# Should Christians be Pacifist?



## Shimei (Sep 1, 2017)

Hello,

I have a question given our unique Government in the United States. Seemingly to me, the 2nd amendment extends the power and authority to bear arms to the people. It is no coincidence to me that the second amendment follows the first, as it may be necessary from time to time defend ourselves against foreign or domestic tyranny. I can also understand why the armed citizen is a deterrent from foreign threats as each armed household must be dealt with on a person to person basis or from house to house. Not to mention the people being well armed may defend themselves against the domestic threats should we be forced to defend our faith or freedom of speech.

This brings me to my question. As I understand it the early Church suffered from pacifism for a few hundred years while being oppressed, enslaved, raped, and or murdered. The pacifism finally broke after hundreds of years which led the Church onto her first Crusades. Today, are we or ought we defend ourselves, our brethren and families? Or should we follow in the footsteps of other Christians such as the Assyrians which are being slaughtered by ISIS?

I think it rather interesting that nobody questions whether the nation of Israel has a right to defend itself. But when it comes to the Church (Spiritual Israel) do we have a right to defend ourselves? Does Just War Theory apply to Israel's citizens?

What sparked the question was my prior military service. I took an oath to defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats. And I, like any other solider, never disavowed the oath after discharge. This, as well as, the unique Government where the people's are an extension of authority which grants the right to wield the sword if it should be deemed necessary.

To note, nothing going in my life. But I am running across many a Christians who preach pacifism. They believe no matter what we should "leave it up to God" because God is sovereign. These arguments appear to be almost fatalistic in my opinion.






Your thoughts?
William


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 1, 2017)

Shimei said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a question given our unique Government in the United States. Seemingly to me, the 2nd amendment extends the power and authority to bear arms to the people. It is no coincidence to me that the second amendment follows the first, as it may be necessary from time to time defend ourselves against foreign or domestic tyranny. I can also understand why the armed citizen is a deterrent from foreign threats as each armed household must be dealt with on a person to person basis or from house to house. Not to mention the people being well armed may defend themselves against the domestic threats should we be forced to defend our faith or freedom of speech.
> 
> ...


All depends on how one reads and understands the bible, as some will be driven to no violence ever allowed, even to defend ourselves, to holding to there being a Just war allowed.


----------



## Shimei (Sep 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> All depends on how one reads and understands the bible, as some will be driven to no violence ever allowed, even to defend ourselves, to holding to there being a Just war allowed.



I personally could leave it up to God should I need to defend myself. But my daughters, loved ones, and brethren, that is a matter of conscience. I don't think I'd be able to live with myself should others be jeopardized for my faith. And I am not so confident in my theology regarding non-violence that I'd put others to risk. 

I see a lot of Christian militias forming overseas. And I was just curious about whether Just War Theory applies not only to them but to us here in America? Us being Christians. 

Thanks for your input. 

God bless,
William


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 1, 2017)

William,
Lots of underlying stuff in there. 6th Commandment obligations to protect the innocent, the difference of an average Christian citizen vs the agent of the State (soldier) who is the long arm of the law (and sword). I think pure pacifism is wrong; it fails to execute the requirements of God's Law when it should. It fails to love it's neighbor. 
I think where we (me in particular) are going to have a hard time, over and against most nations that don't know freedom like we do, is when those freedoms are removed from us by a tyrannical government. It most certainly is coming to the U.S......in fact, it is here and gaining traction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 1, 2017)

GForce9 did a great synopsis in his first paragraph!

This is a subject of particular interest to me; the Navy sent me to Princeton Seminary on a paid sabbatical to acquire a ThM in Moral Philosophy in order to serve as faculty on the Navy Postgraduate School, and I am still on an advisory council with the Chief of Chaplains to the CNO on matters of ethics as it relates to warfare. Our Christian heritage is rich with this dialogue, and the fact that it remains in tension is I believe a healthy sign. We hold ourselves in the middle, far away from either Total War (term of art) and Pacifism. I personally see pacifism in the US aging out, as activism and violence are becoming synonymous to a younger generation - the concern is that activism has no regard for the other, and so justice in war is tossed out, and Total War is accepted. "Whatever it takes ..." is an immoral and unbiblical standard. I heard the new generation of SJW leaders studying at PTSEM use Total War language flippantly when discussing social action, race reconciliation, etc. There is neither space nor time to do it justice here, but I would argue that we ought to point Christians to the middle ground: there are times when violence is warranted, but even then it is within the bounds of loving one's neighbor. Sometimes the most loving thing we can do for a neighbor is confront them with violence to cease their wickedness against another.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## jw (Sep 1, 2017)



Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 1, 2017)

I do not think pacifism is Biblically defensible at all. Romans 13:1-5, for starters. It is also not confessional. For that matter the pacifist has some serious issues with not doing something to protect his family from someone having breaking the sixth commandment in mind.

Vos has an interesting argument for legitimate self-defense as a moral obligation that stems from the fact that our life is not our own, but God's, thus if we are good stewards of God's possessions, our obligation to preserve our own lives from criminal violence is inescapable.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## ZackF (Sep 1, 2017)

We are called to be peacemakers and not pacifists.

First of all, your contention that the church suffered from pacifism is incorrect. The church suffered from persecution. While there have always been pacifists in the church, including early churchmen, persecution was foretold by Christ. The world can and does crush bodies but it cannot separate Christ from His people. The body count for the Apostles was 12 of 13 if you count Judas. Things were rough for centuries early on. They're rough in many parts of the world these days for Christians. The problem in the early church wasn't pacifism but a silly, misguided martyr complex. There were people running around the Roman Empire trying to get martyred. That was foolish. Romans 12:18. 

Secondly, Just War Theory has been horribly abused leading to all kinds of wicked, disproportionate responses. A wax nose if there ever was one. It nearly has the track record of Just Sexual Theory. To illustrate my point we'll compare war (or violence or force) and sex. Society is awash in illicit violence and threats of violence from dark alley fisticuffs to WMDs. The world is also filled with fornication, p0rnography, sodomy, adultery, rape and prostitution. This doesn't negate the validity of God's law. Like sexual fidelity and chastity; JWT(at all levels) requires virtue and restraint for proper implementation. A man has to cultivate a desire for his wife, seek her good, seek to honor God, forsake the sexual pleasure of other women. Similarly, a peacemaker must train himself in deescalation, be willing to forsake and put to death desires brought by vanity, worldly honor, ill gotten gain, petty slights, and envy. Does he love the challenging people in his life such as the malcontent, fellow believer in the pews or a wicked neighbor across the street? Does he pray for them or desire their destruction and relish in their suffering. Is vengeance the Lord's or isn't it. Are you the lawful one to seek justice that may require the use of force in a given situation or aren't you? Such restraint isn't easy. It's not for wimps. 

Use of force, particularly deadly force is like a divorce. Divorce should be a last resort for a major infraction (infidelity) and not because your tired of someone because she isn't as pretty as someone else flirting with you. Have you exhausted peaceful options as opposed to war or have you not?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 2, 2017)

No.

The early church was mostly pacifistic for a number of reasons:
1) To take up arms against Rome would have been suicide, seeing how Rome wiped out the Jews twice.
2) Just war means we must also have a reasonable chance of winning, which they didn't have.
3) Many questioned joining the military because of the pagan oaths involved.

But if those situations don't obtain today, and they don't, then we can't go to what the early church did as a norm.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

ZackF said:


> We are called to be peacemakers and not pacifists.
> 
> First of all, your contention that the church suffered from pacifism is incorrect. The church suffered from persecution. While there have always been pacifists in the church, including early churchmen, persecution was foretold by Christ. The world can and does crush bodies but it cannot separate Christ from His people. The body count for the Apostles was 12 of 13 if you count Judas. Things were rough for centuries early on. They're rough in many parts of the world these days for Christians. The problem in the early church wasn't pacifism but a silly, misguided martyr complex. There were people running around the Roman Empire trying to get martyred. That was foolish. Romans 12:18.
> 
> ...


There has to be some response to evil that is committed on a monstrous scale and degree, such as under the Nazi regime of the Fuehrer, as we would be under the moral obligation to defend and protect ourselves and others from such a state as Germany had become in those years. The same rationale should also be extended towards current nations like North Korea, and groups like Isis today.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No.
> 
> The early church was mostly pacifistic for a number of reasons:
> 1) To take up arms against Rome would have been suicide, seeing how Rome wiped out the Jews twice.
> ...


Yes, just as we should not take how they had all properties common to one another as the example of hos to live today, as they were practicing sharing and meeting others needs when the church was very spiritual, before carnality had started to enter into their assemblies.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I do not think pacifism is Biblically defensible at all. Romans 13:1-5, for starters. It is also not confessional. For that matter the pacifist has some serious issues with not doing something to protect his family from someone having breaking the sixth commandment in mind.
> 
> Vos has an interesting argument for legitimate self-defense as a moral obligation that stems from the fact that our life is not our own, but God's, thus if we are good stewards of God's possessions, our obligation to preserve our own lives from criminal violence is inescapable.


And to extend it out further, we would be under moral obligations to protect and defend others threatened by rank evil such as Nazi Germany under Hitler.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

The distinctive roles of Church and State must be maintained or things get outta control fast......... The Church doesn't have the power of the sword and the State doesnt preach the word or administer sacraments.....


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> The distinctive roles of Church and State must be maintained or things get outta control fast......... The Church doesn't have the power of the sword and the State doesnt preach the word or administer sacraments.....


 I think it would render unto Caesar the things of His, and unto God His things, as one can be both a citizen of USA and also of Heaven.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I think it would render unto Caesar the things of His, and unto God His things, as one can be both a citizen of USA and also of Heaven.


That's not what's in question. What is in question is whom may do what?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> That's not what's in question. What is in question is who may do what?


Jesus Himself commanded his own to purchase a sword for self defense, so would assume still follows for us today.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 2, 2017)

So Westmister Presbyterian Church could, in theory, rise up against North Korea?


----------



## Edward (Sep 2, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> there are times when violence is warranted, but even then it is within the bounds of loving one's neighbor.



Limited warfare has proven itself a failure over the last 60 years. One should never get involved in a war one doesn't plan on winning. And one doesn't win by pulling punches.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus Himself commanded his own to purchase a sword for self defense, so would assume still follows for us today.



But in doing so we are acting as citizens of the secular kingdom, not as the church.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, just as we should not take how they had all properties common to one another as the example of hos to live today, as they were practicing sharing and meeting others needs when the church was very spiritual, before carnality had started to enter into their assemblies.



I'm not clear on what you are getting at. In your first sentence you (rightly) say we should not follow them in their supposed communism. But at the end you state they were very spiritual and carnality had not set in (which I would dispute). But if they were very spiritual, then shouldn't we follow them?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Sep 2, 2017)

No ... and in fact Christ insisted that there were swords. "Here are two" and that was enough ... so not everyone needs to be armed with deadly force, but he knew they would be in a world that requires force to meet violence. So the simple answer is a resounding no. Jesus committed no sin, and insisted his disciples have means of deadly self defense. Those that preach pacifism preach a twisted gospel, not the gospel of Christ.

That does not mean that we all have a chip on our shoulder, or are looking for a fight. But we need to be read to defend the innocent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Sep 2, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But in doing so we are acting as citizens of the secular kingdom, not as the church.



I really believe that is just plain wrong. Jesus told his disciples to do something, and when we act as he commanded, we are acting not as the secular kingdom, but we are acting as citizens of his kingdom (the Church). If we don't do as he says (i.e., we don't have at least some with "swords") then we are acting as the secular kingdom and not following what God commands, but what the world thinks. The world thinks that force is wrong ... God does not, and has commanded his people in *many* times to use force. What God commands his people *cannot* be wrong for them to do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm not clear on what you are getting at. In your first sentence you (rightly) say we should not follow them in their supposed communism. But at the end you state they were very spiritual and carnality had not set in (which I would dispute). But if they were very spiritual, then shouldn't we follow them?


My point was the the spiritual condition at the very founding of the Church was pure, and so they were fully committed to Jesus and the work of the kingdom, but then Satan got into the mix pretty quickly, as evidenced with that couple that God judged and killed off for following Satan and not the Holy Spirit in their midst.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Brian Withnell said:


> I really believe that is just plain wrong. Jesus told his disciples to do something, and when we act as he commanded, we are acting not as the secular kingdom, but we are acting as citizens of his kingdom (the Church). If we don't do as he says (i.e., we don't have at least some with "swords") then we are acting as the secular kingdom and not following what God commands, but what the world thinks. The world thinks that force is wrong ... God does not, and has commanded his people in *many* times to use force. What God commands his people *cannot* be wrong for them to do.



The very same God was in the OT commanding his nation to fight a Just war at that time.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 2, 2017)

Edward said:


> Limited warfare has proven itself a failure over the last 60 years. One should never get involved in a war one doesn't plan on winning. And one doesn't win by pulling punches.


The Just war concept includes the notion that if the war is to be waged, it is to be done all out, with the notion being it is able to be, and will be won.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> My point was the the spiritual condition at the very founding of the Church was pure, and so they were fully committed to Jesus and the work of the kingdom, but then Satan got into the mix pretty quickly, as evidenced with that couple that God judged and killed off for following Satan and not the Holy Spirit in their midst.



So, if they were pure, and they shared all things, and presumably we, too, should be pure, should we not also share all things?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Just war concept includes the notion that if the war is to be waged, it is to be done all out, with the notion being it is able to be, and will be won.



No it's not. Just war means you can't target non-combatants and you should minimize casualties.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 2, 2017)

Brian Withnell said:


> I really believe that is just plain wrong. Jesus told his disciples to do something, and when we act as he commanded, we are acting not as the secular kingdom, but we are acting as citizens of his kingdom (the Church). If we don't do as he says (i.e., we don't have at least some with "swords") then we are acting as the secular kingdom and not following what God commands, but what the world thinks. The world thinks that force is wrong ... God does not, and has commanded his people in *many* times to use force. What God commands his people *cannot* be wrong for them to do.



Secular simply means the "time between the times," the two advents. I am not a church officer, and as such when I act in my day to day life, I am precisely *not* acting as a minister of Christ's mediatorial kingdom.

The Reformed… tend to attribute the _regnum universale_ [universal Kingdom] specifically to the Second Person of the Trinity and only the _regnum oeconomicum_ [economic reign, including the Mediatorial Kingdom] to the God-man as Mediator.’ 

– _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms_, pp. 259-260.

The kingdom ‘the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ’ as ‘the visible Church’ (WCF 25.2). So when I cut someone in half with a shotgun, I am not doing it as a member of the mediatorial kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2017)

Rev David Fields did a "cheat sheet" summary of Rutherford's Lex, Rex, which outlines godly armed resistance.
http://www.davidpfield.com/published-articles/Rutherford-resistance.pdf


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 3, 2017)

Edward said:


> Limited warfare has proven itself a failure over the last 60 years. One should never get involved in a war one doesn't plan on winning. And one doesn't win by pulling punches.



That would not be a Scriptural or Theological argument, but a pragmatic one which is merely a worldly argument as Christians and non-Christians alike could agree. However, for a Christian to engage in warfare requires that they do so in a manner consistent with a scriptural or theological argument, which makes this more complex than "winning." What does winning look like? In limited warfare, it looks like negating your opponents means and will to fight. Two atomic weapons, as horrific as they were, represented a limited means to negating Japans means and will to fight, in comparison to total annihilation which was in our means to deliver.

A good read to inform the larger discussion is Calvin on the lesser magistrates; he invokes much of the scripture and theology that ought to inform a Christian considering violence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Sep 3, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> in comparison to total annihilation which was in our means to deliver.



I'll challenge that statement. The US might have had, at most, two more bombs available prior to Operation Olympic (one, more likely) and perhaps a couple of more prior to Coronet. Certainly not enough for total annihilation. And while there was a lot of hatred of the Japanese upon which the military could have drawn, I do believe that the officers would have run out of reliable troops before they could have accomplished the extermination of 71 million men, women, and children. So I just don't see such a 'means to deliver'.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 3, 2017)

_"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." ---I Timothy 5:8_

What is more basic than to provide for your family's safety and security? A pacifist who will not protect his family may be worse than an infidel, therefore.


And

_"A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring." _ ---Proverbs 25:26.

Giving way before the wicked marks one as polluted. Thus resistance to evil is demanded. This often entails physical resistance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 3, 2017)

Edward said:


> I'll challenge that statement. The US might have had, at most, two more bombs available prior to Operation Olympic (one, more likely) and perhaps a couple of more prior to Coronet. Certainly not enough for total annihilation. And while there was a lot of hatred of the Japanese upon which the military could have drawn, I do believe that the officers would have run out of reliable troops before they could have accomplished the extermination of 71 million men, women, and children. So I just don't see such a 'means to deliver'.



Indeed I meant Total war, not annihilation; Total War is victory at any cost, and the Christian Theologians and Ethicists advising our war effort at the time were most worried that "any cost" was more than a Judeo-Christian nation should pay, or demand from its enemies. The Christian moral conversation at that time was to keep our eyes on stopping the conflict, not winning no matter what. But the adversaries commitment to fight, total disregard for human life (Japanese had no issues expending their slaves (chinese, ryukyu) or own people's lives for victory), and our rapid advancement on their home soil indicated there was no way for us to move forward that would not wind up rapidly escalating the killing of innocents. We made a horrible choice, in some way utilitarian, to sacrifice the lives of military and civilians supporting the war effort, in two cities, but in such a way that would break their will to fight and end the conflict, thereby staving off the predicted deaths of tens of millions. It worked, it was horrible. But that was the Christian moral influence on the decision, to turn aside from Total War.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 4, 2017)

Jesus told his disciples to carry a sword now that he was leaving them. I believe that sword was to be used against raiders who killed people in their travels for their merchandise. I don't believe he intended them to use it against those in authority (the Pharisees, Sadducees and Roman soldiers) in order to protect themselves against persecution. If he had, they did a poor job in protecting themselves. Also, the Bible tells us to live by the laws of the land as long as they don't go against his law. Therefore, I believe that as a long as we have the right to bear arms and the right to protect ourselves against evil men who want to invade our space (personal, home, or country) then we have the right and duty to protect ourselves. However, I don't believe this extends to those who want to persecute (put in jail or kill us) us. God promised us persecution from the heathen and to count it joy in our suffering for him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 4, 2017)

A distinction is appropriate here:
Pacifism is bad, but having a pacifier is good. Sometimes I have a jar of Jr. Fruit Dessert, insert a pacifier, and climb under a blanket because I don't want to deal with the world on such occasions......

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No it's not. Just war means you can't target non-combatants and you should minimize casualties.


Yes, but also included in that was the concept of seeing the war as being winnable, and fighting it to win, using all military might to accomplish that goal.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So, if they were pure, and they shared all things, and presumably we, too, should be pure, should we not also share all things?


They were in a spiritual state though that was purer than we now experience, as they had not had satan enter into their assembles as of yet, but he got into there early on in Acts.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> That would not be a Scriptural or Theological argument, but a pragmatic one which is merely a worldly argument as Christians and non-Christians alike could agree. However, for a Christian to engage in warfare requires that they do so in a manner consistent with a scriptural or theological argument, which makes this more complex than "winning." What does winning look like? In limited warfare, it looks like negating your opponents means and will to fight. Two atomic weapons, as horrific as they were, represented a limited means to negating Japans means and will to fight, in comparison to total annihilation which was in our means to deliver.
> 
> A good read to inform the larger discussion is Calvin on the lesser magistrates; he invokes much of the scripture and theology that ought to inform a Christian considering violence.


When we are to be involved in fighting a so called just war, needs to be done with the idea to finish it as victorious , but also to be fight with acceptable rules of conduct and warfare. The atomic bombs used on japan would seem to fit that, as the war needed to be ended as soon as possible, and all available alternatives would have entailed much greater loss of lives on both sides.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They were in a spiritual state though that was purer than we now experience, as they had not had Satan enter into their assembles as of yet, but he got into there early on in Acts.



I'm not sure this is a good position. Both of our confessional positions and biblical testimony regarding Original Sin and its lingering presence in those inside the church would indicate the very "first day of the church" was populated by impure folks doing impure things, having impure thoughts/motives. We don't need the el diablo to make us sin; all that is necessary inhers inside the sinner. The church is only pure by her Covering.......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I'm not sure this is a good position. Both of our confessional positions and biblical testimony regarding Original Sin and its lingering presence in those inside the church would indicate the very "first day of the church" was populated by impure folks doing impure things, having impure thoughts/motives. We don't need the el diablo to make us sin; all that is necessary inhers inside the sinner. The church is only pure by her Covering.......


Good point, as I was trying to tie this into them being of one accord and one mind, as they had not yet had real division come into the ranks, but satan got into their assemblies pretty much, as evidenced by the death of the husband and wife in Acts, and the church disunity in 1 Corinthians.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They were in a spiritual state though that was purer than we now experience, as they had not had Satan enter into their assembles as of yet, but he got into there early on in Acts.



Do you have any evidence that Satan hadn't yet entered? That statement seems like an Anabaptist statement. In any case, my question is the same: shouldn't we imitate them if they were purer?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, but also included in that was the concept of seeing the war as being winnable, and fighting it to win, using all military might to accomplish that goal.



Not if one part of the definition contradicts another part. Noncombatants cannot be targeted.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not if one part of the definition contradicts another part. Noncombatants cannot be targeted.


They should not be, but in the real practical issue of warfare, sometimes the enemy allows them to become targets!
Such as when Isis was using civilians as human shields.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 5, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do you have any evidence that Satan hadn't yet entered? That statement seems like an Anabaptist statement. In any case, my question is the same: shouldn't we imitate them if they were purer?


Yes, but that would require the entire church to have a radical mind set change.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, but that would require the entire church to have a radical mind set change.



So Scripturally, which is the only thing that matters at the end of the day, *should* we live communally and be pacifistic? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They should not be, but in the real practical issue of warfare, sometimes the enemy allows them to become targets!
> Such as when Isis was using civilians as human shields.



Just War Theory doesn't change, and that's not a new tactic.


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 6, 2017)

Jus Ad Bellum - right to war. This is the question why, why war, and includes winnability. A good cause that cannot be won is not a useful justification to enter war as it is suicide, or imperils the moral conscience of the people to engage in acts beyond what is reasonable for war. Note, Self Defense is not a justification for war; the other party has already chosen it, and you are now simply responding. Jus in Bello - law of war, or how to conduct war justly. This applies to self-defense as well, but war is already decided. I post these terms because it is common to conflate the two, but they are distinct principles. You cannot abandon jus in bello because you are losing; if you are losing, most likely you didn't think hard about jus ad bellum first.

Today we use terms like the law of armed conflict and rules of engagement to dictate our limits on the battlefield. Its common in the US now to say if we have a right to war, then there should be no rules. Statements like that should sear the conscience of Christians, and in fact I would argue that a society that has no jus in bello cannot be trusted to make a rational decision with regards to jus ad bellum.

The American Revolution is a good case study ... did the colonials have a right to war? to rebel against God's appointed ruler (Ro 13)? could they claim to be the lesser magistrate? was it winnable? Certainly confessing Christians took both sides of that Jus Ad Bellum discussion, and nearly 90% of the population opted for pacifism ... although they were quick to enjoy the liberty some 3% fought for, to include religious liberty. Those that believed a right to war could be established, observed some of the highest standard of jus in bello - indeed the British prided themselves on it, and while there were atrocities committed, they were denounced all around by Christians of every kind. I believe the writings, particularly the sermons, of the revolutionary era reveal the great struggle the Church in America had over its role in the conflict. Its wise to recognize it as an open hand issue for the church, despite its emotional weight.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 6, 2017)

I disagree with the "winnability" criteria, since some causes demand us to resist regardless of the consequences.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 6, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I disagree with the "winnability" criteria, since some causes demand us to resist regardless of the consequences.


That was just one of the criteria that had to be met in order to have a so called just war.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So Scripturally, which is the only thing that matters at the end of the day, *should* we live communally and be pacifistic? Is that what you are saying?


No, as the conditions of that time have not been able to be duplicated since that event happened, as that was what the Lord intended just for that period in church history.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Just War Theory doesn't change, and that's not a new tactic.


There will always be some form of Collateral Damages though, as our task is to try to minimize it as much as is possible.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> No, as the conditions of that time have not been able to be duplicated since that event happened, as that was what the Lord intended just for that period in church history.



Does God change his moral standards based on conditions? And can you provide any scriptural evidence that God intended exactly this but no longer intended that once it stopped working? Sounds dispensational, where God falls back on Plan B.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Does God change his moral standards based on conditions? And can you provide any scriptural evidence that God intended exactly this but no longer intended that once it stopped working? Sounds dispensational, where God falls back on Plan B.


No, God aleways has the Plan A plan in operation, its just that the NT church at its very beginnings was able to function united and in like mind, led by the Holy Spirit, under the Apostles, but they soon had moved away from that ideal, and allowed sin to come into their ranks, and so greed and the desire to keep whats mine came back and flourished. IF we could have that same like minded and same devotion to meeting the needs and supporting one other, this would still work, but that would be really hard to do today.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> No, God aleways has the Plan A plan in operation, its just that the NT church at its very beginnings was able to function united and in like mind, led by the Holy Spirit, under the Apostles, but they soon had moved away from that ideal, and allowed sin to come into their ranks, and so greed and the desire to keep whats mine came back and flourished. IF we could have that same like minded and same devotion to meeting the needs and supporting one other, this would still work, but that would be really hard to do today.



Do you have Scriptural proof for any of these assertions? This isn't just dispensationalism. This is Anabaptism.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do you have Scriptural proof for any of these assertions? This isn't just dispensationalism. This is Anabaptism.


God had his people under the New Covenant relationship freely provide for each other and supply, meet all of each other needs for a while, but that command was not carried throughout the NT scriptures, as it seemed to apply for just a specific time.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God had his people under the New Covenant relationship freely provide for each other and supply, meet all of each other needs for a while, but that command was not carried throughout the NT scriptures, as it seemed to apply for just a specific time.



A few thoughts, David:

1- I don't know if it can be declared this "lifestyle" prescriptive. It may only be historical narrative; ie., this is what happened.. I would need to go re-read this section of Scripture to get the context....
2- You seem to be suggesting that sin is external to man. Sin is not external to us, but proceeds from inside us. Michael Horton has addressed this subject excellently. When we speak of sins (plural), we are losing the reality of the internal corruption inherent in man (Pelagius). While we talk about and confess our sins (plural), the Reformed know that the plurality of sins proceed from a sinful, internal nature.....


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God had his people under the New Covenant relationship freely provide for each other and supply, meet all of each other needs for a while, but that command was not carried throughout the NT scriptures, as it seemed to apply for just a specific time.



Providing for each others needs isn't the same thing as full-orbed communism, and in the last clause of the sentence you don't even offer proof. You just say "it seemed to apply."


----------



## Edward (Sep 6, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> This is the question why, why war, and includes winnability



Winnability suggests not only a technical ability to win, but a will to win. By that standard, the US Military should have been kept at home since April, 1951.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 6, 2017)

Edward said:


> Winnability suggests not only a technical ability to win, but a will to win. By that standard, the US Military should have been kept at home since April, 1951.



Indeed, as a JW Ethicist, I think your statement has much merit. In our infancy, our "road to war" philosophy could be described as "don't start nothing, won't be nothing." Really with the Great White Fleet, the US began to enjoy its status as a military power, but that isn't truly a Christian position. JW theory since antiquity limited use of violence to a last resort, in the defense of self or another ... a very personal view. Our founding fathers had a very limited view of what a standing army and navy might do, how it was comprised of the states militias, which fell under sovereign governors, and were only combined when the legislative branch, which was comprised of delegates representing sovereign states, deemed war was in the combined interest. All of that was intended as a JW check and balance against becoming like England, France & Spain, who had large militaries and therefore had to keep finding a place to use them. Today we have become what we originally hoped never to be, and the MIC is prominent feature of our world presence. But that is not in keeping with JW Theory.

Since before 1951, we have engaged in war against ideas, not nations or people. Those intrinsically fail the JW winnability test - you cannot defeat an idea with violence. You can only defeat an idea with a better idea and a willing audience, and you can't apply violence to make an audience willing to receive an idea in a true fashion. We can strike back against those that harmed us on 9/11, limited and proportional per Jus in Bello. The other point of failure is reconstruction and nation building are not aspects of war, are not considered valid justifications for war, and therefore not the right thing to do. But we have made it such. Neihbur contributed to this in his own way.

As for some causes which must be fought, even if they appear unwinnable. That is a misunderstanding of the nature of war. Is the cause an idea? See the paragraph above. Is the cause a tyrant? For one nation to intervene into the internal politics of another nation, is like you observing things you don't like in your neighbor's house and empowering yourself to go next door and do something about it. That can be very well intentioned and disastrous, especially since there is likely no real harm to your self, family or property - just an offense to your sensibilities. Sensibilities which your neighbor does not have to share. Unless there is a higher authority that sets the standards of how a nation should be, like there might be a state law that says what you observe your neighbor is doing is wrong, then it is entirely a disagreement of belief. If there is a higher authority, then the burden falls on said authority, and not you the offended neighbor, to step in. Christ did not call us to be our neighbor's police, especially if our neighbors are not citizens of His Kingdom.

Forgive my verbosity - i'm in my wheelhouse now. I need to shut up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 6, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I disagree with the "winnability" criteria, since some causes demand us to resist regardless of the consequences.



For the sake of discussion, please give a cause that you feel a Christian ought to use violence to resist (engage in war) regardless of the consequences. That may be helpful to understand!


----------



## Edward (Sep 6, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> Since before 1951



Of which wars, before 1951, are you thinking? World War I? 



Held Fast said:


> We can strike back against those that harmed us on 9/11, limited and proportional



I suppose that depends on what you mean by "limited and proportional". Limited and proportional to the actions of the other side, or limited by moral constraints and proportional to the need?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 7, 2017)

WWI was a battle of whose Christian culture was superior, and presented little arguable direct threat to the US proper. From a Just War position, its difficult to see a clear right to war in that scenario ... we used the logic of ideology, that the superiority of our version of Kingdom of Heaven on Earth demanded violence in its assertion. WWI was a veritable cornucopia of bad theology - dispensationalism writ large. The resulting moral morass in all participating countries evidenced the wrongness of the arguments going into it.

Limited and proportional includes the actions of the other side, as well as our moral constraints. Limited to who did it, and proportional to what they did. Our moral constraint also would restrain us from engaging in means that reduce us to the same moral level as them, since our outrage is directed at their targeting of innocents, we should not do the same. Nor should we kill the same number as they, that too is reprehensible as we were outraged at the scale of death.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 7, 2017)

Edward said:


> Winnability suggests not only a technical ability to win, but a will to win. By that standard, the US Military should have been kept at home since April, 1951.


Actually, in order to wage a real and just war, we also need to have the military making the crucial and critical decisions on how to fight it, and not having it run based upon polling data for the government.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 7, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> For the sake of discussion, please give a cause that you feel a Christian ought to use violence to resist (engage in war) regardless of the consequences. That may be helpful to understand!


When Nazi Germany threatened to exterminate all Jews and many others, during WW II.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 7, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Providing for each others needs isn't the same thing as full-orbed communism, and in the last clause of the sentence you don't even offer proof. You just say "it seemed to apply."


I do not see the church in Acts practicing communism either, but many others have labeled it as being such, and tried to have the scripture support a communistic system as the way to go. This would be a misapplication of the text.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 7, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> A few thoughts, David:
> 
> 1- I don't know if it can be declared this "lifestyle" prescriptive. It may only be historical narrative; ie., this is what happened.. I would need to go re-read this section of Scripture to get the context....
> 2- You seem to be suggesting that sin is external to man. Sin is not external to us, but proceeds from inside us. Michael Horton has addressed this subject excellently. When we speak of sins (plural), we are losing the reality of the internal corruption inherent in man (Pelagius). While we talk about and confess our sins (plural), the Reformed know that the plurality of sins proceed from a sinful, internal nature.....


The sin nature is indeed internal, and that is what gets worked out in an external fashion, as Jesus Himself to us what comes out of us is the result of what is there within us, and you make a good point in that Acts seems to be describing historically what happened, without giving approval one way or another on what they did .


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 7, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> Unless there is a higher authority that sets the standards of how a nation should be


Isn't there?!?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 7, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Isn't there?!?


God in His scriptures.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I do not see the church in Acts practicing communism either, but many others have labeled it as being such, and tried to have the scripture support a communistic system as the way to go. This would be a misapplication of the text.



Granted, there wasn't the secret police, but communal sharing is communal sharing. Now, proof texts that it was the way for the church to be?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 7, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Granted, there wasn't the secret police, but communal sharing is communal sharing. Now, proof texts that it was the way for the church to be?


The scriptures seemed to be stating to us that this was the way that God intended them to share with and bless the body at that time.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2017)

I was with you until you got to this:



Held Fast said:


> Nor should we kill the same number as they, that too is reprehensible as we were outraged at the scale of death.



By the time war is the solution, the response should not be limited to the casualties already taken, but rather the response should be limited by what is needed to finish the job. Rather than get into more politically sensitive more recent events, let's start with December, 1941. 2471 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor. Should Roosevelt have said "We'll fight until 2470 Nips are dead, and then we'll call it done". And, on the other side of the world about a year later. The French hadn't done anything significant to us. Should we have foregone invading French North Africa? And look at the numbers. About 526 Americans dead; about 1350 French. Unjust war?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The scriptures *seemed *to be stating to us that this was the way that God intended them to share with and bless the body at that time.



"Seemed" doesn't cut it. But if that's what God intended, then it has to be done today.


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 7, 2017)

Edward said:


> I was with you until you got to this:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time war is the solution, the response should not be limited to the casualties already taken, but rather the response should be limited by what is needed to finish the job. Rather than get into more politically sensitive more recent events, let's start with December, 1941. 2471 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor. Should Roosevelt have said "We'll fight until 2470 Nips are dead, and then we'll call it done". And, on the other side of the world about a year later. The French hadn't done anything significant to us. Should we have foregone invading French North Africa? And look at the numbers. About 526 Americans dead; about 1350 French. Unjust war?



We're still together ... we should not calculate the number lost at all. We should not say, its not done until we've killed as many of them as us, nor should we say once we've killed that same we're done. Proportionality simply means that we don't spank a baby with an axe, to quote Heinlein. We use that amount of force necessary to neutralize the adversary's ability to wage war (means, motive, opportunity) and no more. That very well did require more than 2471, because once we started the Japanese fought back.

French North Africa, and indeed the entire war in Europe, tried to appeal to Jus Ad Bellum AFTER they were in Jus In Bello. You cannot after the fact say, look he was exterminating Jews, and we were stepping in to defend the defenseless, when that was not the stated justification on the road to war. There was a reason the founders advised against entering into alliances; the literature that they were drawing from talked about political alliances draw one into immoral conflicts. We went to war in Europe because we had made an oath, and that oath took us out of the bounds of Christian JW Theory. If I walk into someone else's fight and get hit on the chin, can I really say what happens next is self-defense?


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 7, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Isn't there?!?



Are you referring to divine or carnal? Does the Kingdom of Heaven intervene when one nation attacks another? Or are you thinking of the UN? Do you believe the US has a Divine Mandate to wage war on its neighbor when in our estimation they are not upholding God's standards? Particularly when we ourselves are not a Theocracy?


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> When Nazi Germany threatened to exterminate all Jews and many others, during WW II.



What might be your scriptural justification for a Christian to wage war in that situation? Who is the ordained sword bearer and from where do they derive their authority? What is the role of faith in this response? Is this not fearing most those who kill the body? Right now you've given no more than an emotional sense of indignation against a social injustice. For the Christian to wage war, use violence, kill justly, requires a whole lot more than that.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 7, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> Are you referring to divine or carnal? Does the Kingdom of Heaven intervene when one nation attacks another? Or are you thinking of the UN? Do you believe the US has a Divine Mandate to wage war on its neighbor when in our estimation they are not upholding God's standards? Particularly when we ourselves are not a Theocracy?


Perhaps I misunderstood your point when you said:


Held Fast said:


> is like you observing things you don't like in your neighbor's house and empowering yourself to go next door and do something about it. That can be very well intentioned and disastrous, especially since there is likely no real harm to your self, family or property - just an offense to your sensibilities. Sensibilities which your neighbor does not have to share.


If you are referring to my neighbor playing his radio too loudly or painting his living room wall black, then, yes, that is merely an offense to my sensibilities. I took it to mean (since we are talking about war/violence/etc) that I might see my neighbor beating his wife. In such a case, I believe that there is a moral "higher authority" that compels me to intervene. Of course, I call the cops, too, but I don't watch her suffer blow after blow while waiting for them to arrive.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> We went to war in Europe because we had made an oath, and that oath took us out of the bounds of Christian JW Theory.



I'm not sure of what oath to which you are referring. But let me engage briefly with your 'went to war'.

That kind of depends on your 'when' starting point for the US going to war in greater Europe. The technical answer would be *after *Hitler declared war on the US (glad I checked. I was going to say December 10, but it was actually December 11, 1941.) If you wish to parse it farther to the neutrality patrols, or the supply of weapons to one belligerent over another, then we would find ourselves in divergence over some mighty fine points. It doesn't appear, however, that the US declared war before invading French territory, so there is more meat to a morality argument there.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 8, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood your point when you said:
> 
> If you are referring to my neighbor playing his radio too loudly or painting his living room wall black, then, yes, that is merely an offense to my sensibilities. I took it to mean (since we are talking about war/violence/etc) that I might see my neighbor beating his wife. In such a case, I believe that there is a moral "higher authority" that compels me to intervene. Of course, I call the cops, too, but I don't watch her suffer blow after blow while waiting for them to arrive.



Yes, your analogy is great ... between nations, not neighbors, who are the cops you call? Can I deputize myself? To what higher authority do I appeal to do so? The road to war isn't just a recognition that there is something wrong, it is the decision to use violence when other means have failed.


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 8, 2017)

Edward said:


> I'm not sure of what oath to which you are referring. But let me engage briefly with your 'went to war'.
> 
> That kind of depends on your 'when' starting point for the US going to war in greater Europe. The technical answer would be *after *Hitler declared war on the US (glad I checked. I was going to say December 10, but it was actually December 11, 1941.) If you wish to parse it farther to the neutrality patrols, or the supply of weapons to one belligerent over another, then we would find ourselves in divergence over some mighty fine points. It doesn't appear, however, that the US declared war before invading French territory, so there is more meat to a morality argument there.



We began participating in the war long before Germany declared war on us, providing support to our allies (people with whom we had exchanged oaths). Our rationale was that they were our allies. But again, the conversation is about Christians and violence ... Germany and Italy declared war on us because of our support to our allies. We turned around and declared war on them ... at that point no one cared about the holocaust. That was an argument raised after the fact. In essence we had a neighbor we liked, to the point we made an oath with them to support them. They got in a fight with another neighbor, a neighbor we had no direct issue with at that time. But we honored our oath, and supported our first neighbor we felt more close to. That just incensed the other neighbor, and so now we are lumped in together, because of our oath. Had we not had an oath, had we not assisted one side in a fight in which we initially had no dog, we cannot know what would happen next. But for a Christian to justify violence, some higher standards come to play. Further, we have to stay out of the demonization of the other; we cannot wage war against another person because we have decided they are vile. We must limit to actions - have they done real harm? And no the fact that they breathe our air is not real harm. They are still fallen image bearers, and in the case of Germany some brothers in Christ. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor unprovoked - the road to war was short and clear with them. Germany, not so much.

I taught moral philosophy to field grade officers transitioning from a command tour on the battlefield to a staff job, and historical battles always generated great discussions. But I'd put in here where I always started with them. Identify the moral agent, the action in question, and the outcome. All three are important to know very clearly when determining the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something in moral terms. For confessing Christians in particular, our emphasis has historically been on the agent - the person, Christian, in relationship to God. Legalist traditions tend to look at the action itself (i.e. violence). Sadly evangelicalism is bent towards the outcome - alls well that ends well. The literature reveals this over the long view, as trends - not definitive or doctrinal, just inclination. But the aspects are important in just war theory ... who is the right agent to wage war?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 8, 2017)

We got the Cold War by siding with the USSR and warring with Germany, just as we got WWII by siding against Germany in WWI. We should have let Germany prevail in WWI and we probably would not have experienced WWII or the Cold War or the spread of Bolshevism. Or the Holocaust for that matter, since a Jewish scapegoat would not have been needed. Allying ourselves to evil men in WWII as we did with Stalin and getting into a scrap that was not our own (WWI) multiplied the long-term evils even as it shortened the short-term evils.


----------



## Edward (Sep 8, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> Japan bombed Pearl Harbor unprovoked



You probably need to study a bit more history on that. There was provocation.
Economic
-embargo on steel and oil
-asset freeze
-pressuring the British and Dutch to join the asset freeze
Military
-supply of weapons and pilots to the Chinese



Held Fast said:


> We began participating in the war long before Germany declared war on us, providing support to our allies



I've already indicated above that I would take the other side on an argument based upon the neutrality patrols and unilateral weapons supply. The Germans declared war based on loyalty to an ally, not the neutrality patrols.

As for the Jews, Hitler would have been glad for the US to take them. The US didn't want them.

(Semi-related question - who were the first US military casualties of World War II in your mind?)


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2017)

Edward said:


> As for the Jews, Hitler would have been glad for the US to take them. The US didn't want them.



Hitler also asked the world jewish congress if they wanted to go to Palestine. The Jews said no.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Edward said:


> I was with you until you got to this:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time war is the solution, the response should not be limited to the casualties already taken, but rather the response should be limited by what is needed to finish the job. Rather than get into more politically sensitive more recent events, let's start with December, 1941. 2471 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor. Should Roosevelt have said "We'll fight until 2470 Nips are dead, and then we'll call it done". And, on the other side of the world about a year later. The French hadn't done anything significant to us. Should we have foregone invading French North Africa? And look at the numbers. About 526 Americans dead; about 1350 French. Unjust war?


Truman gets a bad review by many historians regarding his decision to drop the atom bombs upon Japan, but evidence was that if they went to attacking Japan by ,i;itary foreces directly, over a million deaths would have happened, as there would have been much worse done to each side than what the bombs actually did do.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> "Seemed" doesn't cut it. But if that's what God intended, then it has to be done today.


The Bible recorded down for us what the earliest Christians did to help and support one another at that time, but there is no indication given that would show to us God intended that to be carried onward.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Hitler also asked the world jewish congress if they wanted to go to Palestine. The Jews said no.


The real answer in the mind of the mad man Hitler was his so called Final Solution, which would had been the Jewish people totally wipe out.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> What might be your scriptural justification for a Christian to wage war in that situation? Who is the ordained sword bearer and from where do they derive their authority? What is the role of faith in this response? Is this not fearing most those who kill the body? Right now you've given no more than an emotional sense of indignation against a social injustice. For the Christian to wage war, use violence, kill justly, requires a whole lot more than that.


The Lord has creatd man in his own image, and he has mandated to us to protect and watch over fellow humans , to be our brothers keepers as much as is possible, so he would have authorized us to be in the war to stop Nazi Germany from taking over and executing all of those people deemed by them to not be worthy to live.
The Nazi of germany of WW II were a type of evil rarely seen unleashed upon this earth, and nations would have to come against them in order to keep the Holocaust being practiced on a much higher scale.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The real answer in the mind of the mad man Hitler was his so called Final Solution, which would had been the Jewish people totally wipe out.



Which didn't start until the war started. Hitler wanted the Jews out of Europe but the Jews said no.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Bible recorded down for us what the earliest Christians did to help and support one another at that time, but there is no indication given that would show to us God intended that to be carried onward.



The Bible's writing something down isn't the same thing as a positive command to do it.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Bible's writing something down isn't the same thing as a positive command to do it.


I agree with you on that point, so you would not see them doing what God had desired when they supported each other at that time?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 8, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which didn't start until the war started. Hitler wanted the Jews out of Europe but the Jews said no.


Hitler wanted to have all Jews exterminated, as they were the main cause in his sick and perverted mind as to why the German master race had become polluted.


----------



## Edward (Sep 8, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Hitler also asked the world jewish congress if they wanted to go to Palestine. The Jews said no.





BayouHuguenot said:


> Which didn't start until the war started. Hitler wanted the Jews out of Europe but the Jews said no.



In fact, the Jews were onboard with emigration. The problems were the British (who didn't want them in Palestine), the French (Madagascar) and the Americans (US and Cuba). An objective study of the issues leaves the British looking really bad (although they did eventually take in 10,000 children and perhaps 30,000 valuable immigrants), the Germans less so that modern propaganda depicts as everyone projects backwards from the Final Solution (which was the last choice of the Nazis.) About a quarter of a million Jews made it past the British (and later Russian) gauntlet to Palestine 1933-1941. (Yes, even a couple of years into the war with Germany, the Brits were still devoting resources to keeping the Jews out.) 

Read up on the MV Struma (1942) and the SS Patria (1940) to get a very small taste of what was going on. And, of course, the well known case of the St. Louis. 

The Austrian Jews and t he Nazis tended to agree that the immigrant to Palestine be the young, healthy folks. 

In at least one case, the Germans released an inmate from the Dachau concentration camp so he could attempt to get to Palestine. 



Dachaser said:


> Hitler wanted to have all Jews exterminated, as they were the main cause in his sick and perverted mind as to why the German master race had become polluted.



Don't believe everything you learned in school. He wanted the Jews out of Europe. It was the what, not the how, that was important to most of the Nazi leaders.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Hitler wanted to have all Jews exterminated



No he didn't. If that were true, then he wouldn't have made offers to the World Jewish Congress on obtaining Palestine.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I agree with you on that point, so you would not see them doing what God had desired when they supported each other at that time?



I see the situation as the young community trying to live in a new way. Economically, it proved to be a disaster (as the Jerusalem church rarely had enough food in Acts).


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No he didn't. If that were true, then he wouldn't have made offers to the World Jewish Congress on obtaining Palestine.


Hitler was demon possessed probably, and his final plan was what he interned to have done to not just the jews, but other minorities, as Hitler played nice and put on a false front until he assumed absolute power and authority in Germany.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I see the situation as the young community trying to live in a new way. Economically, it proved to be a disaster (as the Jerusalem church rarely had enough food in Acts).


I see what you are saying here, as it was more that God allowed them to do that, but it was not really the preferred way for them to handle the needs of the new faith community.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No he didn't. If that were true, then he wouldn't have made offers to the World Jewish Congress on obtaining Palestine.


That was early on I think, as he ultimate goal always was to implement the Final Solution, and he just wanted until he assumed absolute power and was the right time.


----------



## Edward (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> That was early on I think, as he ultimate goal always was to implement the Final Solution, and he just wanted until he assumed absolute power and was the right time.



You need to learn to separate your emotions from history. Wannsee didn't even happen until January, 1942, after the US and Germany went to war and it was clear other options were foreclosed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

Edward said:


> You need to learn to separate your emotions from history. Wannsee didn't even happen until January, 1942, after the US and Germany went to war and it was clear other options were foreclosed.


You do not think Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews then? He was early on demonizing them in Germany, after he was elected into power.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> That was early on I think, as he ultimate goal always was to implement the Final Solution, and he just wanted until he assumed absolute power and was the right time.



His goal was Lebensraum for the Germans.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> You do not think Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews then? He was early on demonizing them in Germany, after he was elected into power.



No, he wanted them out of Europe. Otherwise he wouldn't have offered them Palestine.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I see what you are saying here, as it was more that God allowed them to do that, but it was not really the preferred way for them to handle the needs of the new faith community.



Where is your Scripture evidence for any of these claims?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Hitler was demon possessed probably, and his final plan was what he interned to have done to not just the jews, but other minorities, as Hitler played nice and put on a false front until he assumed absolute power and authority in Germany.



Given that he was into Thule worship, I can grant the demon possession claim. The other assertions, however, are simply conjectures.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Where is your Scripture evidence for any of these claims?


Acts records to us historically how the early community of Faith decided to provide fort heir own then. correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Given that he was into Thule worship, I can grant the demon possession claim. The other assertions, however, are simply conjectures.


We know that Hilter lied big time to Chamberlaid though, as in the famous peace in our time, and he also signed a peace treaty with Stalin, and then proceeded to attack Russia, he has been shown to be liar and to have real agendas behind the fake facade.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We know that Hilter lied big time to Chamberlaid though, as in the famous peace in our time, and he also signed a peace treaty with Stalin, and then proceeded to attack Russia, he has been shown to be liar and to have real agendas behind the fake facade.



He was right to attack Stalin. He intercepted communiques stating that Stalin was poised to overwhelm the West. All of Stalin's troops were in attack formation, which is why they were susceptible to Hitler's blitzkrieg. In fact, he destroyed so much Soviet materiel that Stalin was unable to enslave the West after the war.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Acts records to us historically how the early community of Faith decided to provide fort heir own then. correct?



Acts does record the actions, but it doesn't say all that you read into it. Plus, economically, one doubts the Jerusalem church was able to really provide for their own, given that they were starving as a whole for much of the time.


----------



## Edward (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> You do not think Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews then?



The Germans kept great records. Come up with one piece of documentation that Hitler was even aware of the death camps, much less directed their operations. Sure, he was aware of the early labor camps, but there's no documented ties between Hitler and the extermination centers. 

As for Barbarossa, as Jacob notes, that was just beating the other guy to the punch.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He was right to attack Stalin. He intercepted communiques stating that Stalin was poised to overwhelm the West. All of Stalin's troops were in attack formation, which is why they were susceptible to Hitler's blitzkrieg. In fact, he destroyed so much Soviet materiel that Stalin was unable to enslave the West after the war.



Actually, believe the Lord directed him to do that attack, as it caused Germany to be forced to fight on both East/West, and thus contributed to Hitler getting defeated and stopped.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Acts does record the actions, but it doesn't say all that you read into it. Plus, economically, one doubts the Jerusalem church was able to really provide for their own, given that they were starving as a whole for much of the time.


I am open to different understandings of how to apply what they did to us, as still do see it as being what God wanted them to do at that time, but not for us today.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

Edward said:


> The Germans kept great records. Come up with one piece of documentation that Hitler was even aware of the death camps, much less directed their operations. Sure, he was aware of the early labor camps, but there's no documented ties between Hitler and the extermination centers.
> 
> As for Barbarossa, as Jacob notes, that was just beating the other guy to the punch.


You really think Hitler was ignorant of the Holocaust? I think that it is pretty clear that Himmler and Him co worked out the Final Solution, and that Dr Mengale and all of those other Nazi animals were following his orders. You and others here seem to be supporting to some degree those who seek to revise history and have it rewritten.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> as still do see it as being what God wanted them to do at that time, but not for us today.



That's fine, but you have to provide *scriptural evidence* that says God wanted them to do that at that time but doesn't want us to do it today. My contention is that no such evidence exists.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Actually, believe the Lord directed him to do that attack, as it caused Germany to be forced to fight on both East/West, and thus contributed to Hitler getting defeated and stopped.



Can you provide evidence that the Lord wanted him to attack? And why is Hitler's defeat a good thing but Stalin's defeat would have been a bad thing?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> You really think Hitler was ignorant of the Holocaust? I think that it is pretty clear that Himmler and Him co worked out the Final Solution, and that Dr Mengale and all of those other Nazi animals were following his orders. You and others here seem to be supporting to some degree those who seek to revise history and have it rewritten.



No revision on our part. Simply that the Holocaust, defined as death camps, was a late development in WWII. Therefore, it can't be read into Hitler's earlier motives.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No revision on our part. Simply that the Holocaust, defined as death camps, was a late development in WWII. Therefore, it can't be read into Hitler's earlier motives.


He had those anti Semitic thoughts in _Mein Kamf_, and so he was just finally able to bring them to pass at that time. He needed to wait until the extermination camps were fully built in order to execute his Final Solution.


----------



## Edward (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> You really think Hitler was ignorant of the Holocaust?



I didn't say that, did I?



Dachaser said:


> You and others here seem to be supporting to some degree those who seek to revise history and have it rewritten.



You are the one that is arguing from emotion and option, not facts. 



Dachaser said:


> I think that it is pretty clear that Himmler and Him co worked out the Final Solution, and that Dr Mengale and all of those other Nazi animals were following his orders.



Mengele was a battalion medical officer until 1943; he was clearly a small fish. As for the rest of your theory, show me some evidence. Particularly since it has been documented that Hitler personally intervened on several occasions to save individual Jews.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He had those anti Semitic thoughts in _Mein Kamf_, and so he was just finally able to bring them to pass at that time. He needed to wait until the extermination camps were fully built in order to execute his Final Solution.



Of course he had anti-semitic thoughts. Every person in Europe at the time did. But that still doesn't mean his ultimate goal was to kill off every Jew. His goal was to have a Greater Germany.


----------



## Justified (Sep 9, 2017)

Proof of historical revisionism on the part of the establishment can be proven by the simple fact that it's all right to be a Communist but one cannot be a Nazi. Communism killed (is killing) countless more lives than Nazism/Facism ever did. Moreover, the economies and standard of living in communist countries was and is abysmal. Communism is not about common property but party ownership. The economy under the Nazi or national socialist government, on the other hand, thrived and the German people flourished.


----------



## Edward (Sep 9, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Every person in Europe at the time did.



Not everyone. Probably most. I learned something interesting the other day. The Nazis apparently swiped the plan to ship Jews to Madagascar from the Poles who had looked into doing that themselves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Sep 9, 2017)

Justified said:


> Proof of historical revisionism on the part of the establishment can be proven by the simple fact that it's all right to be a Communist but one cannot be a Nazi. Communism killed (is killing) countless more lives than Nazism/Facism ever did.



True believer Nazi-ism was thankfully too exclusive to endure. They ran out of the 'right people' to kill or keep in-line the 'wrong people.' 

On the contrary, Communism has a pull with folks that I've only learned to apprehend but not truly comprehend. Marxism has always tried to pass itself off as scientific but it inspires belief. You have to 'buy in.' Gary North recommends a book, 'Dedication and Leadership,' written by Roman Catholic convert from communism, Douglas Hyde. Hyde breaks down the training that the Party systematically did with new 'converts.' Their proto-Alinsky way of rubbing people's emotions raw and then pouncing on them with a purpose became refined over the years. Because have-nots (or have-lesses) will always outnumber haves, fresh meat is too be had at any time and place. A new member is a new member regardless of his hair color. 

I was in high school between 88-92 and so I saw all the stuff tumble down from the Berlin Wall to Gorbachev's resignation. In college I remember Leftist professors just being grumbling malcontents. To them Clinton was a Center-Right guy and much too campy for their tastes. However, one conservative prof I knew was just delighted with the changes. He was a second generation American of polish parents. He'd been to Soviet Union several times. He just didn't get folks that were enamored with communism. We joked about bringing the efficiency of the tag office to every place in American life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 9, 2017)

Edward said:


> You probably need to study a bit more history on that. There was provocation.
> Economic
> -embargo on steel and oil
> -asset freeze
> ...



I'm secure in my read of Japan's right to bomb Pearl Harbor ... it was unprovoked. Yes, there was economic and strategic pressure, but we had made no threat of violence upon them for which they would have a right to preemptively strike, a matter which in and of itself is debatable in a Christian view of justifiable use of violence. Again, partnership and allies brought us into a situation where violence was a natural development.

Your read on the Jews is spot on ... they became an issue as the war developed, but were not our justification for war, nor at any time where they offered as justification for war. It was in the outcome, when the utility of the war was evaluated, that many chose to point backwards and say, see, it was all about Israel and the Jews ... and it was never about them at all. A Christian ought not enter into violence first, hoping for a good cause to develop over time.

First casualties? Germans bombed Norway in 1940, and we had military attache killed at the diplomatic mission we were in the process of evacuating in the face of invasion. We were not targeted, but were collateral damage. We were not at war at the time, nor would that incident qualify as grounds to enter the war.

The essential question at hand is whether or not a Christian, or a nation that claims to uphold Christian values, can justify war, and if so, upon what grounds. That is a distinct conversation from politics, policies, and the relationship of nations. Christians, by nature of our belief, are not limited to secular justifications, and in fact are called to avoid them. We do however stoop to them most frequently when we have made oaths of loyalty to other nations, and in essence abdicate our obligation of moral evaluation to the leadership of the nation to which we've made an oath. We also like to invoke a divine mandate against evil some times, but that too must be tempered with the question of appropriate authority. If we believe that God appoints leaders of the church, empowers them to do things that the laity do not, it should not be hard to except that agency in the prosecution of war is likewise tied to God's appointed leaders, and not to the emotional appeal of interested Christians.


----------



## Edward (Sep 9, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> Germans bombed Norway in 1940, and we had military attache killed at the diplomatic mission we were in the process of evacuating in the face of invasion. We were not targeted, but were collateral damage.



I was not aware of that one, and I thank you for the information. It will give me something new to dig into. 

I generally count Charles L. Ensminger of the Panay as the first, and the officers and crew of the Ruben James as next. It appears that the officer at the embassy would fall between those two dates.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Of course he had anti-semitic thoughts. Every person in Europe at the time did. But that still doesn't mean his ultimate goal was to kill off every Jew. His goal was to have a Greater Germany.


Which would be forged on the blood of all of the Jews that he would kill off. He was Satanically motivated to exterminate them as a Race.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

Edward said:


> I didn't say that, did I?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did he order the Final Solution, or did he not?


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

Hitler was still the final one to order the Final Solution, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Which would be forged on the blood of all of the Jews that he would kill off. He was Satanically motivated to exterminate them as a Race.



Not really, since he had already conquered most of the territory he needed without killing a single Jew in a death camp.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not really, since he had already conquered most of the territory he needed without killing a single Jew in a death camp.


Why did he order them to go to the Final Solution then? It seemed that he decided to go this route when he knew that his was soon to get defeated, and went that route due to him soon no longer be able to have that carried out?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Why did he order them to go to the Final Solution then? It seemed that he decided to go this route when he knew that his was soon to get defeated, and went that route due to him soon no longer be able to have that carried out?



I don't have access to his pyschology. I can only go on previous actions. You had originally claimed that he built his empire on the blood of Jews, but that is manifestly false. Most of the Reich was established long before the camps were in operation. As to the Final Solution. I don't know. It doesn't make sense for Hitler to spend manpower, gas, and materiel on killing Jews when the Russians are closing in on him. Why divert gasoline and electricity to the camps when it could be used to fight the Russians, especially since he was running out of supplies.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't have access to his pyschology. I can only go on previous actions. You had originally claimed that he built his empire on the blood of Jews, but that is manifestly false. Most of the Reich was established long before the camps were in operation. As to the Final Solution. I don't know. It doesn't make sense for Hitler to spend manpower, gas, and materiel on killing Jews when the Russians are closing in on him. Why divert gasoline and electricity to the camps when it could be used to fight the Russians, especially since he was running out of supplies.


He was, from all accounts, possessed and used by satan himself, so no doubt that was a major factor into getting that Solution rolling. Do you not even accept that there was a Holocaust ordered by Hitler and carried out in Nazi Germany?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He was, from all accounts, possessed and used by Satan himself, so no doubt that was a major factor into getting that Solution rolling. Do you not even accept that there was a Holocaust ordered by Hitler and carried out in Nazi Germany?



Perhaps he was possessed by Satan. Again, I can only argue from data. But most of his actions throughout the war appeared rational, so we can't say he just went crazy at the end.

Yes, bad things happened to the Jews.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Perhaps he was possessed by Satan. Again, I can only argue from data. But most of his actions throughout the war appeared rational, so we can't say he just went crazy at the end.
> 
> Yes, bad things happened to the Jews.


I know, it was called the Holocaust .


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I know, it was called the Holocaust .



No one is disputing that.


----------



## Edward (Sep 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Did he order the Final Solution, or did he not?



I deal in facts, not opinions. My opinion would be no better than yours. I think I indicated up thread if you have any documentation showing that he had any direct knowledge, I'd be happy to look at it. And if he can't be shown to have knowledge, you certainly can't establish that he ordered it. 

We are all aware that large numbers of homosexuals and gypsies and others died under Nazi control. Lots of Poles died because of the Russians. Do you care about them?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2017)

Edward said:


> Do you care about them?



Stalin had killed 30 million confessing Christians before Hitler ever killed his first Jew. Yet we had no problem allying with Stalin.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He was, from all accounts, possessed and used by Satan himself, so no doubt that was a major factor into getting that Solution rolling. Do you not even accept that there was a Holocaust ordered by Hitler and carried out in Nazi Germany?



What's with the whole Satan angle? Did Hitler not have Satan's help with Polish Catholics, dwarfs, gypsies or plane French soldiers?


----------



## jw (Sep 12, 2017)

No. Christians should not, nor may they, be pacifists. This thread must now die the death it was dutifully due before it ever began.

We now put thee
Strange thread to sleep
Plunging the knife
Plunging it deep

Rise not again O!
Weird thread, odd bird
Die die die
Not another word

P.S. - In Soviet Russia, thread closes _you_.

Reactions: Like 5


----------

