Re: The evil within us
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:59 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
1over137 wrote:Let us assume I was a king - ruler.
In my country abortion would be prohibited.
So such doctor would end in prison.
Disclaimer: this comment is not necessarily directed at you Hana, it is just a general comment to anyone that says killing is morally justified to protect innocent lives.
So you would kill Hitler or ISIS because they are killing innocent people, but you wouldn't kill an abortion doctor who kills innocent children?
The fact is abortion clinics are legal in most western countries, yet you seem to say killing them is wrong, but killing Hitler or ISIS members is ok, forgive me but can't you see the hypocrisy in that?
If killing can be justified because you are protecting innocent people, then killing doctors who perform abortions should be morally justified. We could even take this further to include drug traffickers like they do in places like Indonesia, we could also extend this to drunk drivers and many other groups of people who are putting innocent lives on the chopping block.
It's starting to seem a little like living in an Islamic state now where legalism is rife and the rule of law outweighs love and forgiveness.
Maybe Christians should start bombing abortions clinics again, after all they are protecting innocent lives.
Perhaps we should also kill the mother since she may be inclined to do it again.
Abortionists have killed more people than the Holocaust and you just want to lock them up in jail, but that Hitler guy can have his head blown off.
Re: The evil within us
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:21 am
by Storyteller
I don`t believe pacifism (is that spelt right?) is a weak stance to take. Was Gandhi not a pacifist? Look at what he achieved.
I do not see killing as evil, but it does depend on circumstance.
Abortion is a whole different issue. Personally, I think it`s wrong but there are exceptions. A young girl gets raped, falls pregnant, would you really blame her if she aborted the baby? I would hope that in that kind of situation the mother would be able to see that she has still been given a gift, a child, but I can understand why, in this case, abortion would be an option. Is it evil?
I think it`s very difficult to define evil.
I think we are all capable of evil, the same as we are all capable of love and forgiveness.
Re: The evil within us
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:02 am
by Katabole
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Hitler killed many millions during his exploits as Fuhrer. But millions more died attempting to defeat him. They gave their lives so that their brothers and sisters could live. The house next to my mother's childhood home in England was firebombed by the Nazi's in 1942. My Dad was in the Merchant Marine during WWII delivering supplies to England from 1940-44 in the convoys because he claimed it was the right thing to do. I know and have known veterans who claim they would fight again to the death if faced with tyranny. And many if not all veterans I know, were Christians and moral persons.
Backwoods Tennessee farmer Alvin C. York, was the highest-decorated American soldier of World War I.
In the Battle of the Argonne Forest on October 18, 1918, Corporal (later Sergeant) York, singlehandedly killed 25 German soldiers, knocked out 35 machine guns that were pouring deadly fire upon his platoon and captured 132 prisoners.
York's extraordinary exploit was all the more remarkable in view of the fact that he had applied for conscientious objector status when drafted.
A wild, hard-drinking young man, York had found God shortly before the war and had begun to live his life according to his understanding of the Bible. Foremost among York's concerns was the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." As his denomination did not specifically prohibit service in war, York's application for conscientious objector status was denied.
During basic training, York struggled with the moral issue of killing human beings, debating religion and patriotic duty with his superior officers and even refusing to shoot at targets in the form of human silhouettes.
Praying for God's guidance, York ultimately decided to go overseas and fight alongside his battalion. He attributed his decision to Matthew 22:21: "Therefore render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". He felt that God was telling him that his duty to his fellow soldiers and his country was not incompatible with his duty to his Creator.
Following his heroic exploit in the Argonne, York told his superiors that he was as much against killing as ever, but that he had to kill "to save lives."
Is it permissible for a Christian to kill "to save lives"? The Sergeant York example I give raises significant philosophical and moral issues, issues that weigh heavily on Christians.
Can Christians be involved in wars as combatants or is that evil? Is bearing arms contrary to Christian doctrine? If God showed up on the battlefield, what would he say? Did not David claim in the Psalms, "Oh Lord, who teaches my hands to war, my arms to bend the bow," (Psalm 18:34; 144:1)
The teachings of Jesus focus on the principle of love including love even for one's enemies. But does that mean a Christian should never kill another human being, under any circumstances? Is war philosophically irreconcilable with Christianity?
All Christians share a common concern about violence and war. All agree that nonviolence is, in principle, preferable to violence. No one disputes that the Christian ideal is brotherly love among all peoples and the elimination of war.
But we live in a fallen world, a world dominated by greed and self-interest, a world of competing ideologies and conflicting ambitions. War has been a fact of life since the beginning of human history. It originates in man's sinful nature, from uncontrolled passions and insatiable desires that war within the human heart (James 4:1-2). Even Jacob and his twin brother Esau fought in the womb.
One day this will change. Wars will end and swords will be beaten into plowshares. But what should we do in the meantime?
Four Christian Views
There is no single doctrine of war among Christians. Four classical views have evolved over the centuries. Orthodox Christianity accepts all approaches as legitimate moral choices. They are:
1. Pacifism. Pacifism holds that all war is morally wrong, and that Christians should not participate in warfare in any way.
Pacifists take the "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" admonitions of Matthew 5 literally. "How can we love our enemies when we're killing them?" they ask.
Pacifists, in fact, regard all violence as inherently wrong. According to strict pacifist interpretations, Christians must never use force, even in personal self-defense. They must always be ready to absorb violence without resistance or retaliation. Pacifists see it as logically inconsistent and hypocritical to make allowances on the personal level for that which they condemn on the national and international level.
Even calling the police to report a crime is viewed as un-Christian by many pacifists, because it is, in effect, a request for "vengeance," carrying with it the potential for violent confrontation.
Pacifists argue that Christians who condone violence and warfare rely more on philosophical argument than on biblical exegesis. They believe that Christians have become corrupted by values that are part of the secular world. Rather than separating themselves from worldly practices (Romans 12:2), Christians have conformed to secular society.
Christians must realize that they have a "new identity" in Christ, pacifists advise. They are part of the Kingdom of God "Christ's ambassadors" (2 Corinthians 5:20) with "citizenship in heaven" (Philippians 3:20), and must not become entangled in this world's affairs.
Pacifists make the point that one's loyalties and obligations to God have an important bearing on one's loyalties and obligations within society. When there is a conflict between obeying God or obeying one's government, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
To accommodate such views, many countries allow pacifists to apply for conscientious objector status. Conscientious objection is the refusal, on moral grounds, to serve in the armed forces or to support military action. Nations with mandatory military service usually allow conscientious objectors to perform alternative community service.
2. Nonresistance. This view takes its name from Matthew 5:39: "Do not resist an evil person." It holds that Christians can participate in war, but only as noncombatant; medics, mechanics, cooks, quartermasters and the like. They regard such functions as "doing good," while not personally resisting the enemy by bearing arms and inflicting injury.
Proponents of this view emphasize that the requirement of nonresistance is laid upon the people of God only. The unbelieving world has no such obligation. War is lawful for a duly constituted government and its non-Christian citizens.
Christians, however, do not have to oppose the war effort of their own nation. They can perform their responsibilities to their government in everything except actively resisting the enemy with carnal weapons.
It is not inconsistent with biblical teaching to defend oneself and one's loved ones. Love requires action to protect human life. Self-defense is not revenge, but the restraining of further evil.
3. Just War. This is the view held by most Christians throughout history. It argues that a war waged in support of a nation's right to a peaceful existence. In other words, a defensive war against an aggressor is "just" and biblically permissible.
Advocates of the just war theory feel that pacifists and non-resistors practice a selective reading of the scriptures. They isolate the New Testament's love your enemies ethic, misinterpret it, and use it to evade their responsibilities to their fellow human beings. Some go so far as to charge that pacifism is immoral, being tantamount to an unconditional surrender to evil.
Just war advocates argue that Matthew 5 has to be understood in the context of other passages, such as Romans 13. Life is a gift from God, to be cherished, honored and protected. Warfare is therefore permissible if it seeks to protect and defend innocent lives.
The just war viewpoint emphasizes the Christian duty to work for the betterment of the world. Righteous men and women must stand against evil. If they make no attempt to affect the world for good, they have no standing to decry its evils. Thus, engaging in war for the purpose of self-defense in the face of unprovoked aggression is right before God.
Such a "just war" is not the war of James 4, where the aggressors lust and kill and "desire to have." It is not a war motivated by national ambitions or personal egocentricity. Instigating such a war is clearly unbiblical.
4. Preventive War. The concept of a "preventive war" also called a war in the cause of justice, goes beyond the "just war" theory. It sees war as legitimate not only in response to aggression, but also in anticipation of it.
Proponents argue that if self defense is biblically permissible, then why would it not also be permissible to act in anticipation of an impending threat? Should we sit idly by, waiting for the enemy to deal the first blow, and thereby needlessly risk the lives of our citizens?
No, say proponents of this view. In the face of a clear and present danger, Christians may legitimately go to war to prevent an attack. A preventive or preemptive strike is fully justifiable.
But there is a further dimension to the preventive war theory. It also views war as a legitimate means of correcting gross injustices. Christian nations must stand against those who use their power to hurt the innocent, regardless of where such crimes are perpetrated.
When outrageous and heinous behavior occur, ISIS for example, Christians are obligated, proponents contend, to stand against moral evil as agents of God. In the face of extreme injustice, Christians are duty bound to help lift the yoke of oppression from peoples being victimized by evil rulers, or to come to the aid of innocent nations whose existence is threatened by aggressive outside powers.
Since the majority Christian view allows for participation in war, the scriptural support for this position should be closely examined and considered.
"Just war" and "preventive war" advocates note that at the very beginning of human history, God set out the principle that "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6). This precept was reemphasized in Exodus 21:23-25, in the so-called "law of retaliation": "You are to take life for life, eye for eye."
Further, there is no biblical commandment against killing. The sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13) declares: "You shall not murder." Several Hebrew verbs mean "kill"; this verse specifically means "a premeditated homicide."
The execution of criminals for serious crimes and the taking of human lives in war were never regarded as murder in Old Testament times. Nor was killing in self defense punishable as a crime under Old Testament law.
War was a terrible reality in the Old Testament world. God used wars to execute his judgments upon evil nations. The very title "Lord of hosts" indicates a God of battle. In the song of Moses, Yahweh was declared to be "a man of war" (Exodus 15:3). With few exceptions, all 20-year-old males were liable for military duty in ancient Israel.
The patriarch Abraham waged war against Kedorlaomer, king of Elam (Genesis 14). His objective was to rescue his nephew Lot and his family, who had been taken captive during a raid. Advocates of Christian participation in war observe that "the father of the faithful" (as the apostle Paul called Abraham) didn't simply forgive Kedorlaomer and leave Lot to a life of slavery. He went after the aggressors, attacked and defeated them.
"But that's the Old Testament," pacifists answer. "In the New Testament, the emphasis is on the principle of love and nonviolence."
Just war theorists counter that by claiming the law of love at work in the Old Testament as well as in the New. And although the New Testament has little to say specifically on the subject of war, general principles can be drawn, they observe. And those principles support the legitimacy of maintaining armies and waging war.
Here are a few key scriptures, as understood in the context of the just war and preventive war theories.
Luke 3:14. "Then some soldiers asked him [John the Baptist], 'And what should we do?' He replied, 'Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely; be content with your pay.'" John condemned not the profession itself, but the unethical practices associated with it. He nowhere advised soldiers to leave the military.
Matthew 8:10. "I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith." Jesus thus praised the extraordinary faith of the Roman centurion in Capernaum. Jesus did not oppose earthly governments or their right to maintain armies, nor participation of the faithful in those armies.
Matthew 10:34. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Christ came to bring peace between people and God. But the inevitable result of Jesus' coming is conflict between good and evil on the earth.
Luke 22:36-38. "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Thus Jesus warned his disciples of perilous times to come. They would need defense and protection. These are not the words of a pacifist. (This does not conflict with Jesus' forbidding Peter to use a sword in a religious cause, Matthew 26:52; John 18:36.)
John 2:15. "So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area...." Jesus violently drove the money changers from the outer court of the Temple. The Greek language implies that he used the whip on the money changers as well as on the sheep and oxen. Physical force can be applied with justice.
Matthew 5:9. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." Peace is rarely the product of appeasement.
Matthew 5:39. "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." A slap on the cheek is an insult, but certainly an insufficient provocation for violence. Christians are to go out of their way to avoid conflict and live in a peaceable manner.
But those efforts will not always succeed. What about a more serious injury than a slap? To suggest that Jesus is requiring Christians to be passive victims of violence, abuse and exploitation is taking the scripture far beyond its intent.
Some commentators have also suggested that Jesus' advice involved a special circumstance. If his followers at that time had replied to Roman violence in kind, they would have been swiftly crushed, and the fledgling Christian cause, extinguished. It should also be noted that Jesus himself did not quietly turn the other cheek when slapped, but boldly protested the affront (John 18:22-23).
Understood in its own context and that of other scriptures, "turning the other cheek" does not support an attitude of non-resistant pacifism in the global arena.
Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies..." Is there an incompatibility between love and the taking of human life? A Christian never delights in the killing of people. But one can actively oppose a criminal without hating him. God had told the Israelites that when they practiced capital punishment or genocide, that they were to show the perpetrators no pity or mercy and there was to be no treaty. But that did not mean that they were to hate them. (Deuteronomy 7:2). Through the centuries, devout soldiers with deeply held Christian convictions have shown that it is indeed possible to overcome hate in one's heart and kill without a vengeful spirit of hatred.
"Loving one's enemy" does not mean accepting what he has done and allowing him to avoid responsibility for it. Love sometimes calls upon Christians to restrain an enemy that seeks to harm the innocent. Seeking justice is not inconsistent with loving and forgiving the perpetrators. An enemy can be challenged in love. We can forgive him, but he still has to live with the consequences of his actions and sometimes die because of them.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was saying that Christians should not lash out in revenge, returning evil for evil. Vengeance and vindictiveness have no place in the Christian life. But it is not inconsistent with biblical teaching to defend oneself and one's loved ones. Love requires action to protect human life. Self-defense is not revenge, but the restraining of further evil.
Acts 10:2. This sympathetic reference to the "devout and God-fearing" centurion Cornelius implies an acceptance of the worthiness of a military career.
Ephesians 6:10-17; 2 Timothy 2:3-4. These and other military allusions of the apostle Paul do not square with a pacifist orientation. A pacifist would never use martial imagery in a positive context. Jesus also used illustrations of war and battle to convey spiritual lessons (Luke 14:31). The New Testament does not renounce using the physical equivalents of spiritual weapons.
Hebrews 11. Military men are among those recognized as heroes of the faith.
Romans 12:17-19. "Do not repay anyone evil for evil... If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone... Do not take revenge...." Notice that Paul says, "if it is possible." Many people are not possible to get along with. Christians are to cultivate peace with everyone to the extent possible.
Hatred and vengeance must not shape our actions. But there is a difference between vengeance taken with a hateful heart and appropriate self defense. Retributive justice is not the same thing as revenge. There is an appropriate use of force that is neither vengeful nor vicious, and is aimed at seeking peace and justice.
Romans 13. In this key chapter, the apostle Paul teaches that civil government is ordained by God and should be supported by Christians. Paul was no anarchist.
Those in authority, Paul notes, do not bear the sword for nothing. "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (verse 4).
Here is an unambiguous biblical endorsement of the use of the sword for the maintenance of good order. As long as there are those who are bent on doing evil and victimizing innocent, law-abiding citizens, then police and military will be necessary to restrain evil and protect the weak and innocent.
God has given human governments authority in the physical sphere. And nowhere in Scripture does one find a prohibition on Christians having full participation in legitimate governmental functions, including the right to use arms to restrain and punish evildoers.
All Christians, however, can agree on this: Prayer can help resolve conflicts!
Physical warfare exists because spiritual warfare exists. There is an underlying spiritual controversy between God and Lucifer. The power of darkness is continually attempting to subvert the purposes of God. The apostle Paul acknowledged this spiritual warfare when he wrote that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the spiritual forces of evil" (Ephesians 6:12).
The clear mandate for all Christians, therefore, is to pray that evil will be restrained, and that the innocent will be protected. Prayer combats the evil forces ultimately responsible for violence and wars. This victory can be won only with spiritual weapons.
Further, it must be kept continually in mind that God will bless those nations that honor him. (Psalm 33:10-17). The strength of a nation is in its devotion to God, not in the size of its armed forces. This is not to diminish the need for a strong defense, but to remind us that our ultimate confidence must be placed in God.
Christians must not let the promise of the final removal of war distract them from working for its elimination here and now. We must reach out to all humanity, working to change enemies into friends, working to remove the causes of suffering, working to change the world for the better in every way possible.
For some Christians, this effort will involve participating in armed conflicts. Each individual is responsible before God for his own decision in that regard.
Regardless of our personal views and convictions, we can all thank God for the courageous men and women who fight against the evildoers of this world (some we know personally) and especially those who at this very moment, face peril far from home.
Many like Sgt. Alvin York and General George C. Marshall are soldiers of deep spiritual faith, who prove their courage and character by fighting and sometimes dying for God and country.
Alvin York carried a Bible with him and read it through five times during his stay in the army. "It was my rock to cling to," he wrote in his diary. And so it is with countless others who bear arms.
The early church fathers were divided on the subject. As early Christians had no role in government, and were generally not subject to conscription, the issue was largely academic.
But the issue became important after the Roman Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, legalizing Christianity in an empire that used warfare as a means of preserving its power.
Beginning in the 4th century, the church began developing criteria for determining when war was morally justified. Augustine held that while war is evil, it is justifiable as a last resort, after peaceful options if any have been exhausted. "Love does not preclude a benevolent severity," he wrote.
Augustine attempted to define a "just war." His principles were later refined by Thomas Aquinas. Though the list has numerous variations, most formulations include the following conditions for a just resort to arms:
1. legitima auctoritas (legitimate authority): A just war has to be formally declared and waged by a proper governmental authority, not by a private group or individual.
2. justa causa (just cause): It has to be waged for a morally legitimate purpose, such as in response to grave damage inflicted by an aggressor; only a defensive war is legitimate.
3. recta intentio (right intention): It must have the intention of establishing a good order or correcting an evil one; a just peace must be secured for all involved.
4. debitus modus (the right way of conducting a war): Lethal force may be directed only at the aggressors; civilians and noncombatants may not be intentionally harmed.
The Crusades (1095-1291) aimed at recovering the Holy Land from the Muslims fell short of these criteria in the view of some churchmen. Most Christians, however, supported these religious wars due to the violence Muslims used to spread their faith.
The Protestant leaders of the Reformation accepted the use of violence and warfare. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others viewed war as unavoidable, often a necessary evil in the furtherance of righteous causes. The Swiss reformer Zwingli was killed in battle.
When civil war divided England in the 17th century, Puritan leader Oliver Cromwell became a general in the parliamentary army, seeing God's hand and blessing in the battle against tyranny. The Book of Common Prayer notes: "It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars."
Groups such as the Anabaptists, Waldensians, Quakers and some Sabbatarian churches have taken strong exception to this approach, condemning war on principle.
The advent of modern total warfare has added a new dimension to the Christian controversy over war. The vast destructive power of high-technology weapons raises new and serious questions.
Just-war theory was never intended to justify war. Instead, it tries to bring war under the sway of justice as understood by Christians and to ensure that war, when it does occur, is hedged about by limits to reduce its barbarity. It is to be a last resort, authorized only by legitimate civil authority and in this case Christian love becomes justice.
As for abortion, many people are born that are abused and killed by their parents when they are children and it seems that they should never have been born or that even abortion would have been a better option. I have noticed in the last few decades that instead of Western governments attempting to rid the land of abortion (which is political suicide for a politician at this time), they are instead bringing in programs to help young mothers and children. I think the political mindset is from those few moral politicians, that we can't stop abortion but we can help those who are born. I do believe Christians should be active politically in order to make sure love and justice are done.
I do not know if that answers your question of the evil within us Daniel, but that is my humble opinion.
"Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment, even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is therefore in my opinion perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy." C. S. Lewis from Mere Christianity.
Re: The evil within us
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:54 pm
by B. W.
Danieltwotwenty wrote:1over137 wrote:Let us assume I was a king - ruler.
In my country abortion would be prohibited.
So such doctor would end in prison.
Disclaimer: this comment is not necessarily directed at you Hana, it is just a general comment to anyone that says killing is morally justified to protect innocent lives.
So you would kill Hitler or ISIS because they are killing innocent people, but you wouldn't kill an abortion doctor who kills innocent children?
The fact is abortion clinics are legal in most western countries, yet you seem to say killing them is wrong, but killing Hitler or ISIS members is ok, forgive me but can't you see the hypocrisy in that?
If killing can be justified because you are protecting innocent people, then killing doctors who perform abortions should be morally justified. We could even take this further to include drug traffickers like they do in places like Indonesia, we could also extend this to drunk drivers and many other groups of people who are putting innocent lives on the chopping block.
It's starting to seem a little like living in an Islamic state now where legalism is rife and the rule of law outweighs love and forgiveness.
Maybe Christians should start bombing abortions clinics again, after all they are protecting innocent lives.
Perhaps we should also kill the mother since she may be inclined to do it again.
Abortionists have killed more people than the Holocaust and you just want to lock them up in jail, but that Hitler guy can have his head blown off.
I think Solomon wrote this...
Eccl 3:3 NKJV A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up...
Eccl 3:7 NKJV A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak; 8 A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace
It depends on the time... and it is never time to kill abortion doctors and industry workers but rather present healing to them...in mattes such as this, leave this in God's hands because if they do not repent they will answer to God. It is not our place to prematurely usher them into such judgment.
You see, Dan, the principle from the OT Law stated that civil society is to put to death for what we call today premeditated Murder in the first degree. In this, we can put to death those so caught as they will face God's judgment asap.
Also, another principle of the OT for today is involuntary murder because someone does so unknowingly. There is a thing called sanctuary cities they can go to and in other words, grace. This includes hating others with venom as Jesus said this is murder as well. We are under grace. God can still change the heart if you but use the gift of the Holy Spirit called wisdom to reach out such folks with compassion.
As for corrupt heads of state, we cannot predict the future with any certainty and thus could not have stopped Hitler. In fact, there were many plots and attempts on Hitlers life from 1933-1945 and these failed. Go figure, therefore, your debate here is spurious...
Lastly, Islam will kill you if you don't submit to all of it and it justifies enslavement women cruelly. Why do you not question that, which I find strange? You appear to be using standard Islamic arguments in an attempt to pit Christian ethics against Christian ethics in order to discredit Christianity?
Why?
If so, then tell us how Islam why is superior in its murder and use of deception?
Fact is, many Islamist are ignorant of the truth and thus fall under the heading of living in a sanctuary city of grace while they brutalize. The gospel truth goes forth, and they still reject that, continuing in brutality, then its no game... a time for war as Eccl tells us. The gospel truth is that these folks cannot earn enough do good points of charity and community service, nor adhere to the servileness of allah to enter paradise. It is easier to kill and be a martyr and live like satan unleashed to earn paradise than it is to serve in the strictness of the letters of Islam. However, Jesus shows grace and forgives and indwells and helps a believer in him change for the better - freely and without effort. That is the truth. If they reject that, then it is on them a seared conscience. They need to see that they are sinners and need of the true savoir of the world - Jesus Christ - God manifest in the Flesh who came and unties all the devils works that create such dysfunction... Think about it ... Islam cannot do that.
Jesus is not a pacifist nor did he teach pure pacifism either or he could not change a soul on this planet. In Luke 24 he told the 11 to sell their coats and buy a sword... Jesus knows the times better than we do and we need his wisdom to discern the times. In the first century, Nero and the Roman emperors killed Christians in mass and the Christians by non-violence won the final battle and brought that system crashing down. There is a place for that type of movement and God's agenda (Will) is made known to his people on how to react according to his wisdom. My friend, what you appear to me to be showing here is a lack of faith in Jesus.
What brought you to this point - your dealings with Islam???
-
-
-
P.S.
As for your prior comment regarding mods not doing our job - well we do and extend grace to all until one proves themselves abusing grace so that grace abounds more... in other words gaming the board rules and at that time is when enforcement comes...
