Evidence for God from Science

Once4all wrote: Do you think the Inquisition and the Crusades were justified? Do you think Jesus would have approved? If he wouldn't approve of Christians killing people for the sake of His kingdom, why would you think he'd approve of Christians killing people for reasons outside the kingdom?

But never mind. I don't seek to prove myself the victor nor argue with a fellow Christian.

O

Yes, I do think they were justified, and that's about as far as I'll go in this conversation.

Felgar wrote:I've been staying out of this thread because I don't want to affect it. I am very interested on hearing arguments for both sides, and this is because I myself am very torn about the whole issue.

On one hand, I don't believe that Christians have the right to take another life, mainly because we may be sending an unprepared soul to their doom. I also completely agree with The Edge that the kingdom in which we ARE to fight is the spiritual kingdom where we fight the principalities of darkness. Jesus' second commandment is to love our neighbour, and no matter how you look at it, shooting him is not love! In my mind this verse presents stong evidence that we should never fight. Jesus clearly instructed his own disciples not to fight - and even after Jesus was gone His disciples were executed themselves without taking up arms.

John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Then we have the other side of me. The side that is so grateful for the past generation who fought for my freedom and liberty. How can I in good conscience condemn war while enjoying so much of my life which is a direct result of it? Clearly Hitler was evil and needed to be stopped; how could I ever justify not stopping it?

So then, I challenge anyone to provide solid scriptural evidence (from the new testament because Jesus set up his new spiritual kingdom) that condones or encourages war for just causes. Dan's argument about the centurion is a start, and it's something I hadn't previously considered. It's hardly convincing though.

P.S. Again, Revelations doesn't count because that is the mark of the end of this phase of God's plan that we now live in. From the time of Christ to the time of his return we are to live a certain way, and from what I can tell that doesn't include fighting ourselves, even though there will always be war.

That's kind of tough when there are few situations where the lives of others were in the hands of the apostles. None of them ever were in the scenario where there is a rowdy man with a huge club walking down the road and threatens to kill all the children in town. In this situation, judging from the OT, the Christian is supposed to subdue the man with the club. First without force, but if that doesn't work, the lives of the children are at stake.

The same thing applies to war, the Christian must protect his people in the events that a rampaging evil army threatens to destroy all the innocent people. He has to take up arms because if he doesn't he is allowing sin to happen to others. When Christ spoke of conflict and fighting He always spoke of personal affliction and submission. He never said much about fighting for another person's safety.

Dan wrote:The same thing applies to war, the Christian must protect his people in the events that a rampaging evil army threatens to destroy all the innocent people. He has to take up arms because if he doesn't he is allowing sin to happen to others. When Christ spoke of conflict and fighting He always spoke of personal affliction and submission. He never said much about fighting for another person's safety.

But at the same time I've given strong evidence from the New Testament that fighting is prohibited, first out of love for our enemies, and second through the example of Christ and His disciples.

So what I'm looking for is scriptural support from the New Testament advocating or at least condoning war; and if you can't provide that then I don't think your position is strong enough to live by. I was challenged in the same way and was ultimately knocked off your position (though I'm not sold the other way either).

If fignting for justice is right..then Jesus won't need to die...because He allowed injustice to happen to himself.
Same with the Apostle.

So far the only route as shown in NT for people facing persecution is to run/flee.
This may seem cruel, but in the end, when protecting the innocent from the war, what we've done is merely protecting their physical body. There's still no bearing in their spiritual lives. Yes, some may argue that protecting their lives give them a greater chance to respond to the gospel...but that's another question altogether about pple perishing without hearing the gospel.
So in the end, instead of spending our energy fighting the enemy, why don't we spend the last ounce of it telling their time is almost at hand. Believe or perish.
The attitude of non-agression may even perhaps be a gospel message to the enemy itself.
Yes, countries that allowed walk thru may suffer the consequence of a evil Lord ...e.g. the Jews in Germany itself. But again what's destroyed is the physical boby. The process of suffering & dying may itself be a lesson that God has for the individual.

I'm thankful for my past liberator, but yet, no one knows, what would become of my country or the world had US not drop the BOMB & the War ended with the Japanese/German as the world victor.
The Emperor would just have a bigger land mass to govern. If all are submissive, I'm sure he will rule the country/world with equal amount of wisdom/benevolence/stupidity the same way he'll govern Japan alone.

Felgar wrote: But at the same time I've given strong evidence from the New Testament that fighting is prohibited, first out of love for our enemies, and second through the example of Christ and His disciples.

So what I'm looking for is scriptural support from the New Testament advocating or at least condoning war; and if you can't provide that then I don't think your position is strong enough to live by. I was challenged in the same way and was ultimately knocked off your position (though I'm not sold the other way either).

Why just the NT? God ordered war repeatedly in the OT. If it wasn't agreeable with His position, He wouldn't have done it. God doesn't make people sin, remember?

Mastermind wrote:Why just the NT?

Because Jesus changed the nature of our relationship with God, so that the old law was done away with. Obviously there are some definitions of morality found in the OT that are universal and carry through, but at the same time the law itself is done with. And it will remain so until Jesus returns.

Hebrews 8:7-13
For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
his is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Felgar wrote:

Mastermind wrote:Why just the NT?

Because Jesus changed the nature of our relationship with God, so that the old law was done away with. Obviously there are some definitions of morality found in the OT that are universal and carry through, but at the same time the law itself is done with. And it will remain so until Jesus returns.

The wars fought in the OT had nothing to do with the law of the OT. God didn't have a law that says "Thou shalt go to war and kick heathen ass" that Jesus got rid of. If war was necessariy, they went to war. It's as simple as that. Pacifism means self destruction by the very laws that this universe was made of by God Himself. To side with that is to side with death.

Mastermind wrote:It's as simple as that. Pacifism means self destruction by the very laws that this universe was made of by God Himself. To side with that is to side with death.

Well that's the choice the apostles made - who's to say they were wrong?

Felgar wrote:

Mastermind wrote:It's as simple as that. Pacifism means self destruction by the very laws that this universe was made of by God Himself. To side with that is to side with death.

Well that's the choice the apostles made - who's to say they were wrong?

The apostles didn't haul bricks either. Let's stop doing that too. The apostles didn't chop wood, or mine, or craft. Let's stop doing those too. The fact remains that they weren't soldiers or kings. They were teachers and religious leaders. There was no reason for them to wage wars.

Mastermind wrote:

Felgar wrote:

Mastermind wrote:It's as simple as that. Pacifism means self destruction by the very laws that this universe was made of by God Himself. To side with that is to side with death.

Well that's the choice the apostles made - who's to say they were wrong?

The apostles didn't haul bricks either. Let's stop doing that too. The apostles didn't chop wood, or mine, or craft. Let's stop doing those too. The fact remains that they weren't soldiers or kings. They were teachers and religious leaders. There was no reason for them to wage wars.

It does come across to me that u're restricting war to just pple whoes proffession is a soldier.
When war occurs, regardless, who u're most will take up arms. The question here still is, could we draw lesson from the apostle testimonies with regards to preventing in justice from occuring to people to the extend physical force is used.

The edge wrote: It does come across to me that u're restricting war to just pple whoes proffession is a soldier.
When war occurs, regardless, who u're most will take up arms. The question here still is, could we draw lesson from the apostle testimonies with regards to preventing in justice from occuring to people to the extend physical force is used.

When were the apostles put in a situation that required them to either fight or allow innocent people to be slaughtered like pigs?

Mastermind wrote:When were the apostles put in a situation that required them to either fight or allow innocent people to be slaughtered like pigs?

They allowed each other to be slaughtered. And besides, you were claiming that we should fight in our own self defence as well as for the innocent. The apostles didn't fight in their own self defence.

The bottom line is that your position is does NOT correspond to Jesus' teachings. It's therefore non-biblical and until you prove otherwise I have to stand against it.

Felgar wrote:

Mastermind wrote:When were the apostles put in a situation that required them to either fight or allow innocent people to be slaughtered like pigs?

They allowed each other to be slaughtered. And besides, you were claiming that we should fight in our own self defence as well as for the innocent. The apostles didn't fight in their own self defence.

I highly doubt I said we SHOULD. I said we can if we want to. If you want to make yourself a martyr then by all means do but don't say that we HAVE to allow ourselves to be killed everytime somebody feels like wiping us out.

The bottom line is that your position is does NOT correspond to Jesus' teachings. It's therefore non-biblical and until you prove otherwise I have to stand against it.

No, it is you who has to prove to me that Jesus never said to protect the innocent or to defend myself. I haven't seen one shred of biblical verse to support your position, just opinion. Give me one verse in which Jesus says not to defend ourselves or others and I will consider it. Until then I couldn't care less what you do, but if a servant of satan tries to take a life or hurt somebody, I'll be the brick wall blocking his way and the hammer that falls if he doesn't stop.

I'd also like to point out that Jesus had a perfect occasion to denounce roman imperialistic policies. He never did, even though we know He risked His life twice(and thus had no reason to fear the romans who would have tried to kill Him for it).

I don't know what's gotten to me, but I'm agreeing with Mastermind. Felgar, yes, the apostles did allow themselves to be martyred, but they were submitting to the government, and they would not have had a chance fighting back.

The bottom line is that your position is does NOT correspond to Jesus' teachings. It's therefore non-biblical and until you prove otherwise I have to stand against it.

I'm coming to the party a bit late, so forgive me if I have the central issue of the thread wrong. I'm not sure I agree with your statement above, Felgar. We all agree that judgment is God's alone, and that we should treat our enemies with respect and love. However, I hope we also agree that according to the Bible, we know the difference between right and wrong, and what justice constitutes according to God.

We further learn this:
"Romans 13:1-5 (NIV)
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. "

Here it is written that God has delegated some of His authority to the government, and as such, the government has the right to pursue wars against evil and to administer justice. The passage above gives the government the right to bear the sword against these people.

God wills that human justice hold sway among governments, and between citizens and civil authority. He does not prescribe that governments always turn the other cheek. The government "does not bear the sword for nothing." Police have the God-given right to use force to restrain evil and bring law-breakers to justice. And legitimate states have the God-given right to restrain life-threatening aggression and bring criminals to justice. If these truths are known, this God-ordained exercise of divine prerogative would glorify the justice of God who mercifully ordains that the flood of sin and misery be restrained in the earth.

Therefore, we will magnify the mercy of God by praying for our enemies to be saved and reconciled to God. At the personal level we will be willing to suffer for their everlasting good, and we will give them food and drink. We will put away malicious hatred and private vengeance. But at the public level we will also magnify the justice of God by praying and working for justice to be done on the earth, if necessary through wise and measured force from God-ordained authority.