My point is that there's no law against fighting in a military force.
It's clearly against the spirit of New Testament Christianity. Love, mercy, and forgiveness are not compatable with military values.
You have the wrong concept of patriotism. Patriotism is not loyalty to government, but to a country.
But "country" is
synonymous with "government!" Loyalty to 'countryside' or geographical region is "environmentalism", not patriotism.
This is made clear to me all the time. When asked about my nationality or country I always reply that I'm a North American. It's clear from the reaction I get that people do not equate geographical region with 'country'.
As individuals, yes. If someone slaps me across the face in an argument, I'm supposed to turn the other cheek. If someone hates me, and trys to destroy, it's my duty to forgive them.
Everything we do is done, and judged by God, as an individual act. We are
individually responsible for our every action. If I sin on the order of another person the sin is on me. If I sin on the orders of a thousand other persons, a million, a Congress or a President, the sin still redounds completely to me, individually.
These commandments are not binding on the nation-state or anything other then the individual Christian, or the Christian Church. Would you say that the Bible's commandments against fornication, homosexuality are binding on society? Why would "love thy neigbor" be binding then?
"Society" and the "nation-state" are
individuals, not some extra-individual organism.
The Bible says blessed are the peacemakers, true. That's not a commandment against war.
Secondly, the Bible's reference to "beating swords into plowshares" is not commandment; it's prohecy.
You are nitpicking. I think the gist of Christ's teachings is clear -- peace, love, tolerance, forgiveness -- in short, most of Jesus' values are the diametric opposite of military values.
Though we agree at first, we disagree in the better part of this comment. Only man's law contradicts our ability to serve God, are we supposed to be disobediant. If there was a law passed outlawing criticism of the government, Christians are supposed to let it go. If there was a law passed, on the other hand, outlawing evangelism we have to disobey.
I agree. God's law trumps man's. If we're told to return evil for evil or to attack our enemies (or worse, attack someone else's enemies), we have to disobey.
Not true. How did God treat dissidents as Sinai? In the wildreness?
He killed them.
God was always killing people in the Old Testament. Hew was a regular
Genocide Incorporated. He made Pol Pot look like Mother Theresa! However, the Christian (new) Testament, paints a whole different picture of God.
The two divine personalities do not seem to me compatable. Choose one -- as a Christian your choice should be clear.
In re: dissidents. It's the organized church that hates dissidents. God likes dissidents if their dissent is Biblically motivated. Jesus and his motly entourage were the ultimate dissidents.
I think that we can agree that is not patriotism. Nazism was a nationalistic, not a patriotic, ideaology. The same way that communism is an internationalist ideaology.
Nationalism is to patriotism what a cold is to pneumonia. Both are problamatic. One is just a more virulent strain.
My contention is that fighting in a war is not a sin. As far as God taking sides goes, I don't think He cares. The Bible that the nations are a drop in the bucket -as opposed to Israel. God only has eyes for Israel; He couldn't care less about nations; their wars; their problems; their politics.
My contention is that the acts required of a warrior are in violation of Christian values, and, therefore, sin.
Your idea that God only cares about Israel I find quite astonishing. Is your allegience to Israel, then, and not the US?
I'm for a country defending its interests, and otherwise leaving everyone else alone. For example, had I been old enough at the time, I would have opposed our intervention in WW2 on the grounds our interests were not at stake, and thus it was none of our business.
I see no problem with a country pursuing its own interests, as long as that pursuit did not harm the interests of other countries. That would not be neighborly, fair or just.
A historical aside: I find your reference to WW II interesting. Are you aware that Roosevelt had implemented a secret program to
force the Japanese into an overt, bellicose act? The US, at that time,
needed a war; would benefit economically from a war, but without some clear offensive act isolationist public opinion would not support it.
I know this sounds bizarre. The program was declassified only a few years ago and hasn't yet made it into mainstream history texts. Its known to historians, however, and you can probably Google for more information or the actual documents/minutes.
What are you talking about? Is internationalism somehow better?
Absolutely! "Internationalism" as you put it, is family values, co-operation and neighborliness writ large.
Where in the Bible does it say this? Let's reason for a second. God is aware that humans segregate in the nation-state. Therefore, He will take that into acount. Therefore, patriotism is a natural side affect. God will not hold it against you if you love your country. The Bible says "set your affections on things above, not on things of this earth", but that is not a definition of a Christian.
??? -- This does not follow.
Non sequitur est.
God says: "Love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself". I don't think He makes any distinction betwen a neighbor a block away or an ocan away.
So we can't take orders a boss at work then? From a police officer?
As long as they do not command us to sin... I refer you back to your previous comment on evangelism.
What you seem to be leaning towards here is not Biblism; it's anarchy. God doesn't like anarchy.
How do you translate conducting your life in accordance with Christ's teachings as anarchy???? Isn't God our Archon!
I know people who say they are/were called to join the military to witness in the military. That means that they have to follow orders -that may mean they'll have to fight.
God is not against war in the sense that He uses it, and it's one of His curses on humanity.
So you're saying that God approves of war, even uses it Himself? This is some serious Old Testament, un-Christian thinking! Are you advocating embracing this "curse" -- even as we have the capacity to reject it? Even as our rejection would be of benefit to us?
How bizarre....
He was anti-slavery. He supported the abolition of slavery. Do you know what he did for blacks? He tried to educate black children, lift them up for a time when they wouldn't any longer be slaves.
Why is it that God always seems to be supporting
current social values while denouncing those of yesterday?
150 years ago many churches, and many proper Christians, argued that slavery was biblically sanctioned. They made a good case for it. Where does the bible speak out against slavery? Nowhere that I know of. Slavery was an accepted social institution.
The Baptists had a schism over the question that continues to this day.Those arguing for abolition were rebels and dissidents (and we know how God feels about
them!
)
That's what I'm trying to tell you: fighting for your earthly country is not violating any laws. The Bible calls God a "man of war" -and He used it to set up His people, and His people had to kill for it. At the same time, though, He said "thou shalt not kill". Is He a hypocrite? Of course not. There's obviously a differentiation between war and murder.
You are correct. He said, in fact: "Thou shalt not
murder." But, as a Christian, you are enjoined to place the values of Christ over those of the biased and belligerant God of the OT -- (the God you say roots only for Israel).
Be consistent. Don't cherry-pick. Choose one Testament or the other. Choose a God of war supporting a little group of middle eastern Bedouins, or choose a God of love for all mankind.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
God doesn't align with hippy values. God hates rebellion to the point that He likens it to witchcraft. As I said, we're only supposed to disobey the law when it violates the Bible, and only then discreetly. We're not supposed to be openly rebellious as hippies are, because we're not rebelling: we're following God.
Christians are only supposed to disobey laws when they directly interfere with our ability to do God's will. For example, if tommorow the government made it illegal to proselyte, we'd have to disobey. If tomorrow the government made it a law, for example, to pledge alliegence to the flag over everything else, we'd have to disobey. If the government made a law instituting slavery, we're not supposed to oppose it, as it doesn't inhibit our ability to do God's word.
I think you have a skewed view of Hippies/Quakers/Menonites(same values). Hippies
are "openly rebellious" against anti-Biblical laws and customs, and, thus, are often 'despitefully used.' How do you see your own dissidence in opposing laws you see as ungodly/immoral as different from ours?
