who do at different levels. Our nation makes allowance for that to an extent and there are other purely pacifist groups such as the Quakers (Friends) and the Anabaptists. But individuals from any church or religion can and do claim to be Conscientious Objectors. Although most will choose to serve in a useful capacity during war, in non-combatant roles. I especially admire those who choose to put their lives on the line in an effort to save the wounded as medics and ambulance drivers.

Sounds like you have read the book Zealot? Reza Aslan makes a similar case that Jesus was not entirely a pacifist.

No. But I have wrestled with my own view of pacifism. I do believe that we should be like Christ and we shouldn't resort to any kind of violence to save ourselves--we have no fear and certainly not of death. But he does not speak of not risking ourselves to save others . . . oh, wait! He did--he did what was necessary in order to save others because he loved them.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Jesus really teaches radical, in your face pacifism. He hasn't taught no violence. We see some violence against the injustice of the money-changers in the temple. That was not pure pacifism. It was very active, overt, loud. And, it was in defense of the poor.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 82 by JehovahsWitness]

Seems to me that you are only telling what Jehovah's Witnesses, and true Christians should do (or not do) in the face of unspeakable persecution.

I'm asking what the Allies SHOULD have done. Let Hitler murder more Jews, Gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses?

Could it be that the Allies were instruments OF Jehovah in destroying the Third Reich thus saving Jews, Gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses?

No, and I believe that I have responded to that whole line of thinking regarding that issue. It goes way back before the World Wars even started. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that God would not be involved in WWII or any war.

Except, of course, the wars in the "Old" Testament. How is that consistent? Were the Nazis any better than the ancient Canaanites? Any less deserving of God's wrathful intervention against them? At least the ancient Egyptians "only" enslaved the ancient Hebrews...the Nazi's systematically murdered them.

I replied to that in a former post (post # 62). Why do I bother to reply at all?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 95 by catnip]


"Jesus really teaches radical, in your face pacifism. He hasn't taught no violence. We see some violence against the injustice of the money-changers in the temple. That was not pure pacifism. It was very active, overt, loud. And, it was in defense of the poor."

If he hasn't taught no violence that means he taught violence.

Violence with the table? Active, overt, loud; really?

With the table or with what it represented.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 95 by catnip]




"Jesus really teaches radical, in your face pacifism. He hasn't taught no violence. We see some violence against the injustice of the money-changers in the temple. That was not pure pacifism. It was very active, overt, loud. And, it was in defense of the poor."

If he hasn't taught no violence that means he taught violence.

Violence with the table? Active, overt, loud; really?

With the table or with what it represented.

As I recall there was more than "one table" in the story. Perhaps you should read it.

No, I do not see that he has taught pacifism to the extent that we allow others to suffer, die.