Posts by aChristian

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

aChristian

As a follow up:

One reason why I feel Christians should not join their country's military is that I believe all military personnel must take an oath pledging to obey the orders of their superior officers, including the orders which instruct them to use deadly force. Though the Christian may join his country's military to "protect his homeland against foreign invaders," or "to assist and protect the victims" of what he believes to be an unjust aggression" in some foreign land, the truth of the matter is that his superiors may later end up ordering him to use deadly force in another way, possibly against those who the Christian does not feel such force is warranted.

I do not think it is wise for Christians to ever willingly put themselves in a position in which they must obey men as rulers rather than God. Especially if those men may end up demanding that a Christian violate his own Christian conscience in matters involving taking the lives of others.

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

aChristian

Defender,

You wrote: Your assertion that Rome always persecuted Christians and thus it was normal that Christians did not join the Roman army is false.

I made no such assertion. I am a student of history. I know the history of ancient Rome quite well. I wrote these words: "First of all is the fact that Rome often persecuted Christians and often used its military personnel to do so." Notice I used the word "often," not "always."

This entire debate is a bit odd. Because I personally feel almost exactly the way you do about all we have discussed. I said early on in this discussion that I personally would never serve in the military in a combatant role. And I made that statement for all of the reasons you have discussed.

There seems to be only two differences between our positions. Maybe only one. Maybe none. First of all, I do feel it is acceptable for Christians to serve as policemen. (I think Cornelius and the soldiers who John and Jesus spoke with were probably Roman policemen, maybe even Jews who had been appointed to serve in that position.) Secondly, the main reason I have presented the views which I have is that I try my best to see both sides of many issues that the Watchtower Society presented only one side of to us when we were JWs. By so doing I find I am able to avoid judging my brothers.

The fact of the matter is I feel only a baby Christian would join the military. I believe for many it takes some time to grow enough spiritually to appreciate many of the things you and I now appreciate. However, those baby Christians are still Christians. They are our baby brothers and we should think of them as our brothers. I believe that is why the Bible does not tell us that Peter demanded that Cornelius resign from the military, if his position was one of a war maker. In New Testament times people were baptized immediately after becoming believers. Afterwards they proceeded to clean up their lives and make life changes as their studies of God's word showed them they should, and as God's Spirit directed and empowered them to do. However these changes did not then all take place immediately. Neither do they do so today. New Christians often make bad decisions for quite a while until they learn enough and grow enough to begin making better ones. But until the time they do, they are still Christians, and they are still "sincere Christians." Why? Because they have put their faith in Christ. And because they now desire to serve him as their Lord. And because they are now seeking God's direction in their lives.

Again, the main point I have been trying to make is that we should understand that there are different ways of looking at things and that we should not expect that everyone will see things exactly the same way that we do, especially people who are much "younger" Christians than ourselves.

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

aChristian

Defender,

You wrote: I simply stated that based on biblical precedent, [early] Christians were not involved in national conflicts for the simple reason that their kingdom is not of this world. ...There is practically no difference between the aggression that ancient Rome manifested towards all that opposed it and the one that Hitler showed to his neighbors in WWII. And therefore, there should be no difference in the stand that early Christians took then from Christians who lived in nations that were in Hitler's sight.

It is true that when we review the records of the early church fathers up to about 170 A.D., no mention is made of Christians being enrolled in the military. However, the fact is that none of the earliest writers, such as Polycarp (A.D. 70-155) mention anything for or against military service. The writings of St. Clement (A.D. 30-100), Mathetes (A.D. 130), Ignatius (A.D. 30-107), Papias (A.D. 70-155), Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), the epistles of Barnabus (A.D. 100), Ireneas (A.D. 120-202), the Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 160), Tatian (A.D. 110-172), Athenagoras (A.D. 177), and Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-217) do not discuss whether it is right or wrong for Christians to be involved in war. However, it is worthwhile to note that Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly pilot. Has (saving) knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander who orders what is right." (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 200) This punches a hole in the belief of some that all those in the military who became Christians in the first two hundred years after Christ immediately left the military.

It is also a fact that no mention is made up until the time of Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) that any Christian believed it was wrong to serve in the military.

Your saying that Christians today really have no reason to view serving in the military any differently than early Christians viewed serving in the Roman army is false for at least two reasons. First of all is the fact that Rome often persecuted Christians and often used its military personel to do so. This situation certainly strongly discouraged - to put it mildly - Christians from becoming Roman soldiers. The Roman government also required all soldiers to take an oath of allegiance to the emperor. This oath included words which acknowledged the Roman emperor as their God. Of course, no Christian could do such a thing, then or now. These things obviously had an awful lot to do with the fact that early Christians did not enlist in the Roman army.

You seem to believe that the apostolic period began with pure pacifism, continuing until the time of Constantine. And that during Constantine's time when the church became "apostate" Christains began joining the military. You do not seem to consider the difference in circumstances that had come about by Constantine's time. Christians were no longer being persecuted by the Romans. Christians no longer had to worship the emperor in order to join the military. Serving in the military was no longer an issue of idolatry for the Christian, and so many joined.

You wrote: In your analogy, the Samaritan should not have only offered HUMANITARIAN assistance to the one in need, but that he should also have pusued the robbers and beat them into submission, even killing them if he had to in order to protect the neighborhood from their menace.

Of course he should not have. And neither should we under similar conditions. We should report muggers to the police if we know their identities. Then, if Christians are employed in our communities on the police force, they will track the muggers down and arrest them. And they will use force to do so, if such force is necessary, to protect us from such men.

You wrote: In your view, it is ok to kill someone just because he is greedy and not allowing food to be rationed out to those in need.

In my view if armed men are using force to prevent food and medicine from being delivered to starving and sick people, such as was happening in Somolia, those men should be ordered to surrender or be shot. What if your childen were dying and needed medicine and someone stood in your doorway preventing you from bringing it to them, what would you do? Would you use force to remove them if they refused to let you reach your children, or would you let your children die. If you say you would use such force, why then is it wrong to do the same to save your neighbor's children?

You wrote: Sincere Christians walk by the spirit and are focused on things above and not on things on earth and follow the lamb wherever he goes and truly consider that their kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.

Jesus said that his kingdom was no part of this world; otherwise his servants would fight that he not be delivered up to the Jews (John 18:36). Jesus made it plain that the real hope of believers was in the future literal kingdom of God, to be established on the earth (at his return). He continually emphasized this to his followers, who erroneously believed they would somehow bring about the existence of the kingdom through physical force or revolution (Acts 1:6). Did this mean that Jesus was always opposed to the use of force to defend what is right in this world? No, it does not. For Jesus himself did not hesitate to use aggressive force in clearing out the temple area of the moneychangers (Matt. 21:12; John 2:15). By his use of a whip of cords Jesus clearly showed that he condoned the just use of force.

In his discussion about not paying back evil for evil and the taking of vengeance, Paul says, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Romans 12:18) If there is something we can do to ward off arguments or violence with others, then we are to seek this foremost. This does not mean, however, that we are to consistently allow evil people to use us for their own ends (Prov. 25:26). If we are aware of evil intentions on their part that will bring harm to others, we would not logically seek "peace" by giving in to their demands. You do not turn over your child to a child molester just to "keep peace." By the same token, many Christians feel that the Free World is not to disarm so that totalitarian countries can take over and destroy the lives of millions. They see it as the same kind of issue, one of self-defense. Peace isn't always maintained by giving in to deliberate evil. Is it really a manifestation of goodness to furnish no opposition to evil? I don't think so.

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/war.htm

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

aChristian

Defender,

You wrote: I totally agree with you in that we should not judge our brothers for simply being "members" of the armed forces or the police. Every Christian should work out his or her own salvation in whatever circumstance they happen to find themselves in.

However, you also wrote: Not all members of the armed forces pull the trigger or release bombs, and not all members of the police are engaged in bullet wizzing hot pursuits.

By that last statement you seem to be saying that, though we should not judge our brothers who are members of the military or police whose jobs never involve the actual use of deadly force, we may judge them if their jobs may at times require the use of such force.

To some people the idea that Christians would be willing to forcefully defend themselves or their own families against violent aggressors, but no one else, seems both inconsistent and unchristian. Why? Because Jesus told us that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. And he showed in his parable of the good Samaritan that by "neighbor" Christ meant anyone who needs our help, even a person in a foreign land, since the Samaritans were considered foreigners by the Jews. With such things in mind many Christians believe it is quite "Christian" to forcefully defend people living in other parts of their own country, and even people living in other counties, against those who are unjustly attacking them.

The fairly recent actions of the US military in defending the people of Somalia come to mind as being a military action in which some Christians felt it was quite "Christian" for them to be involved in. Many people were then starving and in need of medical attention. Food and medicine that was being sent by the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups was not being allowed through. US troops were sent in to stop those who were interfering with those deliveries. I can also understand how many Christians felt it was right to do what they could during World War II to bring an end to Hitler's attempts to conquer Germany's neighbors and his attempts to exterminate the entire Jewish race.

With such things in mind, I continue to believe that it is wrong for us to judge our brothers who choose to be members of their country's military and police forces, even those who "pull the trigger," "release bombs," and "are engaged in bullet wizzing hot pursuits."

13

Christian Pacifism

by Defender in

jw
friends

while there has been many arguments in favor of supporting a not so stringent attitude towards pacifism and referring to biblical examples of cornelius and others, i believe that there are very clear scriptural arguments that compel honest christians to not participate in any national war whatsoever.. cornelius example is brought out to show that peter did not demand that cornelius must abandon his military position before accepting his christian faith and anointing of the holy spirit.. 1- the record does not show what cornelius did after his conversion.. 2- we have to remember that after receiving the gift of the holy spirit and being baptized, it is now the operation of the holy spirit and jesus christ that would direct the actions of cornelius from that time onward and not be totally dependant on what peter or others say.. 3- roman soldiers were not used to fight wars only, but they were also used as police force as well to maintain security and order in the territories that they occupied.

cornelius was probably more likely involved in policing duties at the time since there were no wars that are being fought in that area at the time and thus may not have felt compelled to abandon his position.

by the way, this same condition applies to the soldiers that john the baptist admonished.

aChristian

Defender,
You wrote: In line with this, [Christians did not fight to defend Jerusalem against Rome's armies in AD 66-70] then sincere Christians would not find it in themselves to lift up arms to fight against national aggression, whether it is Nazism, Communism, Americanism, Islamist or any other form for the simple reason that “Our kingdom is not of this world.”

Jesus specifically told his followers to "get out of" Jerusalem when they saw it "being surrounded by armies." (Luke 21:20,21) If they had stayed and fought against Rome in that instance they would have been disobeying a direct command from their Lord. Christ made it clear that it was God's will for Jerusalem to be completely destroyed. He said, "This is a time of punishement in fulfillment of all that has been written." (verse 23) Thus if Christians had fought against Rome they they would not only have been disobeying Christ, they would have been fighting against the clearly expressed will of God himself.

Jesus Christ has given Christians no direct command against defendeing themselves, their neighbors or their homelands against violent agressors today, comparable to the command he gave to Christians living in Jerusalem at the time Roman armies besieged that city. Because he has not, it is not fair to use the way in which those Christians behaved as a pattern which all "sincere Christians" must follow.

I believe we should not judge our brothers who choose to serve in the military. I believe that saying what "sincere Christians" would or "would not find it in themselves to" do in this area of Christian conscience amounts to judging our brothers, something which Christ did give Christians a direct command not to do.

44

WHEN THE FECAL MATTER HITS THE FAN

by You Know in

------------------- when the fecal matter hits the fan!

the book of malachi is addressed to the priests of israel after the time of judgment when the babylonians destroyed the nation.

but, in reality, the prophecy applies to the anointed priests of the christian era who are similarly in a legally binding covenant relationship with jehovah god.

aChristian

I don't think YK is saying the WTS cares about him. I think he believes they would never DF someone for pointing out their hypocritical stand on the UN. For maybe he thinks that the WTS would be afraid that the person who was then DFed might talk to the press about why they were DFed and then end up drawing much public attention to the UN NGO thing. Something the WT would prefer not to happen.

The problem for YK is that the WTS has DFed good people for disagreeing with them on far less important matters. The fact that they would allow someone to get away with a "greater sin" simply to avoid looking like the hypocrites YK now recognizes them to be, should cause him to realize that the WT Society is not now and never has been anything more than a bunch of con men. Why he so desperately clings to his fantasy that they have ever been anything else, I'm not sure. Probably for the same reasons as most JWs who learn the truth about "the truth" I would guess. He does not want to lose his family, his friends, his glorious position in the congregation, or he believes one of the Society's biggest lies, that all who leave them behind are doomed to live a life away from God and Christ.

44

WHEN THE FECAL MATTER HITS THE FAN

by You Know in

------------------- when the fecal matter hits the fan!

the book of malachi is addressed to the priests of israel after the time of judgment when the babylonians destroyed the nation.

but, in reality, the prophecy applies to the anointed priests of the christian era who are similarly in a legally binding covenant relationship with jehovah god.

aChristian

YK,

You have to have some kind of JW death wish. You would certainly be disfellowshipped if the Society informed your local body of elders about the contents of this post. Your real name and address have been previously posted both on this forum and on the old H2O. Sooner or later some "apostate" who is tired of reading your ravings, or one of your "brothers" who is tired of seeing you criticize the organization they worship, is going to send a copy of some of your stuff to Brooklyn. You must know this. As I said, you've gotta have a death wish.

28

Today's Logic Puzzle

by Farkel in

jw
friends

in a certain circuit, all elders are jerks.. 1/2 of all the ministerial servants are also jerks.. 1/2 of all the jerks in that circuit are elders.. there are 40 elders are 46 ministerial servants.. no elder is a ministerial servant.. 1/2 of the number of jerks who are not elders or ministerial servants are pedophiles.. how many pedophiles are there in that circuit?.

farkel.

"i didn't mean what i meant.

aChristian

Since this is a logic problem, I'll say nine. After all, someone can't be just partly a pedophile. That's like being sort of pregnant. Either you are or you are not. I believe mental health professionals now tell us that pedophilia is not a curable mental illness. That being the case, there are no "former pedophiles" or "slight pedophiles." So a half in this case equals a whole. So, I'll say nine.

8

Center of the Bible

by Lee Elder in

jw
friends

this is pretty strange or odd how it worked out this.

even if you are not religious you'll enjoy this.. .

what is the shortest chapter in the bible?.

aChristian

Lee,

I assume you are referring to the Bible which is used by Protestants. I also find it interesting that our Bible is composed of 70 books. ( The Psalms were originally compiled into five separate books and they remain so divided in all Bibles today. "Book 1," "Book 2," "Book 3," "Book 4" and "Book 5." The five books of Psalms along with the Bible's other 65 books makes 70. ) The Bible often uses the number 70 to denote spiritual completeness. That our Bibles contain 70 books may be a good indication that God has not inspired any other books, such as the Book of Mormon, etc.

31

The Trinity: to believe or not to believe?

by speechless in

this question applies to those exjws who are at peace with god:.

do you now believe in the trinity?.

for myself, it took awhile for me to accept the trinity doctrine, but i finally came to believe!.

aChristian

Ros,

You wrote: I think you might be more trinitarian than you admit.

Not really. The big problem I have with the Trinity doctrine is that it says that the Holy Spirit is a "third person." It seems plain to me that the Holy Spirit is either God the Father Himself or God the Son Himself or both. For the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as both "the spirit of God" and "the spirit of Christ."

However, as I told you earlier, I definately believe in the deity of Christ. Something which you also told me. I assumed when you said that that you meant just what I meant, that you believed Jesus Christ was God, not that he was a small g god or a second big G God. For I have never heard of a Christian who worshipped two Gods. If that is your position, you have to admit it is fairly unique.