navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Kill v. Murder
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Kill v. Murder Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

0 posted 2005-01-27 07:21 PM


I've quoted or paraphrased Stalin before,

"1 death is a tragedy, 10,000 is a statistic" but this, arguably, says more about us than it does about the actions of a monster.

A few years back, Jim pointed out that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is better rendered as "Thou Shalt Not Murder" and that made a lot of sense to me. But, what exactly are we talking about here?

Now?

Why do we go to war? We go to war to kill people. If we kill more people than they can take, we win. If we don't we lose.

And yet those of us protesting the war use numbers that increase the numbers of kills, those that support the war use lesser numbers.

Who wants to win the war?

No, I don't want to make this another thread on statistics, I want to look at something else. About a month ago, I read American Psycho and then saw the movie (the Disney version of the book by the way -- I do not recommend this book to those with a weak constitution). Now, on the internet and with a few buddies, one question that kept coming up was, "Were the murders fantasy or did Bateman really commit them?"

Now, aside from the obvious problems with that question concerning a novel, I think the point, one point, of the book, was to consider the question from a character point of view:

Who do you respect more? The Bateman who fantasizes about being a homicidal maniac or the actual homicidal maniac?

I've answered the question, everyone I've asked and who have read the book, have answered it.

What do you think? What do you think we answered?


© Copyright 2005 Brad - All Rights Reserved
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
1 posted 2005-01-30 10:04 PM


Brad, is this a serious Question?
I can't really apply the word RESPECT for either.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
2 posted 2005-01-31 06:18 AM


That's not an option.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
3 posted 2005-01-31 04:36 PM


Brad:

quote:
Who do you respect more? The Bateman who fantasizes about being a homicidal maniac or the actual homicidal maniac?


If this is an either/or question with no "none of the above" option, I'd say I respect the Bateman who fantasizes about being a homicidal maniac more than the actual-homicidal-maniac-Bateman.  Either way, I think Bateman needs to get help.

I don't think this is tantamount to saying that I respect Bateman's act of fantasy - if anything, I respect Bateman's restraint (for whatever reason) in not carrying out his fantasy.  Both fantasy and action, in my opinion, are immoral and are like teflon to respect.

Interesting question, though, with applications to many situations.  Who do you respect more - the husband who fantasizes about adulterous relationships or the husband who actually pursues adulterous relationships?

Following your earlier vein about war and killing, it is clear that Western juridical tradition doesn't deny that homicide is the killing of another human being.  I wish we could post diagrams here (I think that would be the most effective way of explaining it), but I work with what I've got.

Regarding murder, there are two main ingredients: intent and the act.  Accident that does not involve willful recklessness will not satisfy the legal definition of "murder."  The type of intent (specific intent to kill, commit serious bodily injury or murder that results from the commission of another violent crime) will take you to the various legal degrees of murder.

Assuming a specific intent to kill or inflict serious bodily injury exists and the result is the victim's death, the next question to ask is whether the act is either justifiable, legally excused, or whether there are any mitigating circumstances that warrant reducing the typical sanctions for committing murder.

Murder during times of war would be an example of excused homicide (assuming it satisfies the legal criteria).  Self-defense would be an example of justifiable homicide.  Catching your wife in bed with another man and killing her paramour in a "heat of passion" would be an example of a mitigating circumstance.

But these only address the legality of the act, not the morality of it.  I think it is important to draw that distinction (because it so often gets muddled today).  The Christian should be aware of Christ's admonition that if you even so much as hate your neighbor, you are guilty of murder under the Commandment (i.e., you've crossed the line of God's perfect moral standard).  Although it may not bring with it the legal consequences of actual homicide, it bears the eternal consequences of sin before a God who despises sin.

Good question, Brad.  Sorry for the ramble.

Jim


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
4 posted 2005-02-04 06:09 AM


quote:
Interesting question, though, with applications to many situations.  Who do you respect more - the husband who fantasizes about adulterous relationships or the husband who actually pursues adulterous relationships?


This is a good counter-example. Instinctively, I would choose the fantasizer (It's okay to look, but not touch).

Have you read the book?

The people I've asked personally, with no prep time, have all responded that they respect the doer, not the fantasizer. This may have something to do with the character as well. My own gut reaction was the same.

In trying to tie this up a bit, my own thinking is that when it comes to narratives, we prefer action to talk. In this way, I keep wondering if this war is the first Hollywood war.

People want a good story, a strong leading man, and good guys winning in the end.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
5 posted 2005-02-04 09:29 AM


Brad:

I'll put the book on my "to read" list, but I'm too busy now trying to defend Albert Camus from Edward Said's attack on him for being a mouthpiece for French colonialism.

Isn't academia grand?

Jim

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
6 posted 2005-02-04 06:06 PM


Just read it as a Black, or red?, comedy.

I don't think I've read Said on Camus, but Said's thesis is a little more nuanced than that. He sees colonialism in literature as a kind of mechanism that allows much of what happens in great literature to happen. I don't know, I saw the same thing in late 19th and early 20th century Japanese literature.

Had I continued, I probably would have written a paper on it.


jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
7 posted 2005-02-07 05:04 PM


On Said, the tone is "nuanced" but the implications are not.  He situates colonial-era writers "contrapuntally" by searching for those things generally overlooked by Western readers.  In large part, he's right, as in his reading of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" in which even Marlow's revolutionary (for his day) realization that "savages" are human beings and "civilization" is a facade is only a start, and that Conrad (via Marlowe) still carries more than enough colonialist baggage.

On Camus, again Said makes an important observation that Camus' writings are often (mis)read as existential writings alone, failing to recognize the human rights activist in Camus (e.g., seing Meursault as a metaphor for French-Algerian indifference toward the human dignity of Arab Algerians).  But Said situates Camus contrapuntally by quoting a short paragraph from one of Camus' letters - arguing that Camus was against Algerian independence, but failing to mention the rest of the letter in which it becomes clear that Camus favored reason over the extremes of either position.  He acknowledged certain Arab grievances with what I though was very strong language and posited that other Arab demands had illegitimate bases.  I see Camus as more of an advocate for reconciliation and eventual cooperative rule in Algeria, and certainly not as a mouthpiece for colonialist rhetoric.

Said's treatment of Camus leads me to believe that postcolonialist criticism (or feminist, queer, deconstructive, etc.) can be dangerously and unnecessarily destructive if the critic fails to evaluate (or reveal) his own agenda in approaching the text in that manner.

Way off topic, but "way" interesting (in a pathetic, nerdy kind of way).  It's interesting, though, that from either extreme, the moderate appears to be on the "other side."

Jim

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
8 posted 2006-03-26 09:34 PM


Kill v Murder

It seems this question came up about four years ago here.  Back then we talked about collateral damage concerning bombing raids over civilian populations in WWII Germany.  The kill ratios in the Vietnam War.  And people that had committed out-right murders and self-defense.  The thread went on for weeks… but I think we came to a conclusion that intent was the ultimate measuring stick.

As for this character in this novel, he’s one sick puppy!  He had already plotted and committed murder in his heart... waiting on the act itself.

But my question would be, “how would you measure our soldiers caught-up in murder and torture tactics?



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
9 posted 2006-03-27 12:11 PM


You don’t go to war to kill,
you go to war to win.
If you can fake or intimidate the enemy
into surrender without firing a shot, ( or arrow
as Chuang-Tzu who spoke of this would say),
so much the better.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
10 posted 2006-03-27 06:23 PM


"A few years back, Jim pointed out that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is better rendered as "Thou Shalt Not Murder" and that made a lot of sense to me. But, what exactly are we talking about here?"

~ Not every Christian buys into the, what I call, a cop-out and excuse for armies to fight and kill other human beings. I looked up the Hebrew word for "kill" in Strong's concordance, and to me it means just that - kill, not murder.


"... Melvin, you overwhelm me."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
11 posted 2006-03-27 07:06 PM


quote:
“how would you measure our soldiers caught-up in murder and torture tactics?


And what does our reaction say about ourselves?

Who is the better person?

The man who condemns without being in that position himself?

The man who justifies out of loyalty?

Or the man who shrugs his shoulders?



Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
12 posted 2006-03-28 09:02 AM


If I may touch of the movie Kingdom of Heaven, in it the king tells the main character Balian that he may be moved and positioned in life by men of power, and circumstances, but ultimately he is responsible for his own actions and his soul.  But later as the king is dying, he asks Balian to assist him in committing murder, and marry his sister, the wife of the man to be killed, or murdered.  The kings’ reasoning for the murder is to retain peace between Christians and Islam… and ultimately protect all the people of the region.

It would have to be a dreadful position for our soldiers, being pulled one-way by honor for their fallen comrades, pushed another by duty of the uniform, and being stuck somewhere in the middle of their own sense of justice and fair-play.

I could only wonder sitting in the bush, or hiding behind a sand dune holding the brains of true and trusted friend what actions I would take.  It is hard to speculate not being in that position or ever having being in those positions our soldiers is put in everyday.  

The hard part is, I guess… is not knowing who your enemy is; or where the next car-bomb will explode; or who is strapped with explosives in what marketplace.

I keep asking myself the question, could I in fact protect a people who want and need the protection, but hate the guts of the people doing the protection.  So I guess I’m mostly shaking my head in disbelief.  And thank God that I’m not in these positions to even have to make the choice.

Regards,
Knubian

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
13 posted 2006-03-28 09:38 AM


Kill or murder... it's all a matter of somantics.


To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful.
www.impressionsintime.net

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
14 posted 2006-03-28 01:57 PM


quote:
Kill or murder... it's all a matter of somantics.


Actually, its a matter of definition.  More later.

Jim

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
15 posted 2006-03-28 06:23 PM


Home > Lexicons > Hebrew Lexicon > Ratsach

The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Strong's Number:  7523 xcr

Original Word Word Origin
xcr   a primitive root

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling

Ratsach   raw-tsakh'    

Parts of Speech TWOT
Verb   2208

Definition

to murder, slay, kill

premeditated
accidental
as avenger
slayer
(intentional) (participle)
(Niphal) to be slain
(Piel)
to murder, assassinate
murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
(Pual) to be killed


~ Accidentally kill someone? That could be considered murder, or how about as an avenger, like soldiers in war, that could be considered to be killing, murder, slaying. I don't see a difference.

~ It is funny how humankind throughout the ages twisted and turned Biblical words to fit their own carnal beliefs.

~ Jesus said to love one's enemy, pray for those who abuse you, to turn the other cheek, yet certain christian folk think it is okay and justified for a human being to don a uniform, and out of a call to duty for a nation's perception of god - KILL his brother on a battlefield.

~ Seriously, I find it rather amusing. I can see Christ now, leading a battalion of tanks across the Iraqi border.





"... Melvin, you overwhelm me."

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
16 posted 2006-03-29 08:50 AM


JCP:

quote:
~ Accidentally kill someone? That could be considered murder, or how about as an avenger, like soldiers in war, that could be considered to be killing, murder, slaying. I don't see a difference.


Your handle on the OT law needs work here.  The Ten Commandments outline God's standards for moral perfection.  It's worth mentioning that Jesus regarding hating one's brother to be in violation of the moral law against murder.  The Mosaic Law includes both moral and civil applications of God's standard.  Murder is still sin, whether it is intentional or accidental, but, depending on the intent (or lack thereof) of the "slayer," the civil penalties vary.  This idea, in part, serves as a foundation to Anglo-American criminal law.  Murder = homicide.  That is, in its simplest form, the killing of one human being by another.  Accident, negligent homicide, and intential homicide with malice aforethought bear differing degrees of penalty.  As in the Mosaic law, the criminal penalties are driven by the facts in the case (see the 47 verses in which "ratsach" appears in the OT).  This does not make accidental homicide "not murder" or "not sin." It simply mitigates the criminal penalty for the act.

quote:
~ It is funny how humankind throughout the ages twisted and turned Biblical words to fit their own carnal beliefs.


Funny.  I was just thinking the same thing.

quote:
~ Jesus said to love one's enemy, pray for those who abuse you, to turn the other cheek, yet certain christian folk think it is okay and justified for a human being to don a uniform, and out of a call to duty for a nation's perception of god - KILL his brother on a battlefield.


War is a necessary evil in a sinful world.  Even Jesus marveled at the faith of the centurian (who was a professional soldier).  Tyrants, despots  ... the genocidal maniacs of this world ... require, at times, that good men take the lives of others.  Including the lives of other good men who, out of compulsion, serve as the means to the tyrant's ends.  This doesn't justify their actions (i.e., it doesn't "declare their actions just and good").  I think, in a jurisprudential sense, is excuses their actions.  In other words, it doesn't change the Godly moral standard ... it changes the punitive Earthly standard.

Below is a summary of a word study on the semitic word "ratsach" you defined.  As you can see, its use is limited, in context, to the definition you posted.  A different word is used to denote killing in battle.  Again, this does not mean that it is "not murder" or "not homicide" in the moral sense.  It simply indicates that the Mosaic Law treated such killing differently than it treated involuntary and voluntary manslaughter and malicious murder.

I've included the Strong's number since that is the tool you are using.  I'd also recommend you invest in a good Hebrew lexicon.  Strong's is a good general tool to have, but the lexicon will give you far more information on the meanings of the Hebrew words than Strong's can deliver.

***

Ratsach

(1) to murder, slay, kill (a) (Qal) to murder, slay (1) premeditated , (2) accidental, (3) as avenger (4) slayer (intentional) (participle) (b) (Niphal) to be slain  (c) (Piel) (1) to murder, assassinate, (2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst), (d) (Pual) to be killed

Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill [07523].

Num 35:6 And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites [there shall be] six  cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer [07523], that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities.

Num 35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer [07523] may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.

Num 35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer [07523] die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.

Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he [is] a murderer 07523 : the murderer [07523] shall surely be put to death.

Num 35:17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die , and he die, he [is] a murderer 07523 : the murderer [07523] shall surely be put to death.

Num 35:18 Or [if] he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he [is] a murderer [07523] : the murderer [07523] shall surely be put to death.

Num 35:19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer [07523] : when he meeteth him, he  shall slay him.

Num 35:21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote [him] shall surely be put to death; [for] he [is] a murderer [07523] : the revengerof blood shall slay the murderer [07523], when he meeteth him.

Num 35:25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer [07523] out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.

Num 35:26 But if the slayer [07523] shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;

Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill [07523] the slayer [07523]; he shall not be guilty of blood:

Num 35:28 Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer [07523]shall return into the land of his possession.

Num 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer [07523] shall be put to death [07523] by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person [to cause him] to die.

Num 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer [07523], which [is] guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

Deu 4:42 That the slayer [07523] might flee thither, which should kill [07523] his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live:

Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill [07523].

Deu 19:3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer [07523] may flee thither.

Deu 19:4 And this [is] the case of the slayer [07523], which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

Deu 19:6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer [07523], while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he [was] not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.

Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth [07523] him, even so [is] this matter:

Jos 20:3 That the slayer [07523] that killeth [any] person unawares [and] unwittingly may flee thither: and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood.

Jos 20:5 And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer [07523] up into his hand; because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime.

Jos 20:6 And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, [and] until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer [07523] return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled.

Jos 21:13 Thus they gave to the children of Aaron the priest Hebron with her suburbs, [to be] a city of refuge for the slayer [07523]; and Libnah with her suburbs,

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
17 posted 2006-03-29 11:21 AM


quote:
...certain christian folk think it is okay and justified for a human being to don a uniform, and out of a call to duty for a nation's perception of god - KILL his brother on a battlefield.


It has been said in these forums more than once, and it still applies here:
No one likes to fight, but someone has to know how.

IF you were to ask any of the young men and women (and the not so young men and women) who are over there, NONE of them want to be putting high velocity lead downrange. NONE of them want to kill people they don't know. Certainly, NONE of them want to die for their country.

If you were to ask the majority of them, you will find out that they did not join the military because it was OK to don a uniform and kill for their country. The very great majority of them joined the military for the educational benefits, or the travel, or to do something with their lives, or to get out of their 1/2 horse towns. There are a few who joined because they felt it was their job to go to Iraq and help free these people from the tyranny they were living under. There is even one who re-joined after his son was killed, and is now serving in Iraq. Yet, NONE of them feel it is justified to kill another human being just because they are in uniform.

They feel it is justified to kill another human being because, at that moment, there is another human being trying to kill them and the men and women standing beside them. That human being standing beside them is depending on them to protect them, and is- in turn- willing to protect them, even at the risk of sacrificing their own lives.

To bring this back into the discussion, a study that was done while I was in the Marine Corps showed that there are more Believers percentage-wise in the military than there are in the civilian population. The churches are also more active, and hve more members than in the civilian world. Yet these Christians, and Christian- acting men and women don that uniform every single day. And they ask G-d to protect their brothers and sisters in harms way (and themselves if they are there) and then these same men and women who are doing the killing go out and do His work by bringing aid to those who cannot help themselves, and by bringing medical care to those who have no one to care for them, and by bringing water... the very cornerstone of life... to those who are thirsty.

It is written somewhere (I apologize for not having chapter and verse)- and I am paraphrasing- When I was hungry you gave me to eat; when I was thirsty, you gave me to drink; when I was cold you gave me your cloak.... when the disciples asked when they had done so, He replied "That which you have done unto the least of My brothers, that you have also done unto me."

So, which is the more Christian act: Staying home safe and protected, and excercising the rights that someone killed to give you, or donning that uniform knowing you might have to protect someone by killing an aggressor so that you can do unto the least you your brothers?


To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful.
www.impressionsintime.net

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
18 posted 2006-03-29 11:52 AM


Ringo:

Well put.

Jim

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
19 posted 2006-03-29 12:57 PM


Some say the things worth living for, are indeed worth dying for.  And if this is true, wouldn’t they also be worth killing for?

Would we protect one of our children to the death and in doing so kill a perpetrator, a rapist… someone giving our children drugs?  Would we take-up arms if the US was attacked?  Without being in a situation that calls for drastic actions, none of us would know what we would do.

I’ve said many times before that this person or that person had made me mad enough to kill them… but I really didn’t mean that I could go out and murder someone out of anger, or jealousy, or revenge.  But am I in fact capable of killing someone?  I think we all are given the right circumstances.  Because I don’t thing God would like me very much if I just stood there and even watch s stranger being raped!  Or my mother, (God rest her soul), being stabbed to death.

In defense of ones’ life or the defense someone else’s life, shouldn’t there be certain stipulations, or obligations that each of us have to the other to protect each other… to stand for each other.

I know it’s a shabby world, and life is not fair, but the old saying still stands – if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything!  That can be easily translated to; if I’m not willing to take drastic measures in protecting those who can’t protect themselves, will I just stand there and watch?  I don’t think so!      

Regards,
Knubian

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
20 posted 2006-03-29 01:18 PM


Brad:

Back to your comment:

quote:
The people I've asked personally, with no prep time, have all responded that they respect the doer, not the fantasizer. This may have something to do with the character as well. My own gut reaction was the same.


In general, existentialists value action.  In general, pietists value restraint.  Could the answers you've gotten from those around you be influenced by philosophy (imagine that ... philosophy having an influence on one's thinking!).  Just trying to make some cause and effect connections here.

Jim

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
21 posted 2006-03-29 06:19 PM


Jim,

Are you saying that Christ advocates a Christian killing another human being, justified by war?

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
22 posted 2006-03-30 12:20 PM


JCP & Jim,

I tend to think that we have strong biblical support for the nations (ie Governments of earthly provinces) being given the sword, by God, for the punishment of evildoers, self defense etc.  But I think when one puts the Christian in that same context, biblical support becomes tenuous.  In the New Testament I feel that the Church's role, and the worldly government's role are quite different.  Something higher than pragmatism and justice is to be practiced and communicated by the Church.  It is literally a "higher" standard.  


Does that mean that a Christian should never be a soldier who kills for purposes of national war?  I don't know, but I know where I lean.  The thought of a disciple of Christ becoming an agent of God's wrath, leaves me with a deep sense of impropriety spiritually ... nay, almost obscenity.  But I have no sway over another man's conscience, and can answer only for myself.  I have had Christian friends in the armed forces, who felt the very tension I am describing.  So, doubtless the spiritual antithesis exists, in reality and not just philosophy forums.  And I think there are reasons Jesus most often spoke in terms which could very well be described as passivist ... (put away your sword Peter ... Those who live by the sword will die by the sword, etc ...)


Hold your breath, JCP, I almost agree with you on this one.     However, I will grant war as a necessity in a fallen world, and as a possible expression of wrath and justice ordained by God, if not positively loved by God.  A provisional, pro-tempore kind of thing.  Truth in a very minor key.  I just think there ought to be a pretty strong dualism between the interests of the state and the church.  (That's as close as you'll ever hear me come to "separation of church and state")  But this is more in terms of practical moral standards, and spiritually speaking, not a complete separation of influence.


Stephen.

Mandamus
Junior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 13

23 posted 2006-03-30 04:21 PM


[edit]
jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
24 posted 2006-03-31 08:23 AM


JCP:

First, I would say that Christ justifies the sinner who kills at time of war by grace alone through faith alone, just as he justifies anyone who sins.

Second, I would say that a soldier who kills an enemy during a time of war is legally excused for committing such a homicide (i.e., at times of war, and subject to certain conditions and restrictions, governments license soldiers to kill).  A soldier who kills another person while carrying out the legitimate actions of his government is not held legally responsible for his actions.  

Therefore, a soldier who is a Christian who commits the sin of killing is justified in the same manner any other Christian is justified for sin he or she has committed.  A right understanding of Law and Gospel should make this point obvious.

I don't know how I can make that more clear than I just did and than I did above.  "Though shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not commit homicide" is an unambiguous moral standard.  The criminal penalties for such an act depend on the explicit facts of each case.

Jim

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
25 posted 2006-03-31 11:40 PM


quote:
I would say that Christ justifies the sinner who kills at time of war by grace alone through faith alone, just as he justifies anyone who sins


After a few personal experiences, I did some checking with a few clergy of various faiths (luckily, I am friends with several) and with the exception of the bleeding heart liberal who told me it was my duty to lay down my arms and walk away from the Marine Corps if they asked me to do such things... (not something the USMC advocates) they all explained it as such:

While it is true that I broke G-d's Law by intentionally causing harm to another human being, as I realistically have no viable options other than to obey, then the sin actually belongs to those who are forcing me into such a situation. The responsibility lies with those who caused me to be in the situation in the first place... besides, if He is, indeed, a loving and forgiving G-d, then we should be forgiven in any case, should we not?

Actually, my thoughts on the sinning part of this killing in time of war (and in anything, really) all falls into the category of intent.
Examples:
1) Thou shalt not steal Pretty easy to understand. If it isn't yours, and you take it, you done boo-boo'd. NOW... imagine that you are a single parent with 4 kids to feed at home, and you have no cash and no way to get any. They kids haven't eaten all day, and you have no way to feed the,. You walk in the house with groceries bought with moey your stole, oir wth food you stole, either way. Did you, in fact, sin?

2) Thou shalt not kill. The topic of this thread. You have 2 kids and BOTH of them are suffering from kidney failure, and you are the only match for both. According to most Christian beliefs, suicide is the only unforgivable sin. Yet, you paint the walls with your broans after leaving a note explaining that your kidneys are to be given one to each kid. Are you going to sizzle and fry for an eternity for killing yourself?


To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful.
www.impressionsintime.net

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
26 posted 2006-03-31 11:56 PM




"While it is true that I broke G-d's Law by intentionally causing harm to another human being, as I realistically have no viable options other than to obey, then the sin actually belongs to those who are forcing me into such a situation. The responsibility lies with those who caused me to be in the situation in the first place..."

~ Could that not also apply to Satan as to the government which one serves? After all, it is a choice to serve a government.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (04-02-2006 03:02 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
27 posted 2006-04-01 01:19 AM


quote:
... yet those words may still "sting" others due to their truth...

Mike, when "your" truth consistently insults others you can be fairly certain that you're going to hear my truth and, trust me, it's going to do a lot more than just sting. We've put up with your belligerence and intolerance for too many years and, frankly, my patience has reached its end. The "truth" is that you still haven't learned how to carry on a civil conversation with others.

Feel free to write me if you'd like further clarifications.

Mandamus
Junior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 13

28 posted 2006-04-01 11:56 AM


Ringo,

I believe you are on the right track, as long as you do not confuse absolution for violating God's moral law with "forgiveness" of homicide by the criminal justice system during times of war.  

If I understand jbouder correctly, he is saying that God justifies sinners by grace through faith alone.  While the "sins/crimes" of others might excuse the homicidal acts of a soldier from earthly justice, if salvation is by faith alone, this would seem to rule out the notion that the sins of others justify people before God.  Even when they do seem to "justify" people before other people.

Does that make sense?

Mandamus

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
29 posted 2006-04-01 12:55 PM


"through faith alone."

That sounds the same as "blind faith" to me.
What's the difference?



Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
30 posted 2006-04-01 01:58 PM


When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, God became so angry that after all that He had done to bring the Israelites out of bondage that they when left alone would construct a golden calf, but Moses intervened while on the mountain for the sake of the Israelites, and God let it pass.  However, when Moses returned to see for himself, he broke the tablets; and subsequently put to death those believed to be responsible.  Some scholars say that it was for this, they were to wander in the wilderness for forty years, with Moses himself, never having sat foot in the Promised Land.  So I do not think that God gave anyone permission to kill something or someone He created.  Therefore, the Ten Commandments would be a bad example to use here according to the killings and/or murders that took place immediately after they were given to man; and the consequences immediately after.  Yet, as far as many prophets of old go, I have always heard that it was mostly them being hunted and murdered up until the time of Constantine.  

We have done most everything things feasible… put man on the moon; underwater exploration; satellites throughout the universe; expeditions to outer planets.  What else is left, to explore but death?  What else was left for us to feel but the feeling of killing, and murder?  

Our hands, hands, hearts, minds… on the brink of feeling nothing at all; – left searching for the last drop of rain to fill the void created in our lives and propaganda-cated by those wishing to gain favors and riches.  Were we feeding on every misunderstanding that suppressed itself behind this death-sickness left untreated or aware that it sets the soul on a collision course with hell, while never knowing what we may or may not be getting ourselves into?

It was so simple, yet complicated by the words of a feeding frenzy called vanity, and greed… to be something more than what we are, the dust of the plains, blowing in the wind!  Yet who shall escape... without the self being thrust back and forward, and through those winds to the other side of death, yet never reaching the Promised Land?

It is not a hard thing for man to kill – it starts with the simple crushing of a bug, an unwanted pest, a nosey journalist, an inquiring mind of difference, a skin-tone, a religious belief, a different language, a new ideal, a community unwanted.  We, whom the Lord has sent here to this tiny place in the universe, now mix the bloodline of greed of consumption, and poison the wines of life with killing, murder and death of the body!  However, should not the amputated spirit count as the murder of ones being, ones soul, ones community, ones generation, ones way of life?  Then what is murder if the intent shows itself in complicity of a gathering of voices influenced to kill without knowing murder and genocide is the intent?  

How many voices from an over-crowded world does t take to kill a human being, a spirit, a soul, a states-person, a prophet, a God?  Is it a few?  Is it many?  Is it too many voting for killing and murdering with or without cause?  Are these the things that we have been waiting for – to kill and murder our way to a new beginning?  If not, then why are we killing?  Who and what then are we really protecting, and why!

I will say it in a plain and simple language, that there are no complications of life and death.  Both are lived from the beginning to the end of it, and everything in-between is just a record of how we have lived it, where we have been, and how we lived died; anything else we do to and for each other are intentional.  

For whom then does the bell toll?  Is it a justified kill, or an intentional murder?  Would our soldiers ever have to have been in harms way, if the capitol of the Roman government had never moved back to Rome from Constantinople (Turkey).  On the other hand, if Kennedy had not been assassinated before our advisors were removed from Vietnam.  Or if America wasn’t getting rich by selling scrap-iron to Germany and Japan while they went about pillaging Europe in the first place?

There are so many if… so many rights and wrongs… so many opinions and scenarios that no one person, or any group of individuals could tell you why we continue to kill, or murder!  Only that we have gotten good at doing it; and rarely is any murder a justifiable kill or vise-versa, outside of vanity and greed!  Therefore, we turn back to intent, but there is also stupidity and fear, and a few more reasons in-between!  Rarely are we really killing or murdering to protect someone.  However, when and if we are, are we still subjected to missing our promised end?

We kill and murder by our own wills, not Gods!

Regards,
Knubian

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
31 posted 2006-04-01 03:18 PM


Essorant:
quote:
That sounds the same as "blind faith" to me.  What's the difference?


Jim is talking about being saved from one's own sins by trusting in what Christ has done, and his own claims about forgiving sins.  In what sense would that be "blind" faith?  It is faith that is both historically and experientially grounded.


Otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking here.  


Stephen.

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
32 posted 2006-04-01 07:52 PM


My problem with bringing religion in this discussion is that God gave His prophets “The Sword of Righteousness,” not a sword of slaughter.  In assassin-tory fashion Prophets and disciples alike was hunted and assassinated/murdered; like many other great figures throughout our history of humankind.  

In the final analysis I have learned to stop asking the question who, but why.  Why should a murder take place?  How many great men have lowered their guard and took the spear, the arrow, the bullet, in the name of what they believed to be just?  How righteous are any of us whom subordinate our beliefs, positions in life and certain matters, which we know to be right or wrong for the sake of self-preservation?

To kill someone is sometimes understandable in our place as humans, but we are not gods… to tag, and justify, or even divide the “Commandment of murder,” (which is the actual read in the Ten Commandments- murder, not kill), into degrees of murder, manslaughter or self-defense!  Remember, each person under Moses charge suffered forty-years in the wilderness.

If you really stop and think in terms of that wilderness wandering, the innocent as well as the guilty who might have survived Moses’ sword all wandered together.  What is the analysis behind this?  Could we in fact say that a guilty murderer serving twenty-five to life will do just about forty-years, but really have no prospect of promise when returned to society?  Moreover, what about the family of the victims – do they also suffer at least forty-years apiece… reliving the case in court and going to parole hearings; and in-between suffering the loss of a love one?  

It is funny how when we really sit down and think about the questions we pose to ourselves, how history plays the greatest part in it.  As there is nothing we can do, say or ask, that has not already been done, said, asked and answered to the best of the abilities of those great minds of that given time.  Moreover, even as we convene here this day, tomorrow and forever, of the same question historically one-hundred years from now, will not the same question take place unless we discover something different?      

Historically religions have held this world hostage on the on-skirts of their foolish pillaging, killings and murders, in trying to order-lize humankind.  The Crusades of Europe, the Spanish inquisitions, and the witch-hunts of America are real-life historical testaments of why the separation of church and state is so important.  We cannot! – Under any circumstances, allow the church to govern our lives, or believe the church to be entirely truthful, considering their track record of murder, rape and theft.  After all, would you knowingly leave your child with a man whom has done his best to lie and cover-up for his rapist brother?

In saying this, is not to say that I do not believe in Christ or God, or even an afterlife, but as I become more familiar with where we come from, the more I tend to find my own way – right or wrong, I stand alone before God in the end – in my own name!

Regards,
Knubian

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
33 posted 2006-04-01 09:35 PM


Stephanos

I just don't see how "faith alone" does it.  
Any religious person or group may say that about their faith and God to try to authorize, justify, or exempt their responsibility for the worst deeds.  What rightful ground is an involved person's faith to judge that person's deeds by?   How does a person's faith make any difference for or against the fact that a person committed murder whether in peace or in war?  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-02-2006 11:30 AM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
34 posted 2006-04-02 01:27 AM


Jim,

I want to apologize to you even if you didn't read the reply that was deleted.

And, I just want to say that if I come across in an offensive way, it is not intentional.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
35 posted 2006-04-02 10:45 AM


JCP

I read your reply.  
And didn't think it intended anything wrong or rude.  But intent isn't the whole point.  If there is something that is or may certainly have a chance of offending and the writer fails to see that then it betokens a lack of carefulness in the way the post was written.
  
Exactly what was wrong:  

- Letting an argumentive comment with a negative tone of voice be in any way directed or possibly suggested as directed at the person at any points in the comment instead of the person's comments themselves, that in the heat of the argument makes things become personal instead of about the argument itself.

- the very unpleasant word in your last sentence.      


Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
36 posted 2006-04-02 11:46 AM


quote:
I believe you are on the right track, as long as you do not confuse absolution for violating God's moral law with "forgiveness" of homicide by the criminal justice system during times of war.

There is no confusion, Mandamus. During times of war, or any other times, if the military authorizes the use of deadly force, then there is no criminal justice system to deal with. The taking of another human life has been authorized by a competent authority and therefore, no crime has been committed. Same as with a police officer who kills in the line of duty while in a "combat" environment, such as the North hollywood shootings of a few years ago. The use of deadly force was authorized, and therefore there is no crime.

quote:
~ Could that not also apply to Satan as to the government which one serves? After all, it is a choice to serve a government.

Yes, it is a choice to serve the government, however it is NOT a choice to go into combat. Those decisions are made by people who are in a position of authority. And, before the argument gets started about "choosing" to be in a combat unit, learn about the way that the military chooses what specialty you get. It is not always your choice.
Also... if someone, for example, is a firefighter (as I was) and is assigned to the Airfield Defense Unit (as I was), then when the airfield you are stationed at is attacked, you are put on the line and told to kill anything that is in front of you and moving. That is not a choice you made. You joined the serive to save lives, and now, you are being required to kill someone you don't know, and whom you have no particular hatred for because someone told you to.
"No problem," you say. "You have a choice to not fight." UH... wrong again. If you lay down your arms and refuse to fight when ordered by a competent authority, then one of three thngs is going to happen:
1) You will be killed by the enemy
2) Your fellow warriors are going to shoot you
3) You will be brought up on charges, one of the penalties of which is death.
In this little scenario, 2 1/2 of the three situations end up with you being dead... and in the process, it is quite possible that many of your friends are also dead because you decided to not defend them. Survive the next 40 years of your life knowing that you caused your friends (who ahve children, and wives, and mothers and fathers depending on them for financial support) to die, and now you have also caused numerous hardships and sufferings for those people. And all this because you chose to join the military in a NON-combat unit.
The last I heard, Satan didn't have non-combat units. Anyone choosing the "Dark Side" knows that they are going to be going against as many of the Top 10 as possible.

One more quick example of how your example is a bit (in my opinion) skewed, and then I promise to send this novel to the publishers:
You join the Navy as a member of the medical corps. The Chief of Naval Operations decides that you can best serve that job being a field corpsman assigned to a Marine combat unit. While in combat, a grenade lands in the midst of you and 4 of your fellow warriors. The first thing you do is place yourself, face down, over the grenade, which then explodes, and spreads pieces of your intestines over a 400 yard area. There are numerous sins that you have committed, according to you and the many "good" Christians who don't believe it is in your heart that counts.
1) According to your post (unless I read it wrong, and I will apologize) volunteering to join the Navy in a non-combat unit is akin to joining forces with Satan.
2) You are assisting others who are actively taking a human life in deirect disobeyance of the Ten Commandments, therefore you are committing those sins as well.
3) You purposely caused your own death, knowing what the consequenses of your actions would be. That is suicide by ANY definition, and it is (according to most Christian religions) an unforgivable sin.

Yet, the Bible (which all "good" Christians love to quote to serve their own purposes) tells us that "Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for a friend."
OK... so, even though the corpsman in our example laid down his life for a friend, if I understand your thoughts (and again, I apologize if I am wrong) he is destines to an eternity of being bar-b-que because he broke G-d's law.

Does something not seem right here?


To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful.
www.impressionsintime.net

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
37 posted 2006-04-02 01:34 PM


Essorant:
quote:
What rightful ground is an involved person's faith to judge that person's deeds by?   How does a person's faith make any difference for or against the fact that a person committed murder whether in peace or in war?  


Jim may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was merely saying that whether or not killing in war is murder or sin, a person is ultimately saved from such things by Christ.  I don't think that he was trying to justify the act of murder, or even "necessary" killing.  If you want to stand by the concept of complete justice though, there's just one problem ... No one can "undo" anything they've done.  So the properness of grace and forgiveness on God's part, and the necessity of faith on our part, can be clearly seen.  


And the reason that "faith" makes a difference to God, is that he himself has taken the just sentence against sin, on the cross.  So justice has been met.  We have been potentially released from our punishment.  Only trust and reliance in what God has done is now necessary for us to be cleared.  That is certainly, however, no excuse to do what is clearly sin, presuming that we automatically have forgiveness.  Because repentance does seem to be bound to faith.  In seems that it is an indispensable ingredient.


Stephen.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
38 posted 2006-04-02 02:06 PM


Ringo, I think there are many faults with your logic and understanding of Christian mores, but the part of your argument that most bothers me is your seemingly complete unwillingness to accept responsibility for your own choices.

Each man, draftee or enlisted, chooses the service over other alternatives. Whether his intentions were good or bad, selfish or altruistic, to take or to save human life, is ultimately irrelevant to the consequences of that choice. The road to hell, and all that stuff? In the end, he's there because he chose to be there.

Similarly, each man chooses, when the time comes, to pull the trigger. Not liking the alternatives doesn't absolve a man of the responsibility for his choices. Indeed, throughout life, the alternatives we have available are almost always the result of earlier choices, and each fork in our path can be traced to earlier forks. Each man writes his own path, albeit usually without much thought. Each man, I believe, has to take responsibility for the path he chooses.

I don't think you can realistically paint a Marine into the role of unwilling victim. It's perfectly fine to try to justify the long line of choices that led to pulling that trigger, but it's simply not accurate to claim there were no choices because the alternatives all sucked. We have only too look at others, at the draft dodgers in Canada, at the conscientious objectors, at the fragged second louies, at anyone who has ever made different choices, to see the lie inherent in such claims.

"They made me do it," in my opinion, is always a cop-out, even when true. There is always a choice to be made, and that choice always confers responsibility.



Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
39 posted 2006-04-02 06:41 PM


Actually, Ron, I am more than willing to accept the responsibility for my actions, and have done so more than once. When I was put into the situation we are discussing (not the firefighter aspect, that came after), I knew what I was doing, and when I was in that situation, I knew what I was doing, and what the outcome was going to be: someone wasn't going home because of my actions. That fact bothered me for what I consider to be far too long. It was this situation that led me to taking a lat move into the field of Aircraft Firefighting. I eventually made peace with the fact that I was there, I did what was expected of me, and I came home while people I didn't know stayed on that battlefield forever.
It wasn't easy, and it took me a great while to do so, because I knew it was ME that did that. It was ME that pulled the trigger. It was ME that watched and heard men die. I joined the Marines for a variety of reasons (more than just the "I was bored" I usually give when asked), and never once considered anything except the 03 field. I knew going in that we were having difficulties around the world, and that I would more than likely be required to do what is demanded of America's assault forces.
I took full responsibility then, and I take the responsibility now. I am simply bringing another viewpoint of the killing in the military bent of this thread. That of the young man/woman who joins the military in a non-combat capacity (firefighting, computers, medical, admin, whatever) for the education, or whatever reason and is put into this position through forces beyond their control. As you already know, if you join the military in peace, it is kinda hard to claim that you are an objector once trhe bullets start flying without doing some serious down time. And running to Canada doesn't work any longer as they now have an extradition treaty with the United States.


To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful.
www.impressionsintime.net

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
40 posted 2006-04-02 07:29 PM


The only difference I really see, in terms of responsibility for a soldier goes, is that when he or she is in a uniform marching under a flag -- everybody under that flag on the field and at home is responsible when the trigger is pulled -- whether or not they agree with the individual action of the soldier(s), under orders or not.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
41 posted 2006-04-03 12:28 PM


JCP:

Apology accepted and no offense is taken.  Being passionate about one's beliefs is a good thing.  We all let our passions get ahold of us from time to time.  Think nothing more of it.

Ess:

By "faith alone," as Stephen summed up, I mean a salvation that is apart from any merit we can earn in "God's book" as human beings.  The object of faith, in my view, is the person who lived the blameless life we couldn't and suffered the punishment we deserved.  By faith in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection (i.e., belief and personal appropriation of the implications of these events), Christ's perfection is imputed to the believer (in the legal sense) and our shortcomings are imputed to the crucified Jesus.  In other words, He received the punishment we deserve and we receive the reward He rightly earned.

The difference between this faith and blind faith is, essentially, that blind faith has no object.  Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection, are the objects of saving faith, while blind faith is merely a belief, without foundation, that a certain choice we make is going to result in a desired end.  In essense, one's self is the object of blind faith.

All:

It is of utmost importance that we understand the differences in meaning between the words "justify," "excuse," and "mitigate" if we are to understand Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, or Paul.

To be justified means to be declared just or righteous, as in a court of law when one is found "not guilty" of a violation of law.  To be excused of a penalty for a crime acknowledges that the criminal act was, in fact, committed, but the penalty is waived (as in a soldier's license to kill or one who kills in self defense or in the defense of another).  Mitigation acknowledges the criminal act, but cites specific circumstances that reduce the penalty for the crime (e.g., accidents, or walking in on your spouse in the throws of an adulterous encounter and committing a crime in the "heat of passion.").

The Christian's good favor with God is best described as a "justified" relationship.  God does not recognize the sin because, by faith, Christ's righteousness becomes the Christian's own righteousness and this is what God "sees" when He sees the Christian.  In contrast and in the legal sense, Christ paid the price for our sins on the Cross and, from God's perspective, the price for our past, present, and future sins have already been atoned for.

Again, the Mosaic Law contains elements with both metaphysical and practical implications.  God regards all killings of other human beings to be sin.  Man (or the legal tribunals of man) might regard all killings to be wrong, but in the interests of maintaining the public order and of equity, attempts to enforce penalties that account for all the facts of the case.

Stephan:

One of these days I'll have you convinced that James was a Judaizer and that his Epistle ought to be stricken from the Canon record.     Seriously, the only way to read Paul and James in harmony is to recognize that "good works" are tied to faith insomuch as they invariably proceed from genuine faith (in Paul's words, they are the "fruits of the spirit").  Faith without works is surely dead in the same way that fruit trees that do not bear fruit are of no use.  The fruit does not "bear the tree," it grows on it (although it can result in the growth of other healthy trees).

The only other options are to regard James as a Judaizer (as I jokingly did above) or Paul as an antinomian.  Both are, in my view, seriously mistaken.

In other words, Christian's doing the right things (summed up as loving God with all our hearts and minds and loving our neighbors) is evidence of the invisible work God has done to the Christian's benefit.

To Brad's original point, I think the danger in regarding killing at times of war as "justified" is in cheapening the loss of human life and somehow making that killing out to be something it is not ... that is, "good."  Although I might be accused of engaging in semantics, the term "excused" denotes a specific circumstance, during which time killing is excused (e.g., defense against an aggressive state, the deposing of a tyrant after all reasonable attempts at diplomacy fail, etc.).  By doing this, we take it out of the moral realm, acknowledging that, on a moral level, it is still inherently wrong for one human being to kill another, while recognizing that certain circumstances excuse a soldier from the legal penalty of that act.

End of rant (for now),

Jim

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
42 posted 2006-04-03 02:37 PM


quote:
In other words, Christian's doing the right things (summed up as loving God with all our hearts and minds and loving our neighbors) is evidence of the invisible work God has done to the Christian's benefit.


Jim, Essentially I don't disagree.  If James could speak of "faith and works" without refering to both as really faith, then I think I'm okay to talk about repentance as a necessary ingredient ... one of those "works" without which faith is dead.    

I would just ask you not to be overly picky about my language here, or quick to charge me with pelagianism, as long as I'm only taking the same liberty as scripture does with descriptions.  Because at least superficially speaking, James does seem to be at odds with Paul (as Martin Luther attested), but as we both agree ... not essentially at odds.

You may be preaching to the choir here, and I just want you save your breath for better pursuits.  

Stephen.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
43 posted 2006-04-03 07:43 PM


Ringo,

I don't follow your angle on this matter. If a person accepts Christ as his or her saviour, becomes baptised and then receives the Holy Spirit of God, that person would know that it is wrong to join the military or would get out of the military if already a member. That way, they won't be "forced" into killing another human being.

~ In the OT, God used to fight the battles for his chosen people, until they decided against it. Could you imagine today, a nation, its leader and people throwing down their weapons, and if the God of the bible is surely the true God, watching as that nation's enemies are smoted by the hand of God?

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
44 posted 2006-04-03 08:13 PM


"are smoted..."

That should be smitten  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
45 posted 2006-04-03 09:22 PM


LOL

That is what happens when one watches 17 seasons of The Simpsons.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
46 posted 2006-04-04 12:13 PM


Quite an interesting thread here!  Nice going, Brad Of course you begin it with a completely illogical statement Why do we go to war? We go to war to kill people but, at least, it got the ball rolling.

In my opinion, and without the intent of offending anyone, it seems that everyone is caught in the trap of trying to defend or justify actions whose rules have been set by an illogical source, which is the Bible. The Bible sets rules that are impossible for humans to follow and humans try to justify why their not being able to follow them is acceptable. God set down laws in the Bible that even He did not follow. Thou shall not kill? There were a lot of first-born Egyptians who didn't see the light of day because He didn't follow that one. There are hundreds of instances in the Bible depicting God's viciousness and wrath and yet we are told that breaking any one of them closes the gates of Heaven to us. Does no one see the trap set there? We are given an impossible set of rules to follow and then made to feel guilty for not being able to follow them. That is the greatest weapon religion has. We don't feel guilty? Then why the excuses, the justifications, the "God will understand" or "God will forgive" responses? Why not just say it's not possible to follow them? If everyone who sinned were to be denied Heaven, there would be no one there. Knowing that, Christianity and the Bible gives us an out - if we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior, we are saved. This goes for the mass-murderer on death row as well as the soldier. In that case, we need even LESS justification for our actions and have a lot more leeway. There ARE no excuses according to the Bible. As a billboard I read states "WHAT PART OF THOU SHALT NOT KILL DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?? The guilt of not being able to follow rules which were never intended to be followed tear people apart. That is a sad by-product of some religions. Fortunately there are positive sides to make up for it.  I will not condemn the mother who killed to protect her child, nor will I condemn the soldier fighting to save his life....and I don't believe they need to justify their actions. If Heaven is not for them, then it is Heaven's loss.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
47 posted 2006-04-04 02:41 AM


quote:
I will not condemn the mother who killed to protect her child, nor will I condemn the soldier fighting to save his life....and I don't believe they need to justify their actions. If Heaven is not for them, then it is Heaven's loss.

I'm glad, Mike, you didn't specify American soldier. Or Christian soldier. You didn't even specify they had to be in uniform or fighting by the rules you and I would prefer they follow. Your magnanimous gesture, then, applies not only to our own fighting men and women, but also to those whom they fight, and even it would seem to those who flew planes into buildings in hopes of making a difference for their children (however deluded your and I might think those hopes were).

A license to kill, with no need to ever justify one's actions, has a tendency to take on a life of its own, don't you think?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
48 posted 2006-04-04 07:35 AM


Ron, if you read my magnanamous statement again, you will see that I said "a soldier fighting to save his life". If you wish to apply that to ramming airplanes into buildings and make the claim that the thousands of civilians in those buildings had somehow placed the perpetrators lives in danger and they were acting in self-defense, be my guest but I fail to see how a rational person could interpret my words in that way. Perhaps I am the irrational one, then?

No, I didn't specify American soldier, nor did I specify in uniform because I believe anyone has the right to act in self-defense. If an Iraqi  insurgent, for example, felt that the Americans breaking down his door were going to kill him, I would not criticize his actions to try to save himself by whatever means. Does that mean I would also accept his planting a bomb in a restaurant filled with innocents to blow them up? No, and I'm sorry if that is the interpretation you got from my words.

I do not believe in an unjustified license to kill but we all have the ABILITY to kill. How we use, or manage to avoid using, that ability defines what we are to the consciousness inside us. THAT is where God is, in my opinion. Living with one's actions is our heavn or hell and there are no excuses or justifications that will excuse us from ourselves. We live with what we do...and there is nowhere to run from it.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
49 posted 2006-04-04 02:52 PM


Mixed analogies, like mixed metaphors, get confusing quickly, I guess. I was likening terrorists not to soldiers fighting for their lives, Mike, but to parents killing to protect their children. International violence is always designed to protect children, after all, whether it's perpetrated with commercial airliners or with shock and awe military invasions.

quote:
Living with one's actions is our heavn or hell and there are no excuses or justifications that will excuse us from ourselves.

Unfortunately, Mike, I can't agree. On the contrary, whether one is killing Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghans, or Iraqis, there always seems to be little shortage of excuses and justifications, both to ourselves and to the world. People will believe anything that make them feel better, and demonizing the enemy is surprisingly easy. Shoot, Americans even managed to do it when we fought ourselves, for crying out loud. Seems like there's always someone in dire need of killin'.

Besides, I suspect Charles Manson would be delighted to hear that his worst punishment was going to be a guilty conscience for the rest of his life.

If parents and soldiers don't need to justify their actions, Mike, they can't be held accountable for them, either. I think I would have a real problem with that.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
50 posted 2006-04-04 06:26 PM


I was likening terrorists not to soldiers fighting for their lives, Mike, but to parents killing to protect their children

In that case, Ron, I understand your thoughts even less. Committing an action, in peacetime, against innocent civilians thousands of miles away for the sole purpose of murdering as many of them as possible is like a mother killing to protect her child? I cannot  believe you can seriously formulate a comparison there.

whether it's perpetrated with commercial airliners or with shock and awe military invasions.

Once again,I marvel at your comparisons.


there always seems to be little shortage of excuses and justifications, both to ourselves and to the world. People will believe anything that make them feel better

I disagree with that statement but there's no way I can prove my point and I can only go by my own thoughts there. You may very well be right but I happen to think that, behind all of the smiles and self-displayed bravado and fists raised in the air, at night in the darkness and alone, man cannot delude himself . Who knows for sure what goes on inside that head or what tortures they go though when all is said and done? I happen to believe it's not good. If you were to cheat someone out of something and get away with it, could you honestly convince yourself you did nothing wrong? Sure, you can say to yourself "I didn't do nothin' wrong" but could you keep up your guard when that little voice sneaked out and says "sure you did and you know it"? I happen to doubt it. There are exceptions, of course. There are sociopaths who do not have the capability of considering their actions to be wrong. That's a medical condition and those turn out to be the worst types of individuals. As for the others, they know. Why did Hitler commit suicide? If he didn't feel his actions were wrong, why be worried about answering for them? He knew. Think Hussein doesn't know? He knows.

At any rate, I gather from your response that you are indicating that I said parents and soldiers do not need to justify their actions. I said no such thing and meant no such thing. We did have the Neuremberg trials. Soldiers DO have the right to refuse an order that  they consider to be criminal or morally objectionable. Even the mother who shoots the man strangling her child has to stand trial to justify. Personally? I think Charles Manson's worst punishment IS his guilty conscious - but I don't mean that should be his only one. Everyone is accountable - not only to themselves but to the laws of a civilized country.

As I say, I can't prove it but I believe and hope I am right. It's the only thing that makes me believe O.J. is paying for his crimes, no matter how many golf balls he is hitting.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
51 posted 2006-04-04 07:59 PM


quote:
Committing an action, in peacetime, against innocent civilians thousands of miles away for the sole purpose of murdering as many of them as possible is like a mother killing to protect her child? I cannot  believe you can seriously formulate a comparison there.

Mike, objectively, the only difference in your statement above between New York City and Hiroshima is the reference to peacetime. And since Osama had long since publicly declared war on America, even that is arguable.

I am certainly not defending terrorism (but then, neither would I try to defend Hiroshima). My point all along has been that the minute you give yourself a free pass to kill without justification, you give the same free pass to everyone else. It's inevitable.

quote:
At any rate, I gather from your response that you are indicating that I said parents and soldiers do not need to justify their actions. I said no such thing and meant no such thing.

Oh. Then, in my best Gilda Rander voice, "Neeever mind ..."

I'm glad I misunderstood you when you said, " I will not condemn the mother who killed to protect her child, nor will I condemn the soldier fighting to save his life....and I don't believe they need to justify their actions."



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
52 posted 2006-04-04 09:09 PM


I am certainly not defending terrorism (but then, neither would I try to defend Hiroshima)

May as well lump them together, too. Hiroshima happened  because tens of thousands of soldiers were being killed weekly in a war with no end in sight...that relates to 9/11???

What a thread Hiroshime would make. Could it happen today? Would the countries that endorsed it then do the same now? Would public opinion go berzerk now as it didn't then? Good questions.....

I'm glad I misunderstood you when you said, " I will not condemn the mother who killed to protect her child, nor will I condemn the soldier fighting to save his life....and I don't believe they need to justify their actions."

Dogonnit, Ron. Are you going to go by what I say or what I MEAN to say? They don't have to justify them to me, or you, but they certainly have to justify them to the laws of the country. That's the way the system is set up.

By the way, you are in danger of upsetting thousands of Gilda Radner fans around the world by misspelling her name



JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
53 posted 2006-04-04 09:54 PM


I don't see any difference between a soldier killing another soldier in the killing fields and what the terrorists did to the U.S.A. on 9/11.

~ Both kill in the name of their country and God.

~ I asked earlier in this thread, and I'll rephrase it and ask this question to Christians...  Does any Christian reading this reply believe that Jesus would condone killing in His name?

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
54 posted 2006-04-04 10:00 PM


Which country did you say the terrorists were killing in the name of?
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
55 posted 2006-04-04 10:03 PM


Multiple countries. What is the difference? What we label as being a terrorist, they label as freedom fighters. All I am saying is there is no difference when viewed from outside our own worldview.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
56 posted 2006-04-04 10:13 PM


I think every point the has been made in this thread is valid because we all have a right to our own opinions.  But one of the things that bothers me is the fact that we sometimes forget where Christianity came from, and the historic development of it over the years.  

Christ-followers; I believe was the original name for it before Constantine’s’ mother converted and convinced Constantine to move the capitol of Rome, but not after he himself, claimed to have been visited by an blinding light, or entity from heaven that told him to conquer in the name of Christ.  

Constantine, in the name of Christianity raged war.  In the end he was victorious and gave all his thanks to Christ.  Thus begin the Christian church, with Constantine serving as the first Pope and of course ruler of Rome.

With the exception of what Constantine said his reasons for conquering were, to me it would be in direct contrast to what most believe Christ stood for.  I thought that Christ came here to prove that those that were in suffering… not to worry, because in His resurrection was proof that there was in fact an afterlife - something, or someplace better than here.  JOB was the best example that man did not have to kill or seek revenge regardless to what happened to us.  Unfortunately, I’m not JOB, I wish I was.
  

Christ did say that if we ask, we shall be heard; and if we knocked, the door shall be opened;  and if we asked forgiveness for our sins, we could receive such.  

The early Christian church also used this “sin-factor” to justify sending knights of to kill, pillage, and die in belief that they could somehow absolve themselves of a sin(s), which may have been less than the slaying of a human life in the first place.  And all the while the Christian church was becoming one of the riches commercial organization in the world.  

Any other religion that formed or existed in these days were deemed enemies of the Christian church and its membership hunted and slaughtered.  Christianity was just another name given by those that raped the world of everything that it thought had value.  

We today, well some of us anyway feel like those “Christ-followers” did… watching as the powerful continue to dilute the whole understanding of what Christ stood for, and while I do believe in Christ, God and the afterlife, I do not believe in any man-made religion where people were and are continually slaughtered today.  God Ain’t said this, and Christ didn’t come here for that!  Humankind use this to absolve themselves of their own crimes.


In war; unfortunately terrorist don’t respect Geneva’s conventional laws of fighting a war, why should they, it seem that nobody else does!  Have anyone forgotten of our own “home-grown” terrorist?  Or the agents that gave and taught these people how to kill us?  Or the parts of our own government that sells us out everyday and then lie about it?

I can forgive a soldier that fights out good conscious of soldiering, but to take a prisoners cloths off and humiliate them for information is one thing - but to be stupid enough to take personal pictures is another.  We all know that some of our soldiers are in the army just hoping for a war to get a chance to kill something, and some are in violation of these laws, but that is not why we are at war, and that is not what every soldier stands for.    


There are so many excellent, excellent entries here, and I must say that some are very-well informed, but most are just good personal opinions… including mine.  I can really conclude with one entry,

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, you can say to yourself "I didn't do nothin' wrong" but could you keep up your guard when that little voice sneaked out and says "sure you did and you know it"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so does God!


Regards,
Knubian

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
57 posted 2006-04-04 10:21 PM


Back to the point of this thread, and since I have no takers on the question I posed....

~ I don't believe there is any significant difference between killing and murdering. To kill a human being when a friend, family member or self is directly threatened is different than knowing that a profession may lead to killing a human being.

~ There is no way that I can believe that Christ would condone a human being taking another human being's life in His name or country, or sense of duty, etc. He said it Himself - Bless your enemy! And this is what p@sses me off, that some Christians can justify the killing and say that Jesus never really meant to bless your enemy or turn the other cheek... Now, with that in mind, if we turn to the OT, we find that a true person of Jehovah, will be AOKAY, if he/she allows Jehovah to fight his/her battles, such as what happened in the OT. Of course, this is taking into account that the God of the Bible is in fact the true God.

  

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
58 posted 2006-04-04 11:04 PM


I had thought the Crusades were committed in Christ's name...along with other atrocities.
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
59 posted 2006-04-04 11:09 PM


JCP- You made it a blanket statement that it is wrong to join the
military... if you are a follower of Christ and His teachings, anyhow.

OK. Let me see if I get this right... the young man or woman that joins
the military for the for the educational benefits, the travel, or
whatever, and spends his/her entire career sitting behind a desk ensuring
that the Armed Forces Radio Station has enough toner for the copy machine
is wrong, and displeasing the Almighty?

Also, by your statement (if I am to understand you) the individual who
is in any job in the military who suddenly finds themselves
blessed by your version of Grace and demands to be let out, even though it
could cause them to go to a court-martial, and thereby land them in the
civilian sector as a convicted felon... THAT person is perfectly
OK in the eyes the One True?

Well, let me ask you this:
Does your statement include the doctors that are in the military to
take care of the servicemen and women? Are they wrong in the eyes of
the Savior because they are attempting to save lives? How about the
corpsman and field doctors in Iraq who are treating the Iraqis? Are
they banned from Paradise because they are
following the words of Jesus as written by Matthew (Matt 25:35-40)?

How about the ministers who are there to teach G-d's Word to the people
they are serving with? These people are standing up before the world
and pronouncing their belief and faith in the Absolute. They are
attempting to lead others unto the paths of righteousness. By teaching others
to live as He has said to live, these followers of Christ are doomed to
an eternity of sizzle and frying because they are in the military?

OK... let's make this a little more realistic, and stop dealing with
"what if"...
I was a member of the United States Marine Corps for six years. My
father was a member of the Marines for 24 years. My brother was a Marine
for 12 years. During our times of active service, we all were active
members of the religious community on base. My father and I both taught
religion classes to the dependent children. All of us were lay readers,
and participated in the services. We were also ushers, Eucharistic
Ministers and assisted the clergy of all faiths in the upkeep of the
churches, and with any other project that came down the road. In Boot
Camp, my brother and I were the lay leaders for the Catholics in our
respective platoonsWe were not required to do so as our job. My father
started in the infantry and went to teaching civilians how to be Marine
Officers. I started in the infantry and went to the fire/rescue service.
My little brother stayed with the infantry his entire career. In the
eyes of G-d, we are all exempt from the Peace that passes all understanding because we were in the military while we were
doing our good deeds?

One more question:
There is a church down the road that has a "Christian" movie and cookie
and punch night every New Years Eve. I do not attend, because I offer
my services to the local drinking establishments as a designated driver
for their patrons who might not be able to make it home safely on their
own. I, myself, do not drink that often, and would rather ensure that
these people get home without killing themselves or someone else.
Because I choose to not spend my evening enjoying the company of those who
are Saved by the Blood of the Lamb, and would prefer, instead, to spend
my time with the sinners and those who have fallen to the wayside,
offering them safety and comfort, I am to be chastised and scourged, and to
be eternally taken from my Father because I did not spend the evening
with Him? Perhaps it is because I am Catholic and not "bathed in the
Blood" that keeps me from Salvation?



To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful.
www.impressionsintime.net

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
60 posted 2006-04-05 07:19 AM


Everyone wants Christ on their side.  The only difference with the whole concept of Christianity is; that whom call themselves Christians and follows the true teachings of Christ, and those whom jump on the bandwagon of Christianity thinking that will absolve them of their sins... The crusades should taught us at least that much!

The true “Christ-follower” knows the true power of forgiveness through Christ and understands that Paul was once Saul, hunter and murderer of Christ-followers.  And look what Christ did for him?  

And although I don’t agree with Constantine’s reasoning for war, the Roman populace were tiring of their thrust for blood and mayhem of the rich and powerful and were in fact themselves converting to Christ-followers.  The Roman Senate was losing its power of persuasion in idol worshipping of its people and Constantine knew that in order to gain the full support of the people, he had to separate himself from traditional rule of Rome, (divide and conquer).  Now I do believe that Constantine’s mother was in fact a true convert… honoring the place where Christ died - the place we now call the Wholly Church.

There are many more examples of God’s power of conversion of the sinner from wretched to blessed, historically.  Moses himself was raised in paganism but heard a voice call to him, but Moses didn’t have to come back and lay his life on the line unless truly converted.  

Jack and Bobby Kennedy on the heels of their father’s ill-gotten Nazi sympathizing fortune - murdered like dogs - now heroes of an historic civil rights movement.  And although I the Kennedy’s had their own agenda like most politicians, they fit the scenario likening to Caesar… everybody get in on it, so we’re all as guilty as the other of murder, therefore we forgive each other… it is the Christian way!.  

I too am a military man from a partial military family… my father, two brothers besides myself, and a sister.  My father served in the Korean War, one brother during Vietnam, myself entering just months before the peace treaties were signed, and my sister in Desert Storm.  I know how the military thinks and moves.  It a way of life so ingrained in your blood that in one command you move without thinking twice of the order, or sometimes who gave it.

We had conscientious objectors then, but the system of dealing with them was different.  The ones that went to war were generally shot by follow servicemen.  Some were just kicked out.  Some were sent to prison.  But there were those that watched in horror as did the rest of the world and simply asked God for forgiveness and went to war like Sgt. York and Audie Murphy.  The whole point is, you put on that uniform you better be ready for war… that’s what the military do!

Does this separate killers from murders, not all the time!  We know the stories; we’ve seen the news reels… some of these fighting men would have been murderers in civilian life anyway.  Can you believe that at one point the civilian courts gave criminals options to go to the army instead of prison?  This is how you get murders in your ranks!

Sure we got all this technologies and gadgets, but none of it means a damn thing when a car full of explosives is coming at you 90 mph.  I applauded the infantrymen whose lives are on the front lines, while the brass and senators sit in the back and have tea and crumpets, and cause more confusion.  

Does any of this excuse killing and murdering?  No!  But it can define the difference between military duties and out-right murder, and we’ve seen both on both sides of the line.      

Regards,
Knubian

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
61 posted 2006-04-05 09:22 PM


I keep skimming this thread and this quote keeps popping into my head. I hope it's close to the real thing:

"You don't win wars by dying for your country, you win wars by getting the other poor son of a 'gun' to die for his."

--"Patton"


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
62 posted 2006-04-05 09:42 PM


hmmm.....I don't remember him saying 'gun'.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
63 posted 2006-04-05 10:14 PM


Ringo,

You said a lot in that reply, so I am going to answer it a bit at a time, or if I get the time, I will attempt to answer the entire reply.

"JCP- You made it a blanket statement that it is wrong to join the
military... if you are a follower of Christ and His teachings, anyhow."


~ Not exactly. What I am saying is this... if a person is called by God, and that person accepts the calling by repenting of his/her sins, and is baptized, at that point or soon after, that person will receive the Holy Spirit of God. It is only then, will that person understand and know what sin is. The carnal mind does not know. Now, with the Holy Spirit of God providing knowledge of sin, that person, if he/she is in the military, will know it is time to get out. Why? Because of the possibility that that person would have to KILL, which is a sin.

Of course, this answer is linked to another misinterpreted concept of the Bible - that God is trying to save the world NOW. When in fact, God is not. Well, according to the Bible, that is. So, the overwhelming majority of military people are not truly called Christians. But that doesn't mean those people, among the entire world's population, will not have a chance to be saved. That will occur during the millenium, when they are raised from the dead in their flesh and blood bodies and taught no longer by man, but by the saints of God almighty.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
64 posted 2006-04-05 10:19 PM


So, if killing is a sin, then how many times did God sin...or it is a 'do as I say and not as I do' situation.?
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
65 posted 2006-04-05 10:39 PM


"So, if killing is a sin, then how many times did God sin...or it is a 'do as I say and not as I do' situation.?"

~ That is a good question. Answering from a Biblical standpoint, I would say that since God gave life, He has the right to take it away, and does so only when it is justified. Humans, on the other hand, cannot justify killing, because we are not God.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
66 posted 2006-04-05 10:54 PM


interesting....thank you for the explanation.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
67 posted 2006-04-05 11:00 PM


What kind of parent leaves such examples among childeren?  

What kind of teacher leaves such examples among disciples?

What kind of God leaves such examples among his believers?


Not one that I will ever believe in.  



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
68 posted 2006-04-06 01:08 AM


What Kind of judge sentences hardened criminals to keep them off of your streets?


I'm not saying that God is little different than an earthly judge ... but law and justice is definitely one aspect of his nature, revealed in a very wicked world like our own.  But then again, mercy and grace is revealed at the cross, where Jesus gave his life (nothing taken there) and whose resurrection is a portent of our own.  A God without either justice or mercy wouldn't be a God anyone could respect, much less worship.  
quote:
"Then he isn't safe?" said Lucy.

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver; "don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good."

(C.S. Lewis, from The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe)
    


Stephen.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
69 posted 2006-04-08 12:37 PM


"Well, let me ask you this: Does your statement include the doctors that are in the military to take care of the servicemen and women?"

~ I can't answer that question. Only the doctors or nurses, etc., whom serve in the military, and ARE TRUE Christians could answer that, because that answer would come from the Spirit of God, not men/women, not from the minds of men/women.

"Are they wrong in the eyes of the Savior because they are attempting to save lives?"

~ When did I ever say that it is wrong to save a life? Don't mix issues. Saving a life whether in the military or anything else has nothing to do with killing a human life.

"How about the corpsman and field doctors in Iraq who are treating the Iraqis?"

~ How about them? God has his purpose and the overwhelming majority of the human race aren't being called at this time. Our lives are a mere "blink" with regards to the reward of all eternity.

"Are they banned from Paradise because they are following the words of Jesus as written by Matthew (Matt 25:35-40)?"

~ I am not a judge, so I could never say if one is banned from paradise (paradise is not to be confused with the misconception of going to heaven).


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
70 posted 2006-04-08 10:42 AM


...if a person is called by God, and that person accepts the calling by repenting of his/her sins, and is baptized, at that point or soon after, that person will receive the Holy Spirit of God. It is only then, will that person understand and know what sin is.
I was baptised as a child, and was raised in the Church, and went to classes to teach me about G-d and all things related. I was sentenced to the Catholic Penetentiary System for a number of years (Catholic Schools) being taught by those who would know best... the nuns and priests. I was also training to become a priest when I realized that my life was meant to travel a different path. I went to Mass every Sunday. When I was an altar boy, I served Mass every day, and listened to His word as written in the scriptures. I was in adult religious training classes as a 15 year old because of my advanced knowledge...I was confirmed Catholic when I was 14, and was assisting with teaching religious faith to kids by the time I was 16 until I joined the Marine Corps, when I took over my own class for several monthys until I was transferred. By most people's standards, I would be presumed to have accepted the calling of G-d. Yet, according to your statement (if I am to understand it) I cannot have accepted Chirst, because I joined the Marines.

Only the doctors or nurses, etc., whom serve in the military, and ARE TRUE Christians could answer that...
According to you, they could not be true Christians as they are in the military, and might possibly have to kill someone (as do civilian doctors who "pull the plug").

When did I ever say that it is wrong to save a life? Don't mix issues. Saving a life whether in the military or anything else has nothing to do with killing a human life.
As they are in the military, they might be required to take a life.. this is a fair question, as it involves someone doig His works while they are in a position to disobey His laws.

How about them? God has his purpose and the overwhelming majority of the human race aren't being called at this time.
I am still confused, as it seems to me that you are talking two different stories (that is not an attack,merely my misunderstanding, I fear). The question still remains: These people, according to your statement, are not TRUE Christians because they are in the military (most of them willingly) yet they are doing His works, by doing unto the least of their brothers. I am almost positive that many of these people feel that they have been Saved, and that they are doing His works, yet according to you, they cannot be True Christians, though they feel they are. Which is the true version of the story? Are they being misled because they are, by their own admittance, Bathed in the Blood and are still in a position to destroy another human life?

Paradise is not to be confused with the misconception of going to heaven
UH... a little clarification, please? 40 years of religious indoctrination,(including a year of pre-seminary studies) has taught me that this is the same thing. How can that many preists, and protestant ministers be completely wrong about it?

"... the rest is silence"
from the song The Flesh Failures
www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
71 posted 2006-04-08 11:48 AM


Woah! Ringo, to answer your questions would open up an "old can of worms."

About learned religious scholars in our day... what did Christ say about learned religious scholars in His day?


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
72 posted 2006-04-08 02:33 PM


"What Kind of judge sentences hardened criminals to keep them off of your streets?"

I'm not sure what you mean Stephanos.
I was referring to using or portraying someone that kills, or killing itself as symbol of practicing authoritive justice, and being treated like jusitice itself in authority, and before those that so often look up to, imitate and emulate in the examples of those in authoritative roles: children, students, believers etc.  I don't accept that as being part of anyone's "role" or "rank" especially not one that is called "God".

"I'm not saying that God is little different than an earthly judge ... but law and justice is definitely one aspect of his nature, revealed in a very wicked world like our own.  But then again, mercy and grace is revealed at the cross, where Jesus gave his life (nothing taken there) and whose resurrection is a portent of our own.  A God without either justice or mercy wouldn't be a God anyone could respect, much less worship.  "

I agree.  
But you aren't making the distinction I was trying to make.  Justice is justice, just as parenting, teaching, and other things that help and save life.  Murder/killing or anything that strives against a human's life to take it away though is not.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
73 posted 2006-04-08 02:43 PM


JCP,

If religious leaders are not to be trusted merely because of their position and schooling, then much less are they to be vilified for it.  

Jesus didn't saying anything about learning per se, being in conflict with true piety.  He only dealt with particular instances where pride, self-serving, and complacency had set in.  He called them "hypocrites", not "wrong".  Their lifestyle was attacked much moreso than their doctrine.  Being "unlearned" does not guarantee any more of the praise of Christ than being well studied.

Ringo has referred to his own "learning" in scripture, and you would do well to answer him, rather than tell him that his formal study puts him at some sort of spiritual disadvantage.  Scripture also provides us with examples of "learned" people who were pious and friends to the Cause of God, and Christ.  Traitors and friends come from both sides of town, and that's usually the way it is.  


Stephen.    

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
74 posted 2006-04-08 03:10 PM


Essorant:
quote:
I was referring to using or portraying someone that kills, or killing itself as symbol of practicing authoritive justice, and being treated like jusitice itself in authority.  I don't accept that as being made a part of anyone's "role" or "rank" especially not one called "God".


Well most of humanity, up until this present day, has felt that there is some degree of justice involved with killing those who have killed.  This is just as much descriptive as it is prescriptive.  "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6)

A life for a life is indeed just, Essorant, regardless of your feelings.  Unless you want to redefine what justice means to suit yourself.  Even if you want to say that words are no more than cultural consensus, by that measure, punitive death may still represent justice in most cultures ... including our own.  You need to go back and review what the word "justice" really conveys.  

You sound like you are trying to equate justice with mercy.  They don't mean the same thing.  But at least you recognize the need for mercy, and with that I will agree.  But I will still insist that though God is more than just (ie, merciful too), he is not less.  And regardless of whether you feel God has a right to impose death, he has indeed done so because of original sin.  I'm going to die.  And that's true of you as well, unless you want to conclude that God was powerless to stop physcial death, or that death is without purpose.


The Christian view is that death has a punitive element, but that, by God's mercy, it is more than that, it is remedial and redemptive.  A person who thinks that God shouldn't have the prerogative to punish sin, has not come to terms with the depraved reality of what sin actually is.  And a person who thinks that God should kill all of his personal enemies for their wrongdoings, is a person who hasn't come to terms with the fact that "mercy triumphs over judgment", and that even God's punitive actions are mixed with merciful relenting.  And a person who thinks that God shouldn't have the power of life or death, because we shouldn't, is someone who is forgetting the divide between our authority and God's.  It's good to remember the ways that God has become like us (incarnational truth), so that we may have a path to him.  But it's also good to remember the ways that God is different from us, that we may retain a healthy fear and reverence for him.  


Stephen.    

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
75 posted 2006-04-08 06:33 PM


quote:
... by that measure, punitive death may still represent justice in most cultures ... including our own.

For the sake of accuracy, Stephen, that should probably be "at least within our own." There are relatively few civilized countries, aside from the U.S., that still condone capital punishment.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
76 posted 2006-04-08 10:10 PM


Ron,

I would disagree if philosophy of war is taken into account... That would leave no known civilized culture that didn't recognize the (sometimes) appropriateness of retribution.

Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
77 posted 2006-04-09 02:18 PM


Stephanos,

What you are are talking about is REVENGE, not justice.

Revenge is about "getting back" and "getting even" by aligning oneself to the same wrong and method that one were wronged by, to wrong the person that did that, and feel and make it out as "right"  

"An eye for an eye" "A tooth for a tooth",
"A life for a life"

That just shows how far the bible is from Democracy.

It is revenge, not justice.   It is doing what is wrong for what is wrong, not what is right.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
78 posted 2006-04-09 02:46 PM


While I won't argue Ess that the Bible isn't anti-democracy (go back and read through Moses striking down an attempt at democracy) -- how crime and punishment are effectively carried out are decisions that any and every democracy must make -- if it is the will of the people to chop off hands of thieves and murder murderers -- that's democratic.

Not highly civilized -- but, democratic nonetheless.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
79 posted 2006-04-09 03:51 PM


"if it is the will of the people to chop off hands of thieves and murder murderers -- that's democratic."

I don't agree with you, Local Rebel.
I think Democracy itself is a manner of civilization.   There is rightly no such question in our democractic government as: "should theives hands be cut off"   That's because democracy progressed in a civilized way and retains its civilization along the way with foundations, laws, processes that secure it so it may be furthered as civilization.   Thus, there is far more that determines democracy than the "will" of any present population.  The will also must respect what is already established so far as well.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
80 posted 2006-04-09 04:21 PM


We do that through establishing constitutions Ess.. not that that's the only way -- but, it's the way it's been done in most places.   Other's may wish to use a theocratic principle like a Bible or Koran.

In either event -- it is the people who establish that standard.  In the US the standard is 'no cruel or unusual punishment' -- and it is left to the States and the Supreme Court to determine what is or isn't cruel or unusual.  It will always be a matter of community standard that will be reflected in our interpretation of the Constitution and application of law and punishment.

Certainly -- it is within the realm of the people to demand a Constitutional amendment to outlaw capital punishment -- we haven't.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
81 posted 2006-04-09 06:10 PM


"it is left to the States and the Supreme Court to determine what is or isn't cruel or unusual."


It is already known what is cruel and unusual.  There is a firm evidence with life and the human body.  When someone harms life it is harmed. When someone tortures it, it is tortured.  When someone neglects it, it is neglected.  When someone murders it, it is murdered.  And the more someone does it, the more it is done in the world.   There is no question what is cruel and unusual.  The only question is to what  extent that terminology should be applied to less harsh evidence of maltreatment, torture or neglect.  No judge decides if cruel and unusual punishments are "wrong" or "right"  They are never right.  But he needs to decide on a rightful way of dealing justice.  That is not because it is a question that a person deserves correction or punishment that is guilty, but because correction and punishment should be adjusted to only the best standards of hope and protection for all life, both for those that are free and those that are punished.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-09-2006 07:11 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
82 posted 2006-04-09 07:47 PM


There is little agreement throughout the world what cruel and unusual is Ess.  There isn't even a consensus in the United States as to what constitutes torture.

When the Constitution of the United States was drafted -- it was a democratic process -- the community standards allowed for slavery, hanging, public stocks, flogging, dunking, humiliation, incarceration, firing squads, and even burning at the stake.  Over the past two and a half centuries we've evolved the current standards that we have -- but we've gone through some rather turbulent gyrations to get here -- and still -- our system allows the electric chair, firing squads, and lethal injections to be administered as 'humane'.

A system with any type of moral standard -- whether it involves a vision of superior and inferior races and is bent on global domination and genocide - can be 'democratic' -- and many democracies throughout the world are today even not in step with what the major powers would consider to be moral.

You're conflating morality and democracy. You're the wordmaster -- look them up!

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
83 posted 2006-04-10 01:50 AM


"You're conflating morality and democracy"

That's really my whole point.
It is "conflating" morality and democracy that makes both morality and democracy more moral and more democratic. Democracy and morality are both more moral and more democratic today than they were formerly, and are elsewheres.  We know better and more civilized punishment, in giving hope and protection and rehabilitation to those that did wrong.  That's far different from: "eye for an eye" "tooth for a tooth" "life for a life"   Of course, I'm not trying to say Democracy is perfect.  But I am saying it is far better than that.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
84 posted 2006-04-10 04:47 PM


quote:
"An eye for an eye", "A tooth for a tooth", "A life for a life" ... That just shows how far the bible is from Democracy.


As Local Reb said, democracy or not, is not the issue.  Democracy is merely a form of Government.  The will of the people may be moral or immoral, for good or for ill.  So the Bible, or Christians who uphold the Bible's moral and spiritual standards, have no obligation or desire to apologetically try to harmonize it's history with modern democratic ideals.  Differing forms of Government were expressed throughout the Bible, which makes forms of government, though not unimportant, a secondary consideration.  And aside from that, I'm certainly skeptical of the view that democracy is a fix-all, almost heavenly form of government.  Have you ever heard of the tyranny of the 51% vote?  Majority doesn't mean moral, right, or beautiful.  Also, this country is just a little over 200 years old.  American-style democracy has not been tested, as far as longevity is concerned.


Oh, and about the "eye for an eye" standard for the Israelites.  You need to really study the Ancient Near East culture surrounding these Semites, during that time.  This was definitely a mitigating standard, something put in place to keep in check the all-too-human desire to take two eyes for an eye, or 5 teeth for a tooth, or a life for a hand.  It was there to establish the baseline of justice, in a world where punishment usually went far beyond justice in severity.  This was a smooth diamond among the sharp rocks of ancient brutality, as strange as that may sound.  


quote:
It is revenge, not justice.   It is doing what is wrong for what is wrong, not what is right.



Actually revenge is more within the realm of personal vigilanteism.  The "eye for an eye" principle was a form given to the civil government, as mediators in a criminal situation.  Regardless of whether you believe this form is justifiable or not, it is not merely revenge.  


Though civil punishments that lean heavily on the concept of unmitigated justice, have principles which give them credence (such as the fact that consistent punishment can serve to renew social bonds, commitments to standards, and deter others from doing the same crimes), I too recognize the necessity for going beyond mere justice.  Even Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'  But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39).  This higher and better standard is given first of all to the pious community of believers (the Church), and to the individuals which comprise it.  


So don't misunderstand me Essorant, in thinking that I'm disagreeing with you completely.  I think the standard of Christ is a much better one than the old "eye for an eye" one.  We need to go beyond mere justice, to a just kind of mercy.  


Where I differ from you, I suppose, is in thinking that the "eye for an eye" standard doesn't represent justice.  I think it does.  But for sinners, such as ourselves, justice isn't always the desirable path.  Justice is a double edged sword, which sends some men to prison and death, and gives other men rewards.  Justice is based on performance.  


The Biblical view of things, tells us that God gives nations "The power of the sword", primarily because they are the nations of this world, and are strangers (like the Jews of the Mosaic covenant were) to the covenant of grace.  How else is the world going to deal with hardened criminals, murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc ...?  They have to do such things, to keep the common peace and order.  The "eye for an eye" standard is not only prescriptive, but descriptive.  It is simply what happens in a twisted, corrupted, and sinful world.  


God therefore desires men to come to his covenant of grace, to find forgiveness and be transformed spiritually and morally.  But the reason that his justice (through Law) remains, is that men will not be able to bypass the covenant of grace and still receive mercy.  If mercy is not obtained through Christ, then God's justice still remains with it's brandished sword.  It is truth played in a minor key.  It is a legal echo of the glorious voice of God against sin and wickedness.  Echoes are distorted, and doleful songs aren't always the best ones.  So in one very imporant sense, Essorant, I totally agree with you.  I see that you see the necessity of something better than undiluted justice.  But you should be careful not to conflate justice and mercy.  


The Old Testament was also primarily a revelation of God's justice to the jews.  They were given a legal system by which to approach him.  One very important function of this, was to show the powerlessness of law to change things inwardly.  Literally to convince the jews that there should be something better ... that indeed something or someone was coming which embodied the messianic hope and mercy.  So if the idea of strict justice seems to frustate you when you imagine it coming from God, you can rest assured that the Bible too, shows this as a dispensational revelation, not the full expression of who God is.  There is the necessity of justice with God toward sin, but it is not the best and brightest way that God relates to us as his children.  Moses saw the "hinder parts of God", but in the Gospel we see the face of Christ, where the legal veil is taken away.  There mercy can reign because justice was met in the person of Christ on the cross.


So bloody messy justice is only half the story.  Friday, with the sun eclipsed and Jews and Gentiles both guilty, gives way to Sunday morning with an empty tomb and a trembling hope.  Ultimately that's the kind of world we live in.  


Stephen.          

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
85 posted 2006-04-10 05:12 PM


quote:

Oh, and about the "eye for an eye" standard for the Israelites.  You need to really study the Ancient Near East culture surrounding these Semites, during that time.  This was definitely a mitigating standard, something put in place to keep in check the all-too-human desire to take two eyes for an eye, or 5 teeth for a tooth, or a life for a hand.  It was there to establish the baseline of justice, in a world where punishment usually went far beyond justice in severity.  This was a smooth diamond among the sharp rocks of ancient brutality, as strange as that may sound.  



Someone better check the weather forecast in Hell because I think they're passing out coats and ear muffs.

I think this is perfectly correct -- but, that it doesn't go far enough.  Proper reading of the germane scriptures, in context, I believe would reveal that the Bible 'allows' an eye for an eye -- but doesn't demand it.  

Mercy was an option too.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
86 posted 2006-04-10 05:43 PM


LR,

You're absolutely right.  It is human nature that often won't allow it.  I'm merely saying that the Old Testament, in general, held justice in centrality and mercy as a periphery.  For whatever reason, one had to be fully comprehended before the other could be fully appreciated.  The New Testament definitely puts mercy at the center.  


I appreciate, but I'm not sure I understand your humor.  Why do you say that Hell froze over?  Something I said?


Stephen.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
87 posted 2006-04-10 10:41 PM


nope.. just that I was agreeing with you!
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
88 posted 2006-04-10 11:25 PM


"If religious leaders are not to be trusted merely because of their position and schooling, then much less are they to be vilified for it."

~ The Bible teaches me that it is all about a 3-fold of prophecy. The OT, the NT, and our time. During the NT time, Jesus let it be known that the religious majority was missing it. So today, are the religious majority... missing it, which most certainly includes all of the great majority leaders, such as Dr. Martin, et al.
  
"Jesus didn't saying anything about learning per se, being in conflict with true piety.  He only dealt with particular instances where pride, self-serving, and complacency had set in.  He called them "hypocrites", not "wrong"."

~ Hypocrites, in a 180 turn... they may know of scripture, but are tools of the devil in preaching it.

"Being "unlearned" does not guarantee any more of the praise of Christ than being well studied."

~ I believe it was Christ who said that those who truly understand are like children.

"Scripture also provides us with examples of "learned" people who were pious and friends to the Cause of God, and Christ.  Traitors and friends come from both sides of town, and that's usually the way it is."

~ Surely! And those who are learned are treated as "cult" leaders by the Christian majority.  


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
89 posted 2006-04-11 12:12 PM


LR,

lol.


Stephen

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
90 posted 2006-04-11 12:45 PM


quote:
Jesus let it be known that the religious majority was missing it. So today, are the religious majority... missing it



Yeah, but Jesus explained why they were "missing it".  He didn't just slur them because just because they were studied.  And his was not typically your line of approach.  Most of the time, yours has been a blanket approach, where seminary or any kind of formal study automatically makes someone spiritually less in your eyes.  That way it's not necessary to get into the rigors of discussing what they teach or do.  Is that correct, or am I misrepresenting you?  I'm just telling you how it seems.


quote:
Hypocrites, in a 180 turn... they may know of scripture, but are tools of the devil in preaching it.



Actually that's a misrepresentation of how Jesus approached the authority of religious leaders of his time.  We read in Matthew 23:2-4, that Jesus said "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.  They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.".  That's very different than your approach, where a popular religious leaders' teaching would never be acknowledged by you.  Jesus at least acknowledged that while they may be doctrinally okay, they are guilty for not living the things they teach.  Because of that reason, Jesus could teach a respect for their office of authority, while being critical at the same time.  It just seems that his criticism was more discriminating than yours, since with you very large and loose categories of diverse groups are usually bundled and dismissed, without a shred of praise.      


quote:
I believe it was Christ who said that those who truly understand are like children.


My Children do their homework, and often study harder than I do.  If you are implying that Christ meant to devalue education by saying this, then I disagree with you.  That's taking him quite out of context.  Didn't Paul write to the Corinthians, "Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults."?  

quote:
Surely! And those who are learned are treated as "cult" leaders by the Christian majority.


Way too general of a statement to be meaningful.  You'll have to bring up specifics and particular examples.  What teachers are biblically sound whom the "Christian Majority" is misnaming as cult leaders?  And why do you think they are wrong in disapproving such teachers?  There's always the possibility they are right in some instances and wrong in others.  But until you bring them up, we can't know either way.


Stephen.

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
91 posted 2006-04-11 05:37 PM


~ The Bible teaches me that it is all about a 3-fold of prophecy.
Examples, please? Both Stephanos and I gave specific examples in Holy Scripture to popint out our thoughts. As of yet, you have given none to back up your statements.. again, not an attack, simply asking for your proof.

So today, are the religious majority... missing it, which most certainly includes all of the great majority leaders
Would this include the Rev. Billy Graham? He has never been accused of any ill doing, he has never been accused of any impropriety, and he has been married to the same woman for 50 or 60 years. He also used to travel the world (until his wife got too ill for him to do so any more)preaching the Gospel, and encouraging the people to follow His words, and to follow the Laws as He set them in stone to Moses. He has councilled leaders for no pay to help them make Christian choices for their nations. Is he also missing it?

...they may know of scripture, but are tools of the devil in preaching it.
Please explain how Satan would ever wish anyone to know the scriptures of his greatest enemy? I might not be doing the Lord's work Monday thrugh Saturday, however if I am giving the Word to those who believe and get a few of them to stop walking the path that I, myself am walking... how is that being a tool of evil? If I get people to do as I am saying, and to stop doing what I am doing and live their life for Him... wouldn't Satan want it the other way around? To further prove my point ,I do not believe that James Bakker, or Jimmy Swaggert were tools of Satan. They had millions of people believing, and praying to G-d, and turning their life to serve the Lord. What these two individuals did was severely un-Christian like, and not in the best interests of the Lord; however, the souls that turned to Him as a result of the two of them is not anything Satan would do.

~ I believe it was Christ who said that those who truly understand are like children.
Children are not unlearned in this example. Children are accepting uunconditionally, and obedient to their Father, with their eyes open and full of wonder at the greatness of the world around them. THAT is what was meant. IT is only after man has become cynical and unfeeling that he turns away from G-d.

And those who are learned are treated as "cult" leaders by the Christian majority.
So... let me see if I get this right... EVERY single Christian minister in the entire world is a "cult" leader? Father Edward Shine, the principle of the Catholic school that I went to was a "cult" leader? Those who teach at the theological institutions of learning are "cult" leaders?

I am quite sure that you have someone who is instructing you in the Faith... probably a minister. In order to become a minister, one must be knowledgable- or learned- in the ways of the Lord. Would he be a cult leader? Does he (or she) not "get it?


"... the rest is silence"
from the song The Flesh Failures
www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
92 posted 2006-04-12 11:29 PM


Stephanos and Ringo,

~ Let me answer you both at the same time. Firstly, I do not mean any disrespect by the answers I am going to give to the both of you. In fact, throughout my journey for the search of truth, I have always been the one who was laughed out, lambasted, and called many other disrespectful things.

~ God must call a person in order for that person to understand what the Holy Spirit teaches. The majority of people are not being called at this time. Compared to the entire world population through, only a relative few have been called. And yes, I am aware of, "Many are called, but..." I am not going to argue the context of scripture.

~ Christ spoke in what the modern day person may call "ridules." Why? His own words state because it is not for them to understand.

~ This is what I believe the Spirit of God has taught me...

1. Only a very few people through out time have been called.

2. The vast majority of people have never been called even though they think have been.

3. False christianity is a product of Satan, and that includes all the main denominations of christianity, but Satan also produces falsities in other ways, including other denominations, etc.

~ With that being said, it is bestowed upon me by the Spirit of God, to know with certainty, that the majority of ALL the HUMANKIND will BE SAVED. That includes most likely everyon on Piptalk... so it may seem that I disrespectful, but in fact, what I have come to know, is the message of hope for all the humankind, including, and I am quite certain, both of you.

~ For me to present my argument in the way you both want me too, will do me know good. Why? Because if you are not being truly called at this time, 2 + 2 will never equal 4, and I don't want to waste my or your time.

I hope that clears things up.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
93 posted 2006-04-13 07:59 AM


Standing on the shoulders of those who came before us, we look out over the vast horizon into the eastern sun and ask our questions of poetic justice, blind justice, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!

It is only a matter of blind semantics where the full measure of an individuals’ crimes are never known, unless we are in fact “all seeing gods” - creators of something other than our own justifications of why we kill or murder!  In the tree of knowledge of good and evil lay the wisdom of life and death, which is evident of the first birth of man to be a killer, a murderer.    

There is no scripture written, or should I say that might have survived the Roman-impersonation of Christ-followers.  But I could almost bet that some of the doctrine, scripture, and books of the first, second and third centuries AD, that was destroyed or hidden, and still hidden, could tell us that this wisdom of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil was mans’ ability to produce life and therefore his ability to produce death.

This knowledge of the creation of life and death - “Pandora’s’ Box” sort-a-speak - and man has been wrestling with these same two issues every since.  On one hand… what can we or I create in our own likeness, and on the other hand, what can we or I kill from our own likeness to make us as perfect as gods?  Remember, the serpent said that there is something God does not want us to know, (knowledge), but what it did not tell us was that with this knowledge and power came a greater responsibility, which we found out later.  Therefore, we have sought in time to reconcile in our responsibilities by measuring in degrees… life and death - good and evil.  

Is this the true measure of gods?  Is this the thing that created the rebellion in Heaven?  Is this the things that pitted angels against humans - against God Himself?  We are but a simple being with little knowledge of time before our time, yet we are grappled with a grave question that even angels feared in Gods’ Presence.  

By us being grappled with this question of life and death, way… before Gods’ intended for us to know it, our eyes became open to the goods and evils of life and death but closed… to the closeness of God, because of the same strife that started with angels!  But here we are lacking understanding in both phases because of what may have been hidden and destroyed by this “Christian cult” started by men who raped and pillaged, and had little to no knowledge of the core enigma of Christ in the first place?  “I believe in spiritualism.”

I still say that Christ only came here simply as proof that there is an afterlife for us regardless to what happens to us here in this world!  Not to die for our sins, or to wipe away our sins… but in reconciliation because we had no chance in the beginning against the serpent!  As meek as little children, defenseless of themselves in the presence of an entity secretly bitter of their very existence!  Satan wanted this power of life and death in Heaven but couldn’t have it, so he sought to destroy what God made good… humans.

Remember the passion and what it stood for?  Which of us as men or women could stand up to such thrashing without utilizing our ultimate power as the Son of God, or a super-powerful nation?  Which of us could suffer the toils of JOB, or die peacefully in the electric chair for a crime we didn‘t commit?  Or stand up to the ridiculing of Noah as he built the Ark in his back yard?  We would be locked away in an institution and drugged on pills for the rest of our lives… are we so in tune with our faith that we would do nothing to defend ourselves!  

The answer in Christ is this; lay down your sword of power and pick up the sword of righteousness!  To bring the knowledge of good and evil - life and death, back to the gates of Heaven within a “ugly spirit” is truly the mis-understanding of why satan and his band of followers were booted out of Heaven in the first place!  …And only the few “that are chosen” of all the ones that were called, have laid down their swords of power and pick up the sword of righteousness and in doing so have found their life.      

That is where faith comes into view… in the face of all adversity, ridicule, suffering, the blindness of justice, hunger, broken, weak and beaten!  In that vast horizon in the east where the Son promises all our questions will be answered, if only… we just ask.

Regards,
Knubian

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
94 posted 2006-04-13 05:11 PM


quote:
It is bestowed upon me by the Spirit of God, to know with certainty, that the majority of ALL the HUMANKIND will BE SAVED.

JCP, is that just your truth, or a universal truth that applies to all?


To me this grandiloquent statement smacks of the kind of "authority" that you tend to rail upon.  Have you changed your views?

quote:
And yes, I am aware of, "Many are called, but..." I am not going to argue the context of scripture.

Why not?  If scripture seems to directly contradict what was "revealed" to you, then you should at least try to square with that.  I personally think your methodology of "I'm not going to explain myself since you wouldn't understand anyway, you're not chosen" is an easy way out of commending your views to others.  And no, it's not biblical either, notwithstanding the parables of Jesus.  


Stephen.

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
95 posted 2006-04-13 05:30 PM


False christianity is a product of Satan, and that includes all the main denominations of christianity, but Satan also produces falsities in other ways, including other denominations, etc.

I will preface this, my last post on the subject, by saying that I do not believe that you were intentionally disrespectful, or that you meant to insult anyone; however, in my opinion, that is exactly what you have done to too many people- not only on this site, but all throughout time.
As is usually my way, I am going to respect you ability to have your opwn thoughts and beliefs. There were (to bring this thread back to ts origins) too many people who put on a uniform and fought and died that you could do just that. I would, however, like to point out a few things that would make your latest post exactly what you didn't want it to be:

There are too many people on this website who are- by their own admission- very devout followers of Christ and of His words and works. As only ONE example, I give you Marge Tindal, who posts wuite frequently in Spiritual, and whom I have seen more than once profess her faith. Another is Bob Gotti, who posts more in Spiritual than almost anyone else I can think of. There are others, and I also have first hand knowledge of at least one member who is an ordained Christian minister. There is also another member who is a member of the Quaker society. To say that the beliefs these people hold is a product of the Ultimate Evil completely discounts them, their beliefs, and their upbringing. That is something I cannot, in good Christian beliefs, stick around to watch happen again... even though I know none of these people personally.
By making that statement, and by tying in something you said earlier, you have also made the HUGE advances that the Rev. Martin Luther King was able to bring about in the racial war completely useless, as he was a minister of the Baptist faith, one of the major brands of Christianity. He spoke of love (Love, Faith, Hope, And Charity, of these the greatest is love... sound familiar?), and of peace. He was, according to your statement, a product of Satan? When he was doing his best to do what was right and good for all mankind, and not himself? Not a very evil mindset, eh?
Billy Graham, of whom I have no real love, nor disrespect, has spent 50 years preasching the words of the Bible. Not once has he been accused of any personal or financial missteps. 50 years of traveling the world speaking about the "one True G-d" and how to live a Christian life and please Him through living the Ten Commandments, and the best that he can be offered is "Sorry, but your ministry is the work of Satan because you started life as a Presbiterian and ended it as a Sounthern Baptist."?
Sister Theresa spent her entire religious life minstering to those to whom no one would even lower themselves to look at, much less touch. What would Satan have any care about a bunch of lepers, and why would he have them being taught about Christ by a nun?
Catholicism (regardless of what many "reborn Christians" might believe) was the FIRST Christian Church. IF you will do the studying needed, you will see that all Christian religions, from the major denominations to the eccumenical, to the fundamentalists, to the various non-conventional sects, branched from that one religion. Why would Christ choose to champion that one school of spiritual thought that He, Himself died to defeat?

I can understand how you might believe that the non-Christian religions of the world mightbe the work of the Prince of Lies, as they take souls away from Him... however, claiming that the Christian religions themselves are products of Satan completely stretches the line of any credibility and is saomething that you should have, in my opinion, attempted to prove your point without stating it as bluntly as you did.

I do not expect an answer, and- honestly- will not be back to this thread to see if you do. I, being me, am not able to allow percieved insults and degredation of others to go unchallenged. Again, I DO NOT believe that was your intention. That is just how I perceived it to be.

If anyone I have mentioned in this post by name, or by description take offense, then I sincerely apologize, as none was meant. If you will contact me directly, I will be more than humbled to apologize personally.

"... the rest is silence"
from the song The Flesh Failures
www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
96 posted 2006-04-13 06:58 PM


I wish I had time to sit and read all of these threads and replies, but I simply don't... well, at least not at one sitting.

"I will preface this, my last post on the subject, by saying that I do not believe that you were intentionally disrespectful, or that you meant to insult anyone; however, in my opinion, that is exactly what you have done to too many people- not only on this site, but all throughout time."

~ Well too bad you think so, because if you read my entire reply, it ended with you and most all others on this site obtaining eternal life. And if you did read it, then you are only looking at the short-term of things, which means nothing when compared to eternity.

~ With that being said, I believe what I posted was a positive message to all Piptalkers, including yourself, Ringo.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
97 posted 2006-04-24 11:19 PM


"Why not?  If scripture seems to directly contradict what was "revealed" to you, then you should at least try to square with that."  

~ LOL ~ Scripture, itself does not. Your interpretation, among other interpretations, contradict what was revealed to me. Therefore, I don't have to "square" anything.

"I personally think your methodology of "I'm not going to explain myself since you wouldn't understand anyway, you're not chosen" is an easy way out of commending your views to others."

~ It may appear that way, but read the Gospels and you will see that the Scribes and Pharisees could not understand... neither could the masses. Why? Christ said it Himself, "It is not for them to know..."

"And no, it's not biblical either, notwithstanding the parables of Jesus."

~ You tell me, what did Christ say when asked why He spoke in parables?
  

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
98 posted 2006-04-25 12:49 PM


quote:
It may appear that way, but read the Gospels and you will see that the Scribes and Pharisees could not understand... neither could the masses. Why? Christ said it Himself, "It is not for them to know...


Yes, when someone hardens their heart to the truth, divine destiny has a hand to play.  But that doesn't mean that Christ was not a teacher to whoever would listen, including the Pharisees.  As I recall, he reasoned with them from the scriptures quite skillfully.  Using pronouncements of divine destiny may be suitable at the end of a process ... but not as a substitute for coherent teaching at the beginning.  More often than not, you've circumvented the preliminary task of coherently explaining your views to others, and told them it's their own incapacity to understand.  That's not what Jesus did.  All anyone has to do is read the gospels in their entirety to see that.


quote:
what did Christ say when asked why He spoke in parables?


It's the same as always Mike ... To the hungry and simple hearted, parables were there to illuminate.  But for those who were rebellious in heart,  parables were a snare, because they would constantly misunderstand through twisting the words.  And really it's the same today.  


However, it's good to remember too that Jesus didn't speak only parables.  More direct styles of teaching were employed as well.  Remember the sermon on the Mount?  And honestly, the clarity of that kind of exposition, we need to hear from you before we can believe that we're simply rebellious and "unchosen".  


Again it's the difference between the end of a story and the beginning.  And in my opinion you're trying to skip to the last chapter.  So I'm not saying that such a statment, "It's not for you to understand" would be intrinsically wrong to say.  But I am saying that it has to be said at the right time, and after the right actions and words have been rejected, or it is little more than annoying.  


And with that, I'm done.  I'm here to debate, but not to argue.


Stephen.

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
99 posted 2006-04-25 12:27 PM


Quote:
--------------------------------------------
To the hungry and simple hearted, parables were there to illuminate. But for those who were rebellious in heart, parables were a snare, because they would constantly misunderstand through twisting the words. And really it's the same today.
--------------------------------------------

Somewhere between the years of 6 and 5 BC Herod built a city on a mound comprising two huge temples with one overlooking the Dead Sea.  Some say that Herod built this place to escape the persecution of his own people, more so than creating a place residence.  After his death in 4 BC the occupation of the mound changed hands many times.  This place was called Maseda.

Between 62 and 71, there took place a war between the Jews and Romans.  In Jerusalem a rebellious force of Jews took arms against Roman soldiers.  It is said that those that truly understood Christ’s teachings left the city as to avoid murder, chaos… death! - To which all those that stayed to fight took up the sword.

During this period a man name Josephus was said to have tried negotiating the both sides into peace, but called a traitor by his own people because he would not pick up the sword to fight for or against either side, he was said to have once been a man of spiritual influence among the Jews.  But because Josephus took refuge within the Roman cause, he instead chronicled the events that he and some others call “outright murder“, verses what some call the “ultimate sacrifice“.    

This war would sustain over a seven year period throughout the region cumulating on the mound of Maseda.  Upon this mound stood about nine hundred (900) men, women and children; rebels… surrounded by a legion of Roman soldiers.  After a four month blockade of the mound, the Roman soldiers finally breached the walls of the fortress.  But the next day when the soldiers entered the compound, every soul it seem had agreed to suicide, thus taking any glory and gains that the soldiers come upon from battle.

Although death, rape, slavery, and other horrific conclusion awaited them, Jewish law according to Scribes and Pharisees of this time, says one should not take their own lives, therefore these people would seem damned if they do; and doomed if they don‘t.            

The argument of Josephus, as is with some scholars today is this; did every man, woman and child commit to what some call this ultimate sacrifice, or where some in fact, murdered?

The question abounds because two women and four children escaped death by hiding in a cave, only exposing themselves once the Roman soldiers entered the compound - which eliminate the fact of every-single-soul agree to suicide.  

Twelve lots were “found by excavators…” - taken of men in the compound, which one man of the lot would kill the other eleven men… after all the people of Maseda were dead… and set fire to the grounds; except for the grain and food supply to show the Romans that they were in fact, never going to starve them out.  

Therefore, would these individuals willingly to commit suicide be considered the hungry and simple hearted, illuminated by these parables?   Or would they be the rebellious heart, twisting the words of the parables through their constant misunderstanding?

From the mound I thought He meant for us to stop adding to our troubles by worrying about things that were out of our reach and control! “Let today’s own troubles be sufficient for today.“  

We can’t re-write the seasons, interpose Gods Law beyond our own individual heart and mind, or create a soul, and believing that we can becomes somewhat satanic in nature… the forbidden knowledge that will destroy us all.  

Regards,
Knubian

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
100 posted 2006-04-25 05:13 PM


Knubian:
quote:
Therefore, would these individuals willingly to commit suicide be considered the hungry and simple hearted, illuminated by these parables?   Or would they be the rebellious heart, twisting the words of the parables through their constant misunderstanding? ...

We can’t re-write the seasons, interpose Gods Law beyond our own individual heart and mind, or create a soul, and believing that we can becomes somewhat satanic in nature… the forbidden knowledge that will destroy us all.


I'm really not sure what you're asking or implying.  Suicide in Judaism (and especially in early Christianity) was considered to be self murder.  Jesus taught that flight from danger is not necessarily sin, and sometimes the best thing to do. (see Matthew 24:16-21).  But he also taught that when flight or escape is impossible, that we should do our best not to fear those who have power to kill the body, but cannot do harm to the soul.  In other words, martyrdom is a real possibility, and only a heavenly perspective can offer hope at such a time.  (see Matthew 10:28).  I guess other than the general teachings I've just mentioned (which Jesus did not teach in parables, BTW), I'm not sure how you're relating the people you've just described to the Parables of Jesus.    


God's law is already "interposed" in many ways, in a universal fashion.  And merely stating what is declared in scripture, amounts to teaching what is revealed ... not necessarily in "judging" or being pharisaical.  However, if someone says "I won't even try to explain truth to you, since you wouldn't get it, you're not chosen", THAT would be very pharisaical.  And that is mainly the attitude I'm addressing.  


Stephen.

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
101 posted 2006-04-27 03:53 AM


Quote:
Stephanos
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, if someone says "I won't even try to explain truth to you, since you wouldn't get it, you're not chosen", THAT would be very pharisaical. And that is mainly the attitude I'm addressing.
____________________________________________________________________

I can agree with you whole-heartedly on that… how are any of us to know whom is chosen and whom is not.  Most of what we are saying, “without being a directly quoted sources such as the bible,“ are really just extensions of personal opinions and philosophical view points of the knowledge we hold, or should wish to gain through questioning and debate.

The bible has many passages that causes man the struggle for and against the same principle(s) and issue(s) at the same time within and outside one's self.  It’s amazing how we can internalize our individual truths as the ultimate truth of the world, where someone else's lacks merit or substance until a certain knowledge is gained.  To change an individuals mind about many subjects, particularly religion, goes beyond the capacity of words and more into the realm of the meeting of spirits.

Quote:
Stephanos
__________________________________________________________________
Jesus taught that flight from danger is not necessarily sin, and sometimes the best thing to do. (see Matthew 24:16-21). ______________________________________________________________________

This was kind of my point.  If we look at things in a way, particularly in 62 AD, we manufacture the assumption in our minds, that these would be the individuals that are the hungry and simple hearted, illuminated by these parables…;  

2-Quote:
Stephanos
__________________________________________________________________
But he also taught that when flight or escape is impossible, that we should do our best not to fear those who have power to kill the body, but cannot do harm to the soul.
______________________________________________________________________

What I mean is… these people on Maseda are sometimes the Christ-followers we sometimes defend, but I find myself grappling with a defense of martyrdom -V- suicide… extended to out right murder.  And what I don’t know is, are these the same individuals that truly understood the teachings of Christ’s and left Jerusalem in the first place to avoid murder and chaos in and about 62-63 AD?  But more so than asking a question or wanting to debate, I was rather looking for a different perspective, angle… point of view?  

As I think more into your second quote I think more into what we understand, or understood, or may have been taught of Judas’s lack of understanding that Christ’s sword was in-fact “righteousness, and not war.”  I mean… as we stand today, it seems we are just a grander scale those individuals on Maseda…, or wandering in the wilderness with Moses… and we're getting nowhere fast!

Seeing what little knowledge I have from a different set of eyes with more or less knowledge, better help me to be understand my own perspective of why my philosophy is my philosophy on the subject.      

Regards,
Knubian

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
102 posted 2006-04-27 04:37 PM


Knubian:
quote:
but I find myself grappling with a defense of martyrdom -V- suicide… extended to out right murder.


I think we already covered this pretty well in another thread:
/pip/Forum8/HTML/000651.html

The actions of a murderer need defense.  The death of a martyr doesn't.  He is not blameworthy, since he is not seeking or choosing death.  Rather, death is being forced upon him with the only way of escape being the dishonor and denial of God (which he feels is more important than mere temporal life).  And as far as suicide goes, martyrdom is a polar opposite.  As G.K. Chesterton said, martyrdom and suicide fall in that class of things which are perhaps superficially alike, but fundamentally different ... as different as different can be.

As far as the other, I guess I still don't understand what you are confused about.  Jesus warned about the coming destruction of Jerusalem (which was apostate and had rejected God) by the Romans.  His instructions were to flee if at all possible.  He also warned about coming persecution for being a Christian at all.  Both of these prophetic utterances were fulfilled.  Physical life may be lawfully sought and preserved, but it is not guaranteed.  Devotion to God and Christ is the most important thing in life or death.  

So what makes you think that the people you described were Christians?  The earliest Christianity which was essentially a Jewish phenomenon, represented only a smattering of the Jews.  So what makes you think that the people who listened to Jesus, and heard his discourses about the coming destruction didn't actually flee and escape to safety?  After that period, it is obvious that Christianity flourished in Rome until the times of Roman persecution came.  


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-27-2006 08:45 PM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
103 posted 2006-04-30 08:22 PM


Yes, it is easy to call those of a faith in which we agree with, who give their lives for their God, martyrs, yet if a group of people commit martyrdom for a God we cannot understand and believe to be false, we label them as suicidal maniacs.

~ For example, those "terrorists" of 911. Were they martyrs for their God or suicidal bombers? You all tell me.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
104 posted 2006-04-30 08:25 PM


Now, back to the original subject matter. The Bible clearly states that thou shalt not KILL. If it were murder, then murder would of been the original word used in translation.

However, it recent times, and due to embarassment of mainstream christian churches that condone killing in the name of their God, the movement for calling it "murder" has gained ground.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
105 posted 2006-05-03 01:18 PM


JCP:

See my post #16.  I don't believe you ever addressed it.

One human being killing another human being is always sin.  One human being killing another human being is not always illegal (either today or in Moses' time).

It's an important distinction.  Don't you think?

Jim

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Kill v. Murder

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary