I agree in that there is NO principle that dictates what a Christian should or should not do concerning membership in an armed service or indeed holding political office.
Then I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say here. In my mind, the above statement clearly contradicts what you said in starting this topic:
I believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest Christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.How can there be "clear scriptural arguments" in favor of a position, and not be a "principle" involved? This seems comparable to me to the Watchtower's absurd claim to be "divinely directed" but not "inspired." You are making a purely semantic distinction that is no distinction at all.
It seems to me that what you are arguing for is a non-combatant position; that a Christian might join the armed services but not be willing to take up arms. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I don't see the applicability of Jesus' words that his followers are to be "no part of the world." If those words are taken to mean that Christians are to abstain from political activity (which interpretation is not supported by the context,as I pointed out earlier), they would seem to rule out any involvement in national affairs, not just such as would involve armed combat.
I'm not saying that you are wrong about taking a non-combatant stance, if that is what you are advocating. I can certainly see that a good argument could be made in favor of that position. However, I believe that in areas where the scriptures are not specific, we should not be specific in making rules or laying down principles for others either. If your understanding of the matter compels you to assume a non-combatant, or even a neutral position in national affairs, then you should follow your conscience in the matter. But it is not proper for you to dictate what course others should take in following their consciences, when the scriptures do not do so.
I think that it became a matter of conscience of where they did draw a line as to how far they were going in be engaged in any armed conflict.I agree completely. But this statement seems to be out of harmony with the position you are taking on the subject in other statements.
Criminal gangs and robbers hardly ever attack nations, they attack individuals. Whereas, only nations can attack other nations, albeit for whatever reasons, and thus becomes a national conflict and no longer mere self defense.You are making a distinction here that the Bible does not. There is no difference, morally, between self-defense on an individual basis and on a national basis. If that were not so, we could get into all sorts of hair-splitting. For example, what if you are with a friend and you both are attacked by criminals? Can you cooperate together to defend yourselves? What if there are three of you? Ten? One Hundred? Where is the line drawn? If our nation is attacked by international criminals, as happened last September 11, is it a violation of Christian principles that we band together to form an effective response to assure that such acts will not continue? I really don't see in the Bible that it is.
I might also point out that policemen often do not act in self-defense only, but take aggressive action to neutralize criminal activity and apprehend criminals. And it's no good here to say that not all policemen are involved in violent situations; the majority are at some point in their career, and every policemen needs to accept the likelihood that he could be in such a situation on any given day on duty.
What you say is that had Jesus followers been more numerous and well trained and equipped, then Jesus would have allowed them to make a stand against the invading Roman army. I hardly can envisage Jesus making such military strategic calculations on behalf of his followers. This is just out of character for Jesus. He is the one that said that he could have asked his father to send several legions of angels to protect him, would surely not be depending on any human strength and he had encouraged his followers not to do so.No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that, because there was no general prohibition among Christians as to engaging in war, some of the Christians might have decided to make a stand defending the city. Jesus knew that would have been hopeless, so he gave them a prophetic warning not to make such an attempt. My point is that, if it had been generally understood among Christians that they were not to take part in war as a matter of Christian conduct, then no warning from Jesus would have been necessary. It would have been automatic, just as certainly as if the Romans had organized an orgy, the Christians would have known, without a specific command for that occasion, that they should not take part, simply because such conduct is contrary to Christian standards. But Jesus felt the necessity in the case of the Roman destruction to give his followers a specific command for that occasion, because the circumstances would be such that they could not prevail.
Just because Christians are not prohibited by scripture from entering into armed conflict does not mean that that is the preferred solution in every situation. Diplomacy may be preferable in many situations, and may result in peaceful solutions. In other cases, it may make more sense to retreat. Certainly a force of ten men confronted by an army of a thousand would be foolish to choose armed combat to resolve the situation, if any other option was available, and retreat is such an option. But if retreat were impossible, and the thousand were bent irrevocably upon destroying the ten, would the ten be acting in an unchristian manner if they defended themselves? I think not. But if retreat were possible, that would certainly seem to be the more intelligent course for them.
I think that is, in a sense, what Jesus was doing in giving that instruction. He knew that any stand against the Romans would be unsuccessful, even suicidal. He also knew that matters might not look that way from the perspective of one in the city at the time the Roman forces were advancing. So he gave a prophetic warning to protect his followers; by his word, they knew, unequivocally, that retreat was the only option.
Tom
"The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan