D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Dan:
What part of what you wrote are not “well known” historical facts? …
zerinus:
I think that all of them are well known historical facts!
Dan:
That is fair enough, evidently you were trying not to be dogmatic. However you have yet to provide any documentation to validated your view that these are facts. Until you do this, it is your opinion and will be considered as such.
Dan:
I never said that was the only reason. I listed a number of reasons, and said that was one of them.
Dan:
My challenge to you, should you choose to accept it, is to actually prove your points.
Dan:
You claim that it is acceptable for Christians to fight in armies who are defending and not aggressors. Would you characterize the war in Vietnam as one where Americans were defending against attacks on their families?
zerinus:
Whether it was or wasn’t, is beside the point. If it wasn’t a just war, we shouldn’t have fought it; if it was, then we should have.
Dan:
My point is that you are making claims, and evidently supporting the view that Christians who are born in the US can and should be part of the military establishment. I have made the point, to which you have not yet responded, that those who enlist don’t have the option to not fight if they don’t think the war is just. Do you deny this???
In addition, you have not demonstrated that that any war fought by men which was not explicitly commanded by God is a just war. Until you do this, your claim that a war is just is your opinion and not evidence for your position.
Dan:
How do you view a Christian in one country killing another Christian, even one of their own denomination (ie Catholics killing Catholics, LDS killing LDS)?
zerinus:
Again, that is irrelevant. If an army attacking my country is the aggressor, I have a duty to defend my country against it, even if it happens to have LDS people in it.
Dan:
It is not irrelevant! Do you accept the command of Jesus to love your brother or the command of your country to kill your brother? (John 13:35)
Dan:
I am not arguing for or against countries forming their own military forces. They are clearly entitled to do this. What I question is whether or not a Christian would participate.
zerinus:
If it is right to fight that war, it is right for Christians to participate in it. That is a duty they owe to their country. If it is wrong to fight that war, it is wrong for everybody, not just for Christians. There isn’t one rule of right and wrong for Christians, and a different rule for everybody else.
Dan:
I did not state that it was “right” or “just” for those countries to fight that war. The authority of Adolf Hitler to fight his war is the same authority as any other country, but what he did was not “right.” Since Hitler was permitted by God to form his army was it “right” for Catholics, Protestants and other denominations of Christendom to fight on his behalf and kill their brothers in other lands?
And yes, there are different rules for Christians than for others.
James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin. (KJV)
Christians are under the law of Christ – Ga 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
I provided you what God said was the reason. Let me repeat it.
NRS 1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.
Since I don’t know you, would you mind answering whether or not you believe the bible is inspired and true? Do you believe the words in 1 Chronicles 22:8? The verse is quite clear in establishing the reason why David could not build the temple. The word “because” establishes this. What Saul failed to do is not pertinent to the question of why David could not build the temple or the fact that Christians ARE the temple.
zerinus:
I think the point you are bringing up is not pertinent. The fact that God said that to David about building of the temple does not mean that David shouldn’t have fought those wars.
David fought those wars, many of them, because God had commanded him. And just as it was right for David to fight those wars when God approved of them, it is right for Christians to fight wars that are just. God didn’t tell David, “Don’t fight those wars, because afterwards you won’t be able to build the temple!” On the contrary, He commanded him to fight those wars. Therefore whether he could afterwards build the temple or not has no bearing on the rights or wrongs of whether he should have fought those wars or not. The same applies to Christians.
Dan:
I did not claim that David should not have fought those wars. Remember, I called those wars just because ***God ***authorized them. You are missing my point and so I will give you the opportunity to respond again. My point is that even though David was authorized to fight those wars it **disqualified **him from building the temple. Christian **are **the temple and must be holy to **be **that temple. If David could not build the temple because of being a military man, then how much more so could Christians not kill others in war when they are the very temple of God themselves!
-Dan
What part of what you wrote are not “well known” historical facts? …
zerinus:
I think that all of them are well known historical facts!
Dan:
That is fair enough, evidently you were trying not to be dogmatic. However you have yet to provide any documentation to validated your view that these are facts. Until you do this, it is your opinion and will be considered as such.
Dan:
zerinus:In addition, while what you write may contain “facts” they may not be pertinent to our discussion. For example, you claim the Roman army was Pagan (a fact!) and that this is the only reason Christians would not join the army (what I question). …
I never said that was the only reason. I listed a number of reasons, and said that was one of them.
Dan:
My challenge to you, should you choose to accept it, is to actually prove your points.
Dan:
You claim that it is acceptable for Christians to fight in armies who are defending and not aggressors. Would you characterize the war in Vietnam as one where Americans were defending against attacks on their families?
zerinus:
Whether it was or wasn’t, is beside the point. If it wasn’t a just war, we shouldn’t have fought it; if it was, then we should have.
Dan:
My point is that you are making claims, and evidently supporting the view that Christians who are born in the US can and should be part of the military establishment. I have made the point, to which you have not yet responded, that those who enlist don’t have the option to not fight if they don’t think the war is just. Do you deny this???
In addition, you have not demonstrated that that any war fought by men which was not explicitly commanded by God is a just war. Until you do this, your claim that a war is just is your opinion and not evidence for your position.
Dan:
How do you view a Christian in one country killing another Christian, even one of their own denomination (ie Catholics killing Catholics, LDS killing LDS)?
zerinus:
Again, that is irrelevant. If an army attacking my country is the aggressor, I have a duty to defend my country against it, even if it happens to have LDS people in it.
Dan:
It is not irrelevant! Do you accept the command of Jesus to love your brother or the command of your country to kill your brother? (John 13:35)
Dan:
I am not arguing for or against countries forming their own military forces. They are clearly entitled to do this. What I question is whether or not a Christian would participate.
zerinus:
If it is right to fight that war, it is right for Christians to participate in it. That is a duty they owe to their country. If it is wrong to fight that war, it is wrong for everybody, not just for Christians. There isn’t one rule of right and wrong for Christians, and a different rule for everybody else.
Dan:
I did not state that it was “right” or “just” for those countries to fight that war. The authority of Adolf Hitler to fight his war is the same authority as any other country, but what he did was not “right.” Since Hitler was permitted by God to form his army was it “right” for Catholics, Protestants and other denominations of Christendom to fight on his behalf and kill their brothers in other lands?
And yes, there are different rules for Christians than for others.
James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin. (KJV)
Christians are under the law of Christ – Ga 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
I provided you what God said was the reason. Let me repeat it.
NRS 1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.
Since I don’t know you, would you mind answering whether or not you believe the bible is inspired and true? Do you believe the words in 1 Chronicles 22:8? The verse is quite clear in establishing the reason why David could not build the temple. The word “because” establishes this. What Saul failed to do is not pertinent to the question of why David could not build the temple or the fact that Christians ARE the temple.
zerinus:
I think the point you are bringing up is not pertinent. The fact that God said that to David about building of the temple does not mean that David shouldn’t have fought those wars.
David fought those wars, many of them, because God had commanded him. And just as it was right for David to fight those wars when God approved of them, it is right for Christians to fight wars that are just. God didn’t tell David, “Don’t fight those wars, because afterwards you won’t be able to build the temple!” On the contrary, He commanded him to fight those wars. Therefore whether he could afterwards build the temple or not has no bearing on the rights or wrongs of whether he should have fought those wars or not. The same applies to Christians.
Dan:
I did not claim that David should not have fought those wars. Remember, I called those wars just because ***God ***authorized them. You are missing my point and so I will give you the opportunity to respond again. My point is that even though David was authorized to fight those wars it **disqualified **him from building the temple. Christian **are **the temple and must be holy to **be **that temple. If David could not build the temple because of being a military man, then how much more so could Christians not kill others in war when they are the very temple of God themselves!
-Dan