Yes, I agree foxfyre. But that also means that Jesus, if he represented God on Earth, did not advocate war. Nowhere in the New Testament in any Bible I have read, says anything about war being something a Christian should condone. By allowing Mr. Bush to remain in the White House, you/we are condoning war, right? I can't possibly imagine that Jesus would give His stamp of approval for the things that are going on in Iraq, because of America. So many Iraqis dead, so many babies killed, and for what? There will be no victory in Iraq, so this thread is kind of moot. Or is that the 'victory' Frank was talking about?
englishmajor, your point is in complete agreement with Tolstoy in his book, "The Kingdom of God is Within You." CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTIC RELIGION
BUT AS A NEW THEORY OF LIFE.
http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html
His point was that only the American Quakers and Mennonites can be considered true Christians. In America, unlike Tolstoy's Russia, conscientious objectors are excused from military service. The beginning of Chapter 1 is quoted below:
Quote:CHAPTER I.
THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE HAS BEEN PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY.
Among the first responses some letters called forth by my book were some letters from American Quakers. In these letters, expressing their sympathy with my views on the unlawfulness for a Christian of war and the use of force of any kind, the Quakers gave me details of their own so-called sect, which for more than two hundred years has actually professed the teaching of Christ on non-resistance to evil by force, and does not make use of weapons in self-defense. The Quakers sent me books, from which I learnt how they had, years ago, established beyond doubt the duty for a Christian of fulfilling the command of non-resistance to evil by force, and had exposed the error of the Church's teaching in allowing war and capital punishment.
In a whole series of arguments and texts showing that war--that is, the wounding and killing of men--is inconsistent with a religion founded on peace and good will toward men, the Quakers maintain and prove that nothing has contributed so much to the obscuring of Christian truth in the eyes of the heathen, and has hindered so much the diffusion of Christianity through the world, as the disregard of this command by men calling themselves Christians, and the permission of war and violence to Christians.
"Christ's teaching, which came to be known to men, not by means of violence and the sword," they say, "but by means of non-resistance to evil, gentleness, meekness, and peaceableness, can only be diffused through the world by the example of peace, harmony, and love among its followers."
"A Christian, according to the teaching of God himself, can act only peaceably toward all men, and therefore there can be no authority able to force the Christian to act in opposition to the teaching of God and to the principal virtue of the Christian in his relation with his neighbors."
"The law of state necessity," they say, "can force only those to change the law of God who, for the sake of earthly gains, try to reconcile the irreconcilable; but for a Christian who sincerely believes that following Christ's teaching will give him salvation, such considerations of state can have no force."
Further acquaintance with the labors of the Quakers and their works--with Fox, Penn, and especially the work of Dymond (published in 1827)--showed me not only that the impossibility of reconciling Christianity with force and war had been recognized long, long ago, but that this irreconcilability had been long ago proved so clearly and so indubitably that one could only wonder how this impossible reconciliation of Christian teaching with the use of force, which has been, and is still, preached in the churches, could have been maintained in spite of it.
In addition to what I learned from the Quakers I received about the same time, also from America, some information on the subject from a source perfectly distinct and previously unknown to me.
The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion of the emancipation of the negroes, wrote to me that he had read my book, in which he found ideas similar to those expressed by his father in the year 1838, and that, thinking it would be interesting to me to know this, he sent me a declaration or proclamation of "non- resistance" drawn up by his father nearly fifty years ago.
This declaration came about under the following circumstances: William Lloyd Garrison took part in a discussion on the means of suppressing war in the Society for the Establishment of Peace among Men, which existed in 1838 in America. He came to the conclusion that the establishment of universal peace can only be founded on the open profession of the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by violence (Matt. v. 39), in its full significance, as understood by the Quakers, with whom Garrison happened to be on friendly relations. Having come to this conclusion, Garrison thereupon composed and laid before the society a declaration, which was signed at the time--in 1838--by many members...
It's a fascinating read.
englishmajor wrote:Yes, I agree foxfyre. But that also means that Jesus, if he represented God on Earth, did not advocate war. Nowhere in the New Testament in any Bible I have read, says anything about war being something a Christian should condone. By allowing Mr. Bush to remain in the White House, you/we are condoning war, right? I can't possibly imagine that Jesus would give His stamp of approval for the things that are going on in Iraq, because of America. So many Iraqis dead, so many babies killed, and for what? There will be no victory in Iraq, so this thread is kind of moot. Or is that the 'victory' Frank was talking about?
No Christian that I know advocates war. But many Christians understand that the absence of war is not always peace. When the choice is between the lesser of two evils, war can be a reasonable choice. Jesus did not advocate war but he understood the inevitablility of it as long as there are evil people on earth: "There will always be wars and rumors of war."
Would Christians be more "Christian" had they allowed Hitler to exterminate the rest of the Jews? What virtue is there in not stopping the rapist or the murderer or the robber or the rogue nation bent on doing violence to its people or its neighbor?
There is absolutely nothing to commend in war or any violence for that matter. Its sole function is to break things and kill or hurt people. But I honestly do believe that it is possible for the alternative to be worse.
Good article, JB. In theory it make sense, but as Foxfyre points out, as long as there are evil people there will be war. However, war is profitable for nations, e.g. Cheney is making a lot of money through rebuilding Iraq (Halliburton). Many wars could have been avoided and much loss of life also avoided if men were not greedy warmongers. Wars are almost always for territory or resources.
Rarely do humans go to war for humane reasons.
I believe that you either carry the war banner or be a Christian. But you cannot be both. Jesus acknowledged that there would always be wars, but he did not join one, did he? He kept himself out of worldly affairs as much as possible. To say one is Christian and carry a machine gun is hypocritical.
If one stops a rapist, one does not have to kill that rapist. Same for a murderer. As for a rogue nation, what business is it of America or anyone else if a nation wishes to do violence to its neighbor or its people? Isn't that their business? Too many times, the US has gotten involved in countries (such as Iraq) without having an iota of understanding about their culture, which is ancient.
Violence begets violence, and always will. This is a thing that most Canadians cannot understand - why America is so quick to fight, rather than reason things out. Do you honestly think that the Americans caused less Iraqi deaths (collateral damage), for instance, than would have occurred if Saddam had been in charge? Perhaps the alternatives are NOT worse.
Englishmajor,
Ok, I have to say this because, well, I just have to. Are you the same Englishmajor I ran into just a few weeks ago that had an avatar that Finn Abuzz mentioned something about? Girl, I swear this is not you.
Don't get me wrong! I like this you. I really do. I'm just perplexed.
And I agree with quite a bit of what you say here. But, I don't agree about less deaths occurring if Saddam had been in charge. Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it reported that he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths?
And there are people that are totally neutral on the war. I am one of them. I have many reasons for this. One being that I am not that knowledgeable about politics. And another is I cannot take a political stand because of something I am affilliated with. So, I am essentially neutral here.
Can you be a Christian and still fight in a war? Hmmm. You know, I am just not really sure about that. I lean more toward the yes, you can be a Christian and fight in a war. But, that doesn't make it so, I realize.
Everyone sins. If a Christian sins, that doesn't make them not a Christian. It makes them human.
Momma Angel,
Bush, through his minions, has caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. How is this different from Saddam? Remember Saddam was a friend of the US until he got uppity.
Yes, I am one and the same person. I was quite frustrated with a lot of you on another thread, because it seemed you were all missing the point. Some of you tend to gang up on a poster -defence team, is what someone called it.
But the last post on that particular thread is perfect, so I rest my case.
I don't know why you would be perplexed. A lot of able2know people seem to have their little cliques or 'circles' and I was definitely getting an unnecessary thrashing. I do have an Irish temper.
And I have a question for you, which you don't have to answer. I just suspect you may be a Jehovah Witness? Because they are not supposed to get involved in worldly affairs. I don't know of any other religions who have that doctrine.
Englishmajor,
I really had to get a giggle out of that question. Sorry to disappont, no. I am not a Jehovah's Witness. It's not a church affilliation I was talking about. But because of the TOS agreement, I can't go into it.
I say, let's let bygones be bygones between us? I do understand your concerns and your issues. Maybe we were missing the point. I honestly don't know. I'd have to go back and look at that thread again. But, like I said, I like this you so I would just rather we go from here.
Foxfyre wrote: . . .Would Christians be more "Christian" had they allowed Hitler to exterminate the rest of the Jews? What virtue is there in not stopping the rapist or the murderer or the robber or the rogue nation bent on doing violence to its people or its neighbor? . . .
I should point out that it was the 'christians', both Catholic and Protestant, in Hitler's camp who were exterminating the Jews in the first place.
No. They may have claimed to be Christian, but no Christian would do that.
neologist wrote:Foxfyre wrote: . . .Would Christians be more "Christian" had they allowed Hitler to exterminate the rest of the Jews? What virtue is there in not stopping the rapist or the murderer or the robber or the rogue nation bent on doing violence to its people or its neighbor? . . .
I should point out that it was the 'christians', both Catholic and Protestant, in Hitler's camp who were exterminating the Jews in the first place.
That is simply untrue....
At the center of Hitler's German extermination machine was a philosophy of Aryanism (a form of "white" race bigotry genocide). That decided if you lived or died long before your religion was considered... Also, Germany was striving to return back to their pagan religions of centuries past. Thus their uses of rune symbols etc. Also Christians were considered of "Jewish" relation because of their reverence for "Jesus"... a "Jew"...
Neo, on this one you are not correct....
No, Rex, at the center of Fascism was and is the same claim as offered in this thread often. We-have-the-truth. We-are-the-source-of-virtue. There-is-no-other. Believe-as-we-do-or... . In the Nazis case the end was die. In that they were carrying on with the same tradition of all cults of true believers, including Christians. Kill your opposition. The Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages, in league with the kings of Europe, in the name of the Saviour, murdered, tortured and burned non-believers. Belief in the teachings of the Church was mandatory, just as it is in any despotic regime.
There are stories that are almost comic if not so bizarrely sad.
Poor Wycliffe, what he wanted to do was translate the Bible into English, but the teaching was that the word of God had to be spoken and written in Latin. So the king's agents chased Wycliffe over half of Europe before catching him and throwing him into prison. Guess who was King at the time? That's right. Henry VIII who was having his own problems with the Church of Rome at the same time. Then, in what was for Wycliffe, an incredible stroke of bad timing, Henry VIII had Wycliffe strangled and then hanged for defying the True Church and then proceeded to defy the Church himself two months later. Two years later, England was publishing the Bible in English under his decree.
Oh and, having declared that the Church of England was now the TRUE Church, Catholics were now under orders to join or suffer the consequences, including whipping, hanging or being burned. Our good founding Puritans continued that lovely tradition here in America without the overshadowing guidance of a monarch. They used threats, whips, and shaming to control the beliefs of the people. They knew they had the truth and death to anyone who would deny it. Funny, who doth that sound like?
So it is for the true believers of today. They mourn for what they think they have lost. Office seekers in the USA no longer have to pledge a belief in God in order to stand for election. Horrors. A person testifying in a Court of Law doesn't have to use a Bible to swear or affirm an oath. Oh, my Land. (Ah, but can he have a choice of which Bible to swear on? There's a question. Wouldn't want a solid Baptist swearing on a Latin-Vulgate, would we?) We can read books without having them passed on by a Bible-based truth committee as existed in many States until the mid-sixties. Gracious me. Our children are no longer subjected to listening to some grammar school teacher go on about her personal beliefs. Lordy. Guess what? All those, and many more, give us, all of us, more freedom and that's what true believers are against. They want us to be as constricted in our lives as they are in theirs. (yeah, yeah, yeah, you'll don't feel restricted...well... .)
Here the center of that belief: believers hold that they and their Bible are the only source of virtue. No other truth or standard of morals is equal to or supersedes theirs.
Read that again and ask yourself if such a thing is even possible to believe in today's world. Read that again and ask where such a belief inevitably leads.
Joe(Children, I want everyone to bow their heads... )Nation
Just dropped in. Joe Nation just said it so well, I have no need to throw in even two cents worth just now.
RexRed wrote:neologist wrote:Foxfyre wrote: . . .Would Christians be more "Christian" had they allowed Hitler to exterminate the rest of the Jews? What virtue is there in not stopping the rapist or the murderer or the robber or the rogue nation bent on doing violence to its people or its neighbor? . . .
I should point out that it was the 'christians', both Catholic and Protestant, in Hitler's camp who were exterminating the Jews in the first place.
That is simply untrue....
At the center of Hitler's German extermination machine was a philosophy of Aryanism (a form of "white" race bigotry genocide). That decided if you lived or died long before your religion was considered... Also, Germany was striving to return back to their pagan religions of centuries past. Thus their uses of rune symbols etc. Also Christians were considered of "Jewish" relation because of their reverence for "Jesus"... a "Jew"...
Neo, on this one you are not correct....
Gotcha!
As for the Catholics,
in 1933 they decreed:
Quote:We German Catholics will stand, with all our soul and our full convictions, behind Adolf Hitler and his Government. We wonder at his love for fatherland, his energy and his statesmanly wisdom. . .
The concordat between Hitler's toady, Von Papen, and Cardinal Pacelli (who became Pope Pius XII) is a perfect example of the long history of Catholic bloodshed.
As for the Lutherans,
let us quote their founder regarding Jews:
Martin Luther wrote: And let those whosoever can, throw brimstone and pitch upon them; if one could hurl hell-fire at them, so much the better....And this must be done for the honor of Our Lord and of Christianity, so that God may see that we are indeed Christians. Let their houses also be shattered and destroyed...Let their prayer books and Talmuds be taken from them, and their whole Bible too; let their rabbis be forbidden, on pain of death, to teach henceforth any more. Let the streets and highways be closed against them. Let them be forbidden to practice usury, and let all their money, and all their treasures of silver and gold be taken from them and put away in safety. And if all this not be enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of the land.
The German Lutherans under Hitler did all this and more.
Need a history lesson? I found this by Googling "German Lutherans WWII":
http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm
Joe Nation,
It's never going to change I guess. No matter how many Christians may tell or show others what Christianity is really all about, it is still told right back to us what it really is. I find that so sad.
Many have been killed in the name of God.
Many have been killed in the name of Islam.
Many have been killed in the name of Buddah.
Many have been killed in the name of Jim Jones.
Many have been killed in the name of David Koresh.
And on, and on, and on.
I will not deny those statements; however, it was not God doing the killing. It has been man. Man using and distorting the Word of God to do what he wants to do. In the name of God, you can do anything, right?
What about personal responsibility? What about laying blame at the doorsteps of the actual commiters of these crimes? The Bible is very clear about what Jesus/God is all about. Very clear. It's up to each of us as individuals to adhere to the teachings. It is also up to each of us to discern when someone is using God for their own gains. It was easy to see Hitler doing that. It's easy to see Muslims doing that when they strap bombs to themselves and kill. Sometimes, it's not as easy to see. But, it's still up to each of us to find the truth. And, the truth is, it's not God nor is it religion that kills. It's the people that use it for their own agenda.
Phoenix,
Hi girl! I am so glad you got to find that! Isn't it great when something like that happens?
Phoenix32890 wrote:neologist- Thank you for that link. I was perusing it, and came to a page, "great quotes". When I was in school, the teacher had put a quotation on the wall. I really related to it, and it has become one of the guiding principles of my life.
The quote was attributed to Voltaire. When I first got a computer, I attempted to research the quote, but never could find it. Now, I come to this page on your link, and what do I find?
Quote:I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 1907 (many times wrongfully attributed to Voltaire)
I then Googled Beatrice Hall, and learned a lot about the reference. Thank you so much. You have cleared up a mystery for me that was over 50 years old! 
I also have it in my reference notes (the same place I stored the Luther quote) as attributed to Voltaire. I had it documented by no less an authority than Will Durant. When I saw it in the nobeliefs site I had to rub my eyes. So you've checked it out? Thanks.
Amazing what a believer will discover if he is willing to listen. (Er, read)
'course the Voltaire quote is
Quote:I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
It did not matter what so called Christians at the time confessed... Hitler killed them anyway... My point was that Germany was not a Christian country under Hitler's domination. Despite the Christians attempts to not be exterminated by whatever futile "proclamations". Christians were exterminated too... because they loved a "Jew"...
Also, the Christian church/Biblical message had been paganized by Rome... Pagan Rome had less regard for human/Jewish life than Hitler.. If you remember the genocide at Megiddo and the total Roman war against the Jewish lands...
The Bible's true meaning had become obscured by pagan Rome for centuries. The very need for "reformation" went on long after Luther.
Also, the Jews were a problem to Hitler and the Christians. Just as there are radical dictators and radical Christians there were also radical Jews in Hitler's time and even still today. Judaism is not immune to radicals. This radical Jewish sect is what the Christian Church allied with Hitler for. I'm sure many people did not at first realized how Hitler planned to rid Europe of the these "radical Jews", and other undesirables... I am in not way condoning Hitler's response to what (the Jews) may have been a radical sect to begin with. I am sure not saying that Hitler was a logical response created by radical Judaism. I do not know who to really blame for such times.
The big question is... Was it conquer the Jews or be conquered by them to Hitler? What did being conquered by the Jews mean to non Jews... death? Daily stoning and public ridicule? Even today a large part of Judaism is still a confusion of legalistic chaos.
As for Martin Luther... Luther had a intolerant disposition concerning many/most subjects and spoke grotesque and harshly of almost everything he disliked... Just because Luther had harsh words for these "radical" Jews only shows that there may have been radical Jews that were doing terrible deeds and Luther was against terrible deeds no matter who did them...
Had the Jews had enough of an army to overthrow Hitler would they have exterminated the Germans?
When the United States fought Hitler we deposed him and we, as a dominantly Christian nation, spread democracy there and freedom of religion along with it...
This freedom which is spoken of as "liberty" comes from the Bible...
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Comment:
2000 years later there are still religions divided, sex wars and "third world" countries with caste and class... This cannot be blamed on the Bible when the Bible so long ago called the world to unity over division...
Ephesians 4:3
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Foxfyre wrote:No Christian that I know advocates war. But many Christians understand that the absence of war is not always peace. When the choice is between the lesser of two evils, war can be a reasonable choice. Jesus did not advocate war but he understood the inevitablility of it as long as there are evil people on earth: "There will always be wars and rumors of war."
neologist wrote:Foxfyre wrote: . . .Would Christians be more "Christian" had they allowed Hitler to exterminate the rest of the Jews? What virtue is there in not stopping the rapist or the murderer or the robber or the rogue nation bent on doing violence to its people or its neighbor? . . .
I should point out that it was the 'christians', both Catholic and Protestant, in Hitler's camp who were exterminating the Jews in the first place.
Foxfyre wrote:No. They may have claimed to be Christian, but no Christian would do that.
Realizing that you have provided yourself enough wiggle room to drive a Mack truck through in the bolded quotes, and that you probably do not know personally George Bush, I would still like to ask a question.
Is George W. Bush a Christian by your definition of a real Christian?
Mesquite,
I think that is a very unfair question. I don't know if Foxfyre would agree or not and I am sure she can handle the answer very well.
But, as for me, I can only tell you this, only God knows the hearts of man and whether they are truly a Christian or not. Just because someone commits an unChristianlike act, it does not mean they are not a Christian.
True MommaAngel. But we can be fairly certain that those acting out of the Christian faith would not exterminate millions of Jews. Instead you have an Oscar Schindler who acts of his Christian faith to right wrongs in the best way that he can.
The non-religious hold up this person or that person who is identified with a religious group as definitive proof that this is what a Christian is. Well, Lenin and Stalin were professed athiests and millions of innocents died at their order. Do the athiests here identify with those two? I would guess they do not.
As to whether George W. Bush is a Christian, that is not for me or anybody else other than GWB to say. Nor is it for me or anybody else other than GWB to say that he is not. All I have is his testimony and his actions to go by as being what I think a Christian would or would not do when acting from his/her Christian faith. And I don't claim to be the last word on that subject either.
