Jump to content

Christians and War


Recommended Posts

BetheButterfly
Originally Posted by 123321 viewpost.gif

How many people claim to be Christian but still go off to war? Heck, we recently had an epidemic of 'Christians' who didn't understand a fairly simple Bible account.

Great question.

 

Many people sincerely believe they are Christian yet go off to war. Here in the USA it has been that way ever since Christians fought against Native Americans. :( Christians also owned slaves, which in my opinion is not a loving thing to do and does not follow Luke 6:31. (For example, I do not want to be a slave; therefore I should not enslave anyone. I do not want to be killed, so I should not kill anyone)

 

So, why do many Christians go off to war?

 

Jesus Christ did not lead his apostles and disciples to fight against either his people the Jews who rejected him, or the Romans who were oppressing his people. Rather, Jesus commanded them to love, do good to, bless, and pray for enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-37).

 

So, when did Christians start disobeying Jesus' clear commands and example? After all, Jesus Christ endured torture and crucifixion and went above and beyond by asking the Father to forgive them - Luke 23:34.

 

Stephen, a Jew who followed Jesus Christ, was the first "official" martyr for Jesus' sake. Did he kill anybody? Nope. As he was stoned to death, did he vow that his Christian brothers would kill those who were killing him? Nope. Rather, Stephen followed Jesus Christ's example and forgave (Luke 7:59-60).

 

Something happened however after the apostles of Jesus were killed. More and more, Greco-Roman influence infiltrated Christianity. The Romans were experts at fighting; that's how the Roman Empire took over so much land, including Israel.

 

While of course the Jewish people did not appreciate the Roman Empire's desire to control their land, some tried to fight them off. Before Jesus, the Maccabees had success in fighting off the Greeks. Soon Jewish people from around the world will remember this while observing Hanukkah.

(While I'm not Jewish, I love the songs by the Maccabeats. Here is one which explains how the Jews fought the invading Greeks:

)

 

Anyways, Jesus Christ did not lead his followers to fight the Romans, which is what the Jewish people expected of the Christ (Mashiach/Messiah). That's just one of the many reasons why many Jewish people did not and do not accept him as the Mashiach.

 

For years, Christians (both Jewish followers of Yeshua HaMashiach and Gentile followers) were persecuted off and on until Constantine. Constantine won a huge military victory and claimed he did that in the symbol of the cross. This is when I personally think Christians begin to "officially" justify killing other people... thanks to Constantine. :( Personally, I do not believe that Constantine was truly a Christian because he did not obey Jesus Christ. Rather, he used Christianity for his own political agenda... that continues to this day sadly, including in the USA. :(

 

I am curious as to what other people think about the topic and why? Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they don't practice what they preach. Most religious people are brainwashed or plain hypocrites, sometimes both.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't support what these Christians are doing either, but wasn't the Old Testament full of military conquests that the Hebrews did 'by God's orders'? Including slaughtering entire tribes of men who had done nothing to them, raping the women, and taking them as slaves? Sounds to me like it's an inherent part of the faith. Unless you want to renounce the Old Testament entirely, which might be a good idea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
T-16bullseyeWompRat

Well, you have just scratched the surface of how a kid (me) growing up in a church and private christian school decided its all a bunch of hypocrisy and bs. Too many questions with unsatisfactory answers. Too much hypocrisy in the bible alone. Some already pointed out in this thread. Turn the other cheek. *cough*unless there is personal gain involved*cough*

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus Christ did not lead his apostles and disciples to fight against either his people the Jews who rejected him, or the Romans who were oppressing his people. Rather, Jesus commanded them to love, do good to, bless, and pray for enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-37).

 

So, when did Christians start disobeying Jesus' clear commands and example? After all, Jesus Christ endured torture and crucifixion and went above and beyond by asking the Father to forgive them - Luke 23:34.

 

Didn't he say, to Pontius Pilate:

 

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.

 

So he viewed himself as being of another world, which suggests the ordinary rules that apply to those who are of this world did not apply to him. Had he been of this world, as we are, he would have fought for what he believed in - and so would his servants.

 

Thanks to the hard work of content moderators, we are spared the sight of endless examples of some of the worst aspects of humanity. We get to turn the other cheek. Among the various atrocities, things that ISIS are doing to people right now. That they film, and try to put on the internet as part of their terrorist campaign.

 

The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed | WIRED

 

ISIS is said to be the wealthiest terrorist organisation ever. A huge chunk of their wealth comes from oil, since they seized oil production facilities. Left to their own devices, they won't suddenly start playing nice. They will carry on taking over more and more territory, terrorising people with slow and painful beheadings and every other manner of horrific torture they can dream up...and in their world where nobody who doesn't abide exactly by their stringent rules can claim to be an innocent, innocents will continue to be slaughtered in horrendous ways.

 

Is it Christian to respond to that with nothing more than prayers, and futile attempts to appeal to the better natures of people who have gone down a psychopathic road that they'll never come back from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it Christian to respond to that with nothing more than prayers, and futile attempts to appeal to the better natures of people who have gone down a psychopathic road that they'll never come back from?

 

I was assuming that the OP was talking about unnecessary wars that weren't in self-defense, e.g. the annihilation of Native Americans that she mentioned in her post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was assuming that the OP was talking about unnecessary wars that weren't in self-defense, e.g. the annihilation of Native Americans that she mentioned in her post.

 

She mentioned that as a reference point (in times when Christianity played such a major role in political life that wars were fought in its name), but I think she was talking about war generally - even war that is waged in self defence. eg

 

Jesus Christ did not lead his apostles and disciples to fight against either his people the Jews who rejected him, or the Romans who were oppressing his people. Rather, Jesus commanded them to love, do good to, bless, and pray for enemies...So, when did Christians start disobeying Jesus' clear commands and example? After all, Jesus Christ endured torture and crucifixion and went above and beyond by asking the Father to forgive them

 

That seems, to me, to be a perspective that Christians should submit to oppressors and focus on trying to be nice, well intentioned people under an oppressive regime - if the only alternative is to fight them in an effort to topple that regime. It could be that the more warlike manifestations of Christianity in modern times are in part a reaction to/denial of that aspect of Christianity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
BetheButterfly
I don't support what these Christians are doing either, but wasn't the Old Testament full of military conquests that the Hebrews did 'by God's orders'? Including slaughtering entire tribes of men who had done nothing to them, raping the women, and taking them as slaves?

 

In some cases, women and children were slaughtered too... for example, in Jericho, only Rahab and her family were spared. So, from what I understand, usually the women were not raped but were rather killed.

 

As a Christian, my worldview is seen through the "glasses" of Jesus Christ's commands. Since we live in what the Christian calendar calls "AD" instead of "BC" (before Christ), of course it makes sense to question the Old Testament by what Jesus Christ commands.

 

The Children of Israel were not expecting a Mashiach (Anointed One) who commanded love for enemies instead of kill those enemies. Why? Because King David killed many of the enemies of his people, and he conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites (which is when Zion is mentioned in the Bible.)

 

However, looking back in hindsight, I wonder if they ever questioned what it means for the Mashiach to be a "light for the Gentiles" too? Because, that is a prophecy about the Mashiach: (I boldened some.)

 

And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

 

 

Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

 

 

Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.

- Isaiah 49:5-9

 

Yeshayahu (Isaiah): Chapter 49 | Jewish Virtual Library

 

 

So, it makes perfect sense in hindsight that the "salvation unto the end of the earth" would command his Jewish followers to love their enemies, who included Gentiles.

 

 

Sounds to me like it's an inherent part of the faith.

 

Obeying Jesus Christ is an inherent part of following him.

 

 

Unless you want to renounce the Old Testament entirely, which might be a good idea.

 

Impossible. Without the Old Testament, there is no foundation for the New Testament. The promises of the Mashiach (Messiah/Christ) are in the Old Testament. Without them, why believe in the Messiah?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
BetheButterfly
Didn't he say, to Pontius Pilate:

 

Yep.

 

So he viewed himself as being of another world, which suggests the ordinary rules that apply to those who are of this world did not apply to him. Had he been of this world, as we are, he would have fought for what he believed in - and so would his servants.

Disagreed. He very deliberately commanded and showed his followers love for enemies. Please note he did not kill anybody before or while he allowed people to kill him. He deliberately fulfilled Isaiah 53 there, as well as Psalm 22. Jesus Christ made it a point to fulfill Scripture (the Tanakh).

 

Thanks to the hard work of content moderators, we are spared the sight of endless examples of some of the worst aspects of humanity. We get to turn the other cheek. Among the various atrocities, things that ISIS are doing to people right now. That they film, and try to put on the internet as part of their terrorist campaign.

 

The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed | WIRED

 

ISIS is said to be the wealthiest terrorist organisation ever. A huge chunk of their wealth comes from oil, since they seized oil production facilities. Left to their own devices, they won't suddenly start playing nice. They will carry on taking over more and more territory, terrorising people with slow and painful beheadings and every other manner of horrific torture they can dream up...and in their world where nobody who doesn't abide exactly by their stringent rules can claim to be an innocent, innocents will continue to be slaughtered in horrendous ways.

ISIS doesn't believe Jesus' commands to love enemies, so I'm not sure what they have to do with the topic? While ISIS hates Christians, ISIS reminds me of the Crusaders and the Inquisitors, as well as the horrible atrocities both Catholics and Protestants did to the Native Americans. :(

 

If one looks, one can see horrendous evil in "Christians" who disobeyed Jesus Christ's commands to love one's neighbors as oneself and love enemies. It's not a surprise however when people who don't claim to follow Jesus treat enemies (including Christians) without love.

 

Is it Christian to respond to that with nothing more than prayers, and futile attempts to appeal to the better natures of people who have gone down a psychopathic road that they'll never come back from?
Have you ever read Fox's Book of Martyrs? Do you know how many Christians from Stephen till today have been persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith? If Jesus' promises are not true, than there is no reason to obey Jesus' commands to love enemies and endure terrible persecution for his name. However, the reason Christians throughout the ages have experienced torture yet not tortured others is because they trusted in Jesus.

 

What's doubly evil and horrible is when "Christians" torture and persecute other people, like what the Inquisitors did for example, and what the Catholics and Protestants did in the "New Word." :(

Edited by BetheButterfly
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ISIS doesn't believe Jesus' commands to love enemies, so I'm not sure what they have to do with the topic?

 

Well, they are our enemies. Some of the troops going in to kill them will no doubt be Christians. Are they sinners? There are Kurdish troops fighting them on the ground. For a time, the Kurds protected Christians in Iraq...then they withdrew. Without Kurds to protect them, should those Christians simply allow themselves to be enslaved by ISIS...or ought they to fight? If they fight in an effort to avoid being enslaved, is that sinful according to Christ?

 

Have you ever read Fox's Book of Martyrs? Do you know how many Christians from Stephen till today have been persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith? If Jesus' promises are not true, than there is no reason to obey Jesus' commands to love enemies and endure terrible persecution for his name. However, the reason Christians throughout the ages have experienced torture yet not tortured others is because they trusted in Jesus.

 

I haven't read Fox's Book of Martyrs,no. I've known since childhood, though, that many Christians died as martyrs.

 

So I'm getting from this that the Christian way is to endure torture and persecution, and to be enslaved - but not to fight. If that's correct, is there a valid reason for following that path other than "it's what Jesus commands"? To me, it seems that following Christianity to the letter requires a passive reaction to evil, and a submission to slavery and oppression. Which would make Christians the natural slaves in a world which was ruled in accordance to the principles of the mainstream religions. Would that be right?

 

This article seems to take the view that the earliest Christians were strict adherents to non violence. This then evolved to a belief that violence in order to protect innocents was permissible (but that self defence was not). Then, violence in the name of promoting Christianity became acceptable.

 

The Problem of Holy War

 

The general impression I'm getting is that Christianity is seen as a good reference point for being a kind and compassionate person. That a lot of people want to preserve Western societies as being culturally Christian - which requires a proportion of Christians to express strong adherence to the religion and to following it literally - but that if its teachings obstruct our goals of

 

a) maintaining our status as wealthy and powerful societies

b) protecting civilians from torture, oppression and slavery

 

then it will be shunted to one side - perhaps with a few obligatory references to ambiguous biblical passages that could be construed as supporting warlike behaviour in some cases.

Edited by Taramere
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
In some cases, women and children were slaughtered too... for example, in Jericho, only Rahab and her family were spared. So, from what I understand, usually the women were not raped but were rather killed.

 

It's been too long ago for me to be able to quote directly from the Bible any more, but I'm pretty sure that in several instances they killed the men and 'took the women as wives and servants'. Really that's just a nice way of saying 'raped and enslaved them', because it's extremely unlikely the women would be consenting to marry or serve the people who killed their father, brothers, and husband. Their consent just didn't matter.

 

And yes, in some cases they slaughtered everyone - leaving no man, woman or child alive.

 

As a Christian, my worldview is seen through the "glasses" of Jesus Christ's commands. Since we live in what the Christian calendar calls "AD" instead of "BC" (before Christ), of course it makes sense to question the Old Testament by what Jesus Christ commands.

 

Impossible. Without the Old Testament, there is no foundation for the New Testament. The promises of the Mashiach (Messiah/Christ) are in the Old Testament. Without them, why believe in the Messiah?

I don't really understand this. So the Old Testament is to be picked and chosen from, some things matter but other things don't? Who decides which things matter and which don't?

 

And if the claim is that the God of the Bible is all-knowing and perfect, why did he order such actions by the Hebrews? Assuming the Bible is true, this can only be explained by two possibilities - either God made a mistake in the Old Testament and is now 'reformed' after his son came about, hence he is not all-knowing or perfect.... or God is all-knowing and perfect but ordered such wanton murder and slavery and destruction regardless, in which case one would be rather skeptical about how merciful and good he is.

Edited by Elswyth
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
And if the claim is that the God of the Bible is all-knowing and perfect, why did he order such actions by the Hebrews? Assuming the Bible is true, this can only be explained by two possibilities - either God made a mistake in the Old Testament and is now 'reformed' after his son came about, hence he is not all-knowing or perfect.... or God is all-knowing and perfect but ordered such wanton murder and slavery and destruction regardless, in which case one would be rather skeptical about how merciful and good he is.

 

I think Nietzsche had it quite spot on with the New Testament. He saw it as Slave Morality. A text that was designed to help enslaved people to

 

a) cope with the degradation of their situation, by

b) developing a sense of the enslaved majority being morally superior to the minority who had enslaved them.

 

The latter part, obviously, causing lots of problems in Christian societies - not least because it kind of conflicts with a lot of conservative thinking that embraces Christianity but also adopts some aspects of the Nietzschean "might is right" thinking.

 

The enslaved vow that due to their superior morality, they won't behave in the ways that the hated masters do - if they ever gain power. Just as totalitarian regimes can stem from good intentions about creating a fairer, more egalitarian society. History has shown many times that individuals aren't somehow morally superior simply because they lack power and have adopted a religious belief system that helps them to cope with the humiliation of lacking power. We can't really know how much morality a person has until we give them some power. Just as we can't really know somebody unless and until we let them have some sort of power over us. Then we see the truth about who they are.

 

Initially (while they are enslaved) the person who owns them is the obvious embodiment of evil in comparison with whom the slave can feel morally superior. Then, as they become free and gain power, dissenters to their organised religion - heretics - become the evil comparators against which they can obtain that sense of moral superiority. When Christians gained in numbers and in power, and were looking to expand their power as a group, they behaved in terrible ways against anybody they could feel justified in regarding as "evil". Saw themselves as justified in oppressing others in all sorts of ways. Just as ISIS are doing right now.

 

Often those people didn't do anything wrong beyond holding a different opinion, dabbling with herbs or whatever else marked them out as being in league with Satan. In a sense, the New Testament had already served its purpose....but for them to retain a sense of moral authority they had to continue paying some sort of lip service to it. As somebody who has never read the Old and New Testaments in their entirement, I can't say for sure - but I'm guessing that the New Testament didn't so much revised the beliefs advocated in the Old one as it presented a different perspective. That is, the one of the passive slave who must accept their miserable lot (in a world where slavery and brutality is the norm) as best as they can - and scrabble for some sense of self esteem in a situation where rational thinking alone might not be of much assistance.

 

As a slave, being slapped across the face was probably not an uncommon occurrence. If you could derive some sense of moral righteousness by presenting the other side of the face for slapping then it was probably worth the pain of being slapped twice instead of once. Especially if adhering to that faith at all costs (and possibly even being a martyr to it) might give your descendants an opportunity to be the beneficiaries of a powerful new religion through which they could obtain an elite situation in society.

Edited by Taramere
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HowboutthemCowboys

 

So the Old Testament is to be picked and chosen from, some things matter but other things don't? Who decides which things matter and which don't?

 

Thats exactly what people do. They cherry pick parts of their faith and interpret how they want, and how they seem fit. So much hypocrisy. And when you call them on it, they all use the same excuse "Well, you cant take it literally, its more so just a guide to follow". So in other words, its really nothing more than using common sense on what is right and wrong, and religion really isnt needed at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Author
BetheButterfly
Well, they are our enemies. Some of the troops going in to kill them will no doubt be Christians. Are they sinners?

 

Hello :)

 

Sorry, I forgot about this thread till now.

 

Many Christians believe that all Christians are sinners (including myself), which is nice because Jesus Christ came to call sinners: (I boldened some.)

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[Hosea 6:6] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

- Matthew 9:12-13 (NIV)

 

There are Kurdish troops fighting them on the ground. For a time, the Kurds protected Christians in Iraq...then they withdrew. Without Kurds to protect them, should those Christians simply allow themselves to be enslaved by ISIS...or ought they to fight? If they fight in an effort to avoid being enslaved, is that sinful according to Christ?
What did the chosen apostles of Jesus Christ do? Did they kill those who were persecuting them, or endure persecution? It's not natural in human instinct to endure persecution. Humans do have a survival instinct. Loving enemies as Jesus Christ commands (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-37) goes against that innate survival instinct.

 

I haven't read Fox's Book of Martyrs,no. I've known since childhood, though, that many Christians died as martyrs.

Yep. They could have fought, but those who wanted to obey Jesus Christ's commands to love didn't fight, including Stephen - the first "official martyr" - Acts 7 Interestingly, if Christians had killed their enemies, Saul/Paul would have probably been killed...

So I'm getting from this that the Christian way is to endure torture and persecution, and to be enslaved - but not to fight. If that's correct, is there a valid reason for following that path other than "it's what Jesus commands"?

Well, let's say you have a beloved family member or friend who goes berserk and for some weird reason wants to kill you. Would you kill your beloved family member or friend before he or she killed you? We are "brothers and sisters in humanity" with everyone on this globe.

 

To me, it seems that following Christianity to the letter requires a passive reaction to evil, and a submission to slavery and oppression.

Understood. That's why many Christians don't take Jesus Christ's commands to love enemies literally.

 

Which would make Christians the natural slaves in a world which was ruled in accordance to the principles of the mainstream religions. Would that be right?
Yeah, and if you look at the followers of Jesus Christ who walked and talked with him, they didn't conquer the Jewish people who rejected Jesus as the Christ or the Romans; they were the "slaves"

 

Paul said the following which is so true: "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." - 1 Corinthians 15:9 (NIV)

 

This article seems to take the view that the earliest Christians were strict adherents to non violence. This then evolved to a belief that violence in order to protect innocents was permissible (but that self defence was not). Then, violence in the name of promoting Christianity became acceptable.

 

The Problem of Holy War

Thanks for sharing this article! :)

The general impression I'm getting is that Christianity is seen as a good reference point for being a kind and compassionate person. That a lot of people want to preserve Western societies as being culturally Christian - which requires a proportion of Christians to express strong adherence to the religion and to following it literally - but that if its teachings obstruct our goals of

 

a) maintaining our status as wealthy and powerful societies

b) protecting civilians from torture, oppression and slavery

 

then it will be shunted to one side - perhaps with a few obligatory references to ambiguous biblical passages that could be construed as supporting warlike behaviour in some cases

.

 

Awesome observations :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
BetheButterfly
It's been too long ago for me to be able to quote directly from the Bible any more, but I'm pretty sure that in several instances they killed the men and 'took the women as wives and servants'. Really that's just a nice way of saying 'raped and enslaved them', because it's extremely unlikely the women would be consenting to marry or serve the people who killed their father, brothers, and husband. Their consent just didn't matter.

 

From Jericho, only Rahab and her family survived, but yes in other cities, women were taken and you could definitely say they were raped. The following is an interesting passage from the Bible about that, which most Christians nowadays are not going to hear in their church services!

 

When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

- Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (NIV)

 

:( Honestly, there is a lot in the Old Testament I don't like. If not for my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I would most definitely be an Atheist.

 

I don't really understand this. So the Old Testament is to be picked and chosen from, some things matter but other things don't? Who decides which things matter and which don't?

 

Those are awesome questions. The fact is that Christianity focuses on Jesus Christ, who Christians believe is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Most Christians today do not believe that we have to obey the harsh commandments and even the dietary laws that God gave to the Children of Israel. Gentile Christians base this on Acts 10 and Acts 15.

 

And if the claim is that the God of the Bible is all-knowing and perfect, why did he order such actions by the Hebrews?

 

Awesome question. I personally think it's because God has a different way of thinking than humans do. He wanted to establish the Children of Israel. Not everybody likes that, but it sure seems that way.

Assuming the Bible is true, this can only be explained by two possibilities - either God made a mistake in the Old Testament and is now 'reformed' after his son came about, hence he is not all-knowing or perfect.... or God is all-knowing and perfect but ordered such wanton murder and slavery and destruction regardless, in which case one would be rather skeptical about how merciful and good he is.

 

Fair assumptions. Personally, I believe God is all-knowing and perfect, but He has a completely different set of morals than humans have, sorta like lions have a completely different diet than deer have...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
BetheButterfly
Thats exactly what people do. They cherry pick parts of their faith and interpret how they want, and how they seem fit. So much hypocrisy. And when you call them on it, they all use the same excuse "Well, you cant take it literally, its more so just a guide to follow". So in other words, its really nothing more than using common sense on what is right and wrong,.

 

I am guilty of cherry-picking. I chose to believe and follow what Jesus Christ says, and I do not obey most of the commands God gave to Moses for the Children of Israel. Why? I'm not a Child of Israel; I'm a Gentile who accepts Jesus Christ.

 

and religion really isnt needed at all

 

I disagree. I need my relationship with Jesus Christ. I'm not perfect, but I would be a lot meaner person if not for Jesus Christ.

 

It's awesome that many Atheists and people of different beliefs are kind and wonderful people without having the same relationship with Jesus Christ that I have, but I personally need Him. So, if you want to say that Jesus Christ is my "drug" and I'm a sick person who needs that drug, then that's true:

 

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[Hosea 6:6] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

 

- Matthew 9:10-13 (NIV)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fair assumptions. Personally, I believe God is all-knowing and perfect, but He has a completely different set of morals than humans have, sorta like lions have a completely different diet than deer have...

 

That is a fair answer. But in that case, why would you let someone with a set of morals that involves victors raping the losers being 'okay', tell you what you should and shouldn't do? I know you said you obey Jesus and not God, but then do you not believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one (the Trinity)?

 

Not attacking you personally, I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Genuinely curious here.

Edited by Elswyth
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
BetheButterfly
That is a fair answer. But in that case, why would you let someone with a set of morals that involves victors raping the losers being 'okay', tell you what you should and shouldn't do?

 

Because I believe that someone is the Creator, and because He doesn't command people to kill anymore - ever since Jesus Christ - but rather to love neighbors, love oneself, love each other, and love enemies. That covers everybody, in my opinion. Love does not rape and love does not kill. God had not told the Children of Israel to love their enemies until Jesus Christ came, which is an important point.

 

Do I wish He had commanded the Children of Israel to love their enemies before Jesus Christ came? Yep, but God isn't a genie who fulfills my wishes.

 

 

I know you said you obey Jesus and not God, but then do you not believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one (the Trinity)?

I don't obey God's commands that He gave to the Children of Israel via Moses because I'm not a child of Israel. I'm a Gentile. Gentiles do not have to obey the Law of Moses (Acts 10 and Acts 15). Some Messianic Jews do obey the dietary laws and some other laws, but most Jews who believe in G-d (both those who believe in Jesus/Yeshua and those who don't) no longer obey all the harsh commands that God gave to the Children of Israel, because they believe those harsh commands were only for that time and not for today.

 

I do believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and that He brought a New Covenant for the Children of Israel which flows as well as to Gentiles: (I boldened some below.)

 

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,

“when I will make a new covenant

with the people of Israel

and with the people of Judah." - Jeremiah 31:31 (NIV)

 

 

And now the Lord says—

he who formed me in the womb to be his servant

to bring Jacob back to him

and gather Israel to himself,

for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord

and my God has been my strength—

he says:

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant

to restore the tribes of Jacob

and bring back those of Israel I have kept.

I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,

that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

 

- Isaiah 49:5-6 (NIV)

 

 

Jesus means salvation, which is really cool!!! :)

 

 

 

 

 

Not attacking you personally, I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Genuinely curious here

Oh sure, I understand. Again, if not for Jesus Christ, I'd be an Atheist.

 

And, if Jesus Christ did not command love but rather killed his enemies, I very possibly would have chosen not to follow him. If I were an Atheist, I would still be a pacifist because I believe human evolution should move to less and less humans killing each other for any reason, whether for religion or Paradise or greed or hatred or for land or whatever.

Edited by BetheButterfly
Link to post
Share on other sites
In some cases, women and children were slaughtered too... for example, in Jericho, only Rahab and her family were spared. So, from what I understand, usually the women were not raped but were rather killed.

 

As a Christian, my worldview is seen through the "glasses" of Jesus Christ's commands. Since we live in what the Christian calendar calls "AD" instead of "BC" (before Christ), of course it makes sense to question the Old Testament by what Jesus Christ commands.

 

The Children of Israel were not expecting a Mashiach (Anointed One) who commanded love for enemies instead of kill those enemies. Why? Because King David killed many of the enemies of his people, and he conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites (which is when Zion is mentioned in the Bible.)

 

However, looking back in hindsight, I wonder if they ever questioned what it means for the Mashiach to be a "light for the Gentiles" too? Because, that is a prophecy about the Mashiach: (I boldened some.)

 

And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

 

 

Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

 

 

Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.

- Isaiah 49:5-9

 

Yeshayahu (Isaiah): Chapter 49 | Jewish Virtual Library

 

 

So, it makes perfect sense in hindsight that the "salvation unto the end of the earth" would command his Jewish followers to love their enemies, who included Gentiles.

 

 

 

 

Obeying Jesus Christ is an inherent part of following him.

 

 

 

 

Impossible. Without the Old Testament, there is no foundation for the New Testament. The promises of the Mashiach (Messiah/Christ) are in the Old Testament. Without them, why believe in the Messiah?

As a Christian you follow the Bible in it's entirety not a pick and choose. People such as Deborah, Samson, Joshua, Gideon and David fought and killed people.

 

Then Jerubbaal the son of Joash went and lived in his own house. 30Now Gideon had seventy sons who were his direct descendants, for he had many wives. 31His concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he named him Abimelech.

 

Gideon had 70 sons from many wives. No doubt many of those wives were products of war. I believe in God but my problem with Christianity is that people take sections out and make it as this foundation for the religion. People want to say it peace but forget the years of war. People flip it to make a point against abortion but forget the verses about helping the poor.

 

In some ways the actual Bible is more realistic than the idealized version Christians want to portray. It's a natural human instinct to fight and defend yourself and people you love. The big problem is translation. The commandment about killing in English is taken as killing in any form. The Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder. The problem with Christianity is a lot is lost in translation and also corrupted by leadership once it got to Rome. Even looking at Revelation one sees that the time of the Revived Roman empire will be a bloody one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
For years, Christians (both Jewish followers of Yeshua HaMashiach and Gentile followers) were persecuted off and on until Constantine. Constantine won a huge military victory and claimed he did that in the symbol of the cross. This is when I personally think Christians begin to "officially" justify killing other people... thanks to Constantine. :( Personally, I do not believe that Constantine was truly a Christian because he did not obey Jesus Christ. Rather, he used Christianity for his own political agenda... that continues to this day sadly, including in the USA. :(
When was the last time an American military force conquered a territory, plundered it, massacred most of its population, and then enslaved its remaining survivors? When was the last time American troops went on a rape fest?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they don't practice what they preach. Most religious people are brainwashed or plain hypocrites, sometimes both.
Maybe, just maybe, they are all sinners.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was assuming that the OP was talking about unnecessary wars that weren't in self-defense, e.g. the annihilation of Native Americans that she mentioned in her post.
So you condemn people with no knowledge of the microbial world for vanquishing the "Native Americans" who themselves had no knowledge of the microbial world.

 

Why don't we condemn the "Native Americans" for not taking effective measures against the microbial threat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello :)

 

Sorry, I forgot about this thread till now.

 

Hi :) I forgot about it too. I'm glad you reminded me, because it ties in with something I was writing about in another thread.

 

 

Well, let's say you have a beloved family member or friend who goes berserk and for some weird reason wants to kill you. Would you kill your beloved family member or friend before he or she killed you? We are "brothers and sisters in humanity" with everyone on this globe.

 

I honestly don't know how I would react in such a terrible situation. If I did react by killing them in order to preserve my own life, the criminal law of my country wouldn't punish me. I don't think anybody I know would judge me for it either. I wouldn't judge somebody for killing if that was what it took (by the standards of a reasonable person taking into account the panicky atmosphere of such a situation) for them to protect their life.

 

Yeah, and if you look at the followers of Jesus Christ who walked and talked with him, they didn't conquer the Jewish people who rejected Jesus as the Christ or the Romans; they were the "slaves"

 

But they refused to renounce Christianity, and for that they were put to death. They martyred themselves - and it was through their martyrdom that Christianity gained in popularity. "People are willing to die for this! There must be something in it..."

 

In the same way, Jesus died in order to fulfil a number of prophecies - even though, as he claimed, he could have at any time brought God's army down to help him. He told one of his disciples so after that disciple sliced off the ear of one of the people who came to arrest him. Put your sword away - he who lives by the sword dies by it, etc.

 

However he told them that in the context of "this prophecy must play out". Earlier he had told them to buy swords. They showed him that they already had two swords and he said "that's enough". I think there's a theory that some of his group had to be visibly armed to ensure he would be arrested and that's why he wanted them to get swords. However, if Jesus were entirely against self defence wouldn't he have rebuked those disciples for already being armed? Wouldn't he at least question them for being armed? Why miss an opportunity to teach a lesson about not being armed?

 

My guess is that the teachings of Jesus were about encouraging people to use peaceful means where possible, but that he recognised there were situations in which people would require to be armed and to use those arms...undesirable as such actions are.

 

Let's think of another scenario. Jesus taught that he came to earth in order to fulfil prophecies that would result in the salvation mankind. He lived for long enough, during those violent times, to ensure the prophecies were filled. What do you think would have happened if somebody had attempted to kill him before he had the chance to fulfil that prophecy? Do you really think he'd have allowed them to?

 

If he had special, magical, powers then perhaps he was able to influence his environment and the behaviour of people in it to ensure that he didn't, at any point, have to kill in self defence...but I think if there had been a situation where he had to kill another person in order to ensure that the prophecies were fulfilled, he would have done it. Don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now to me i think that Jesus mission was so great that in one way or another

if some one would have tried to stop him from fore filling his mission that he

came to fore fill that there would have been a lot of blood shed. And i under

-stand what you are talking about when it comes to self preservation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...