Should a Christian Fight in a war, or join the military service?

by l3gi0n 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  onacruse

  IW:

  Can it be imagined? The Apostle Paul, at the behest of the Roman Army, riding on horseback torching the homes and villages of people with whom Rome is displeased with? No, I don't think so.

  You bring up a good point. If I may rephrase that comment:

  Can it be imagined? The Apostle Paul, at the behest of Jesus Christ, riding forth as a missionary destroying the lives and families of people with whom Jesus is displeased with? Yes, I do think so.

  Paul was the one who used numerous military terms in his (supposedly inspired) writings, Paul came from a "militaristic" Pharisee upbringing, Paul was raised in the Jewish culture based on "a mission from God," Paul fought like a soldier, even against the "governing body" at Jerusalem.

  I can't think of a worse example of pacifistic Christianity.

  Respectfully,

  Craig
• 

  bebu

  Paul fought like a soldier, even against the "governing body" at Jerusalem.

  Hi Ona... Um, may I ask what this is referring to? Is it Acts 12:11-12, where Paul opposed Peter to his face? If so, that is surely an exaggeration in your description. By your definition, all of the people on this board 'fight' like militant 'soldiers'. ...But perhaps you are referring to something else?...

  Paul was pretty militant--to start out with, anyway. "He was breathing threats", and in the middle of carrying out plans to search out Christians and put them in jail. His method was surely the sword.

  But after conversion, in 2 Cor, he says,

  2CO 10:1 By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you--I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away! 2 I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

  also, in Eph chapter 6:

  11

  Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

  I think these are well-known verses, so surely you must be aware of them... And when I read the letter to the Ephesians, I am really struck by his tenderness. My picking out snippets doesn't really do much justice to these letters.

  What is he referring to? Who is it that is fighting, and what are the weapons? He is not referring to political entities here, but how the gospel is spread. The singlemindedness of a soldier is his, but the method of a soldier (physical force) he no longer applies.

  Paul surely changed in methodology; I do not think he was ever a pacifist, but to imply that he would be ok with "evangelizing" along the same lines as Mohammed used.... well, there's nothing I can find to substantiate that at all.

  ...These days when I read the NT letters, I think of this discussion board, and how Paul would post here: Eg, a thread titled "Judaizers require circumcision; please advise", and Paul would post a reply that would include an exasperated, "Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. (As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!!! ) ...Cheers, P"

  ...I think he'd be a fun poster to read as he debated.

  bebu
• 

  clash_city_rockers

  It is OK for a Christian to Join the Army. In Acts chapter 10 Peter never comanded Corneleus to quit the Army.

  Some Christian are called into life long service into the Army.

  cheers,

  jr
• 

  onacruse

  Hi bebu

  Yes, I was engaging in hyperbole My feelings about Paul are prompted in part by recent work I've been doing about Rutherford. It strikes me that Paul was a lot more like Rutherford than Russell: militant, confrontational, aggressive, strongly opinionated. imo it's more a feeling about the tone of Paul's works and writings, though several specific examples come to mind, including yours of Paul vs. Peter. Another one:

  Galations 2:6 And as far as their reputed leaders were concerned (I neither know nor care what their exact position was: God is not impressed with a man’s office), they had nothing to add to my gospel.

  Paul is talking about the apostles at Jerusalem, including some who had been hand-picked by Jesus himself. Seems to me that Paul here showed a rather arrogant and self-centered attitude.

  People like that, who feel so strongly that they're on a "mission from God," could very easily pick up a literal sword, if they were convinced that it was God's command. Paul's own Jewish history is saturated with similar "enthusiasm."

  And in his treatment of the early Christian community: on the one hand he can come across as so sweet and humble, and in the next breath crush somebody into powder (e.g. almost a whole chapter about the "superfine apostles").

  However, you present me with an interesting homework assignment I'll work on putting together a more coherent accounting of how I perceive Paul's method and manner.

  Craig
• 

  l3gi0n

  
  
  

  Jesus said he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. I don’t think this means you can not be a soldier, but this may mean if you live as a soldier, you may die as a soldier. Just as If you live as a thief, or an assassin you can also expect to die as one.

  Now in genesis chapter 9, I notice the same principal being brought up. It however has something more added to it, “It says that for in the image of God, has God made man” God demands justice, you can expect that a man acting with fairness and impartiality will come to kill you, if you started in with the ethnic cleansing of people that are different from you. This is because man demands justice, So this may be why the scripture reads, Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

  "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
  by man shall his blood be shed;
  for in the image of God
  has God made man

  Genesis 9:6
• 

  bebu

  l3gi0n

  I agree with the gist of what you say. I have always thought along the lines of living/dying by the sword being the hazard of the job for a soldier, anyway. Not everybody is cut out to be a combat soldier; some feel more comfortable going into support services that the army uses. I guess it just means that on the individual level, is your conscience ok with going forward? Do you have lots of JW family or pacifist friends that you feel you've got to keep explaining to?

  Onacruse,

  Yeah, I later thought, y'know it would be interesting to see what kind of posts Paul would write here. I think folks would enjoy the challenge of debate, and see that his letters were messages to folks he knew. I think a lot of the views people have of him (mine included) are based on whatever emphasis others have brought in. I, for example, have always understood the remarks he made about the "super-apostles" were directed toward "superfine pseudo-apostles" who arrived and caused confusion about the gospel. Folks on this board have held the same contempt for how the WT used similar tactics. Paul's words about "super-apostles" were not meant to scorn the real apostles in Jerusalem, but the "self-annointed class". ...So anyway, if you're gonna do the homework I think you will... I'm looking forward and sure I'll enjoy it, but watch out for that bias.

  bebu
• 

  thewiz

  its all a matter of how warped a persons thinking is

  which [would||could] call in to question what murder is.

  in american history was it appropriate for slave owners to "kill" their slaves. i think according to the law back then it was not murder. just because someone said it wasn't, what would God say it was? just because the country you live in says: "pick up that gun son and blow off all the heads of every jap and kraut you see." -some how doesn't make it murder? because some dickhead who is just as human as anyone else says to do something it over-rides what God says?

  so i guess when hitler had all those jews "killed" the persons who actually carried it out were not guilty of murder? it was war man. well hitler might have not called it murder but the rest of the world did.

  when upwards of 50,000 jap children died in Japan at the dropping of those bombs and the "good-guys" are the ones who did it, it's not murder?

  just put a label on someone and see how many people you can get to rally around to "kill" those no good sum-ma-ma-bitches.

  hey! now it's not murder, it's just killin'. WOW i didn't know it was that easy.
• 

  bebu

  just because someone said it wasn't, what would God say it was? just because the country you live in says: "pick up that gun son and blow off all the heads of every jap and kraut you see." -some how doesn't make it murder? because some dickhead who is just as human as anyone else says to do something it over-rides what God says?

  Just because someone (you) say something IS murder, would God say it was?

  Isn't the answer here depending on What God Says?

  I also think you are stereotyping with your descriptions.

  bebu
• 

  IslandWoman

  Craig,

  Paul was the one who used numerous military terms in his (supposedly inspired) writings, Paul came from a "militaristic" Pharisee upbringing, Paul was raised in the Jewish culture based on "a mission from God," Paul fought like a soldier, even against the "governing body" at Jerusalem.

  I can't think of a worse example of pacifistic Christianity.

  Those were metaphors. If he used terms dealing with harlotry as metaphors, can we then use his metaphors to defend the practice of prostitution, or say that his use of those metaphors set a poor example for Christians. No.

  Paul felt they were in a spiritual battle and so used the appropriate metaphors for that idea.

  IW
• 

  onacruse

  Hi IW

  You are of course correct...those militaristic terms were metaphors. What I was trying to say, in my own clumsy way, was that Paul's inclination to use militaristic metaphors suggests that he himself had a militaristic bend of thought. This passage from Foundations of Christianity (Karl Kautsky, pp. 384-5) better illustrates my thinking:

  Saul...A fiery spirit, he first threw himself with all his strength into an advocacy of Phariseeism, and as a Pharisee he fought the Christian congregation...until, according to the tale, he was suddenly convinced of the error of his ways by a vision, with the result that he went to the opposite extreme. He joined the Christian congregation, but immediately appeared in it as one in favor of the overthrow of the established views, since he demanded that the new doctrine be propagated among non-Jews...The Acts of the Apostles itself is a polemic product, the result of this conflict, written for the purpose of winning friends for the Pauline position, and also of hushing up the opposition between the two tendencies.

  Sorta like "show me where the battle is, any battle, lest I be without purpose." People of that mind-set can easily cross over from restrained pacifism to overt aggression. As a case in point: Rutherford's employment of "walking-stick" attendants at the June 25, 1939 Madison Square Garden assembly ( See 9/15/39 Watchtower; Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave).

  Craig (of the "more un-biased [bebu] homework to do" class)

  PS: I hope I'm not hijacking this thread