XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.religion.christian.baptist,
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
From: shell-stamford@cox.net
"A Watcher" wrote in message
news:tuxnk.17160$tc1.11590@newsfe24.ams2...
>
> "Chuck Stamford" wrote in message
> news:DX4nk.5544$i15.413@newsfe01.iad...
>>
>> "A Watcher" wrote in message
>> news:4E0nk.3228$Lt6.2866@newsfe17.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Chuck Stamford" wrote in message
>>> news:hvUmk.5419$i15.535@newsfe01.iad...
>>>>
>>>> "A Watcher" wrote in message
>>>> news:iLSmk.51$Lt6.4@newsfe17.ams2...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chuck Stamford" wrote in message
>>>>> news:3VRmk.15178$LF2.509@newsfe09.iad...
>>>>>> I wasnt attacking you for being in the U.S. army, I was attacking the
>>>>>> U.S. Army, the fact that you served is great, I have family who serve
>>>>>> in both the German and Amerikan militarys, my family can trace its m
>>>>>> ilitary lineage back to a German Grenadier in WW1, then a German
>>>>>> Soldier in WW2, then an Amerikan soldier in Korea, then an Amerikan
>>>>>> Private in Iraq, An Amerikan Colonel in Afganistan and a German Major
>>>>>> in Afganistan. So, yes, very military family and I intend to continue
>>>>>> it by Joining the Bundeswehr...
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you aware that both the Germans and America/British Christians
>>>>> ended up killing each other being on opposite sides during the last
>>>>> two World Wars, both thanking God for their victories over the enemy?
>>>>
>>>> Are you aware that I didn't write what you've preserved above?
>>>>
>>>> And yes, I'm fully aware that there were undoubtedly Christians on both
>>>> sides of WWII. I'm confident that for any war you care to mention,
>>>> there's a very good possibility that one Christian faced another in
>>>> battle.
>>>>
>>>> What's your point?
>>>
>>> You mean you do not find it disturbing and quite inappropriate for
>>> Christ's brethren to fight and kill each other?
>>
>> Christ's "brethern" were enjoined by their God and Lord to obey the
>> legitimate authorities over them, as all authority comes ultimately from
>> Him.
>
> Yes, except when those authorities countermand what God has commanded of
> His Children in obedience to Him.
> Just as the Apostles did when told to stop preaching the Gospel in
> Jerusalem.
> " 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without
> violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
> 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and
> the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you
> that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled
> Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon
> us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to
> obey God rather than men." Acts 5:26-29 (KJV)
I would think that all went without saying. Clearly the truth of the
ultimate source of authority on earth doesn't trump the moral content of its
exercise. The teaching is that we are to give the benefit of any doubt to
the authority over us. Where there is any question at all about the
immorality or amorality of an exercise of legitimate authority over us, we
are to obey it.
In the above example, Peter is faced with a *direct* contradiction in that
Jesus had straightly (and painfull - See John 21:15-17) commanded Peter to
preach the Gospel, and he was now standing in front of a legitimate
authority over him telling him not to. Thus, we have an A, ~A relationship
between God's command to Peter and the authority's command to Peter. Would
that it were this cut and dried for most of us most of the time.
Unfortunately it's not. We don't have the inspired author of Acts sifting
through all the facts for us, leaving in only those that are relevant, and
we are not often faced with situations in which an authority clearly and
directly contradicts a command God has given to us...especially not in
America, where the entire concept of government grew out of the set of
Christian values.
>
> And Christ has forbidden his brethren to commit personal violence
> including the killing of other human beings even if their own personal
> lives are at risk.
> "36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are
> accounted as sheep for the slaughter."
> Romans 8:35-36 (KJV)
This isn't a good passage for attempting to support your position, which is,
I take it, that no Christian may ever kill another Christian for any reason.
That's because this passage, taken in context, is talking about laying down
one's life as a witness to the truth of the Gospel, and as such is much too
narrow in scope to support a sweeping proposition like the one I think
you're trying to support with it.
>
> "51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand,
> and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote
> off his ear. 52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his
> place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Matt
> 26:51-52 (KJV)
Same here. This is Jesus both protecting His disciple, and maintaining
control over the situation. If we see any theme at all running through the
Passion accounts in the gospels, one of them certainly must be that all
accounts show Jesus in charge of it. He orchestrates the entire process
from arrest, through the various trials and beatings, to His subsequent
death on the cross. We see Him doing things in this 18 hour period to *make
sure* people act so that the process of His execution continues along a
certain course of events. What He does here in the garden, for example. He
demonstrates His total power over everyone present when He utters what we
find next at verses 53 & 54.
I don't think it's valid to take a specific situation in which Peter's drawn
sword represented both and obstacle to the purposes of Jesus in that moment,
and a threat to Peter's life, and use it as one's biblical basis for saying
all killing is wrong. That's not what Jesus says here, and that's not a
plausible interpretation of what He did here.
>
> And again Christ's warning.
> "He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the
> patience and the faith of the saints."
> Rev 13:10 (KJV)
>
> In other words they won't kill with the sword, (and if they do, they must
> themselves be killed by the sword) but will patiently and faithfully
> accept the command of Christ not to harm, injure or kill any human being,
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
