rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.17.22.54.55.1991.21179@athos.rutgers.edu> rahardj@clark.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo) writes: >I'd like to know how Christians feel about war ? >As I understand Christians do not believe in killing people, >but now with this war and lots of people are dying.... >Some of the troops in Saudi are Christians, what should they do >if they want to be true Christians ? > >-- budi > I believe that since war involves killing, it can not be justified from christianity's point of view. The "ten commandments", the commandments given by G-d unto Moses on Mt. Sinai clearly says "Thou shalt not kill." I believe that every christian believes in this. However, among western democracies, there is always what we call as separation between the church and state. The state does not interfere with the church's affairs and vice versa. This war therefore, is driven by the state and not the church. In short it is a political war. To directly answer your question, I would like to quote the view of the World Council of Churces now meeting here in Canberra, Australia. There is a general concensus that the church is against the present war. Note, however, that this is only the view as far as the church is concerned. The view of the politicians handling the war may be different and indeed it is. As regards to the christian soldiers in the gulf, it remains a matter of personal opinion and belief. Religion in most of christianity is a personal relationship between the person and his Creator and is not imposed by anybody nor the church. As a soldier however, each one of them knows very clearly that part of their job is to kill in times of war. -- Rey V. Paulo | Internet : rvp@csc.canberra.edu.au University of Canberra | "One and one and one is three" PO Box 1, Belconnen ACT, AUSTRALIA | -The Beatles --------------------------------------+----------------------------------- [However the World Council really represents only the "liberal" wing of the Protestant Church. At least within the U.S. (I don't know as much about church membership elsewhere) I'd bet 1) that the churches it represents don't include a majority of members even of Protestant Churches. And of course Catholics aren't included. 2) that the people who vote in the World Council are noticably more "liberal" than the members of the churches they come from. That's not to say that statements by the World Council are useless, (though there are certainly people who believe that the Council would be better off not to make statements on controversial issues unless there is a real concensus among Christians). They may provide guidance to churches and individual Christians. But it would be a great exageration to consider them as representing any kind of Christian concensus. --clh]
EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) (02/27/91)
Re: War If we look into the old testament, we see that God sometimes called his people to go to war. Sometimes it was a way of bringing judgement about, others to claim land. Since this is the case, I feel it is safe to say that war, although it is never desired, is sometimes necessary. God chose Israel to represent him on the earth in the old testament, and sometimes allowed other peoples to know his wrath through him. Also, another argument that I have heard against war is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." The original text had the meaning of "thou shalt not murder," I don't know why the change was made. Even secular people realize that during a war, if you kill someone, you are not held responsible for their death. So I don't think it is accurate to claim non-involvement in a war on that basis alone. ________________________________________________________________________ Ed Lamb .387 average Catcher 53 home runs Philadelphia Phillies 157 runs batted in National League MVP 67 stolen bases World Series MVP ________________________________________________________________________ --Hey, I can dream, can't I ??????
gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) (03/01/91)
In article <Feb.27.00.27.07.1991.8985@athos.rutgers.edu> EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) writes: >Re: War > > If we look into the old testament, we see that God sometimes called >his people to go to war. Sometimes it was a way of bringing judgement >about, others to claim land. Since this is the case, I feel it is safe >to say that war, although it is never desired, is sometimes necessary. >God chose Israel to represent him on the earth in the old testament, >and sometimes allowed other peoples to know his wrath through him. I look at these passages in the OT as the result of cultural bias on the part of the editors. After all, if you are recording the history of your people and you find that your people have been responsible for the slaughter of men, women, children and animals you need a way to vindicate your people. An easy way is to say that it was God's will that you kill in this instance. However, I believe that no God who LOVES EVERYONE would tell one group of people to kill another. Maybe it made sense that God would hire executioners back when people tended to think of God as just the great judge and jury in the sky, but in light of the teachings of Jesus this simple-minded view is very questionable. > Also, another argument that I have heard against war is the >commandment "Thou shalt not kill." The original text had the meaning >of "thou shalt not murder," I don't know why the change was made. Even >secular people realize that during a war, if you kill someone, you are >not held responsible for their death. So I don't think it is accurate >to claim non-involvement in a war on that basis alone. > We have had this debate about the meaning of this commandment before. I feel that we also need to take a close look at Matthew 5:21-26 where Jesus talks about this issue of killing and verses 43-48 where he talks about love for your enemies. Jesus did not even want us to be angry much less kill. Also, it seems to me that if we truly love our enemies the last thing we want to do is blow their heads off. -- Stan Silvert Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1104c ARPA: gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (03/05/91)
In article <Feb.27.00.27.07.1991.8985@athos.rutgers.edu> EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) writes: > If we look into the old testament, we see that God sometimes called >his people to go to war. Sometimes it was a way of bringing judgement >about, others to claim land. Since this is the case, I feel it is safe >to say that war, although it is never desired, is sometimes necessary. >God chose Israel to represent him on the earth in the old testament, >and sometimes allowed other peoples to know his wrath through him. > Also, another argument that I have heard against war is the >commandment "Thou shalt not kill." The original text had the meaning >of "thou shalt not murder," I don't know why the change was made. My Judaism professor says that this may not have been the "right" translation. In the english version of the Tanak that I have it uses the word "kill". >Even >secular people realize that during a war, if you kill someone, you are >not held responsible for their death. Being a "secular person" I'd have to disagree with that. The only time its "ok" to kill someone is in defense. The taking of a human life is wrong. When you make exceptions you become what you despise. Unfortunately most of the wars waged by the Israelites in the old testamtent were agressive in nature (ie to take the land). This is curious. If God wanted to give the land to His people, why didn't he simply instil a sudden feeling of restlessness in the Canaanite peoples and make them want to move? I guess violence was more fun or something... Jeff Lindborg
RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) (03/06/91)
In article <Mar.1.02.42.45.1991.15467@athos.rutgers.edu>, gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) says: > >I look at these passages in the OT as the result of cultural bias on >the part of the editors. After all, if you are recording the history >of your people and you find that your people have been responsible for >the slaughter of men, women, children and animals you need a way to >vindicate your people. An easy way is to say that it was God's will Most of the OT is not about "cultural vindication of the Isrealites." It is, rather, about how God moulds a "stiff-necked" people to be obe- dient to Him. In fact, your argument above is hard to support, since lots of the OT is spent "lambasting" the Irealites for their unrighteous- ness. Look more carefully at the passages involved. >that you kill in this instance. However, I believe that no God who >LOVES EVERYONE would tell one group of people to kill another. Maybe This is what *you* believe. Don't people who love their children discipline them from time to time? You are also looking at God's acts from the point of view that "loss of life" isn't discipline but "cruelty." God is eternal. Human spirit is eternal. This life is just a brief "stop-over" on the way to the eternal. What then is life to an eternal God? Note well that I'm NOT arguing for a "licence to kill." I am saying that God is JUST, beyond our own earthly definition(s) of justice. >it made sense that God would hire executioners back when people tended >to think of God as just the great judge and jury in the sky, but in >light of the teachings of Jesus this simple-minded view is very >questionable. What's so "simple-minded" about justice? Jesus himself preached that there would be an end-time, and God would judge the world. Look at Matthew 11:20-24. Jesus warns of judgement. Go and read a bit before accusing others of being "simple-minded." Since you seem to be so fond of Matthew... (7:7) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" >We have had this debate about the meaning of this commandment before. >I feel that we also need to take a close look at Matthew 5:21-26 where >Jesus talks about this issue of killing and verses 43-48 where he No. Jesus talks about "murder," not "killing." >talks about love for your enemies. Jesus did not even want us to be >angry much less kill. Also, it seems to me that if we truly love our >enemies the last thing we want to do is blow their heads off. Jesus talks about loving your neighbor as yourself. How do you love yourself? Are there pieces you don't like and would gladly get rid of? Jesus is not talking about being "enamoured" by everything about your enemy. He *is* talking about not *hating* your enemy. If you believe that that your enemy is about to commit great atrocities, you are *not* to love the atrocities because you love your enemy. If you take your enemy's life here, it would not be murder. It is clear that we are not to take pleasure in killing. God never commanded his people to kill indiscriminately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Belcinski | Any opinion expressed above is not | Bitnet: RJB@SLACVM.BITNET | necessarily that of SLAC or the US DOE. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (03/07/91)
In article <Feb.26.04.20.12.1991.12579@athos.rutgers.edu>, dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) writes: > It's hard. I've found myself secretly hoping that the war would > go badly for us so that Bush wouldn't gain the political points. > I got the best words of wisdom from a friend who isn't > particularly religious: "We've gotta go for peace, no matter > _what_ the cost is." It's been hard for me th this past month > hearing the news reports and realizing the affect this would > have on Bush'spopularity, and seeing the support for my side of > the argument dwindle, buti] I can only trust the spirit has led > me well and pray for peace. Hi Don: Just some off the cuff thoughts on your comments: I'm sure you have read and seen what the Iraqi soldiers have done in Kuwait. The war on the environment (oil fires, oil dumped into the sea) killing wildlife of all kinds and endangering innocent human lives. The bombing of civilian targests (on purpose) to Israel with scud missles. The rape and torture of innocent Kuwaiti women and children in front of spouses and parents. The unplugging of infant child support systems. The pulling out of fingernails. Axes through peoples sculls. When Jesus said turn the other cheek, he didn't mean "look the other way". I submit to you it is just as evil to allow evil to continue when you have the power to stop it. Pacifism, when taken to its extreme is evil. I'm all for restraint, but a Saddam that would do what he has done would not hesitate to nuke any country if he had the capability (which he would have had in 5-10 years or so). That being the case, we may have prevented (or at least postponed) a nuclear holocaust. Such an event would leave no more cheeks to turn. Our planet would be history. None of us want that. Think and pray about it brother. Consider what has happened to Kuwait. Meditate on it. Think about the facts. Do you allow the torture of an innocent one continue, looking the other way, or do you stop it? Which is the more noble calling? -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
bobby@retix.retix.com (Bobby Martyna) (03/07/91)
(please post this. i am mailing it because our posting software stinks. also, off the air, i would like to say how much i enjoy and appreciate this newsgroup and your editorial comments. thanks. your last message also indicated that you didn't want a discussion over the wisdom of the recent war. this posting holds a more general view). only in a perfect world will there be no war. as a christian supporter of the war to liberate kuwait, i find war in this case, a necessary, though horrible consequence of a world filled with evil intents and desires. christians, and others, who take the stance that all war is wrong have simply not thought this issue through. keep in mind that if we follow jesus' words to the letter, not only would there be no military and no war, but also no police forces or security guards. all good christians and pacifists should leave their doors wide open to invite the unfortunate, whether they be the hungry and destitute or path- ological murderers. upon seeing a neighbor being beaten to death, he should offer the killer his coat, if not a blunt object, and advise the victim to turn the other cheek. instead, each christian makes a personal decision regarding the consequences of his actions. the decision about whether to confront and destroy a given evil is one which we find very easy in the personal cases which threaten us directly. similar circumstances, emotions and judgments apply in the global community. in either situation, less than a wholehearted stand risks blurring the distinctions between good and evil, reducing us to moral relativists. until the second coming, i believe that, even in our own imperfection, we must try to build a world free of poverty and hatred. we should also seek freedom of all peoples from the sadistic evil of such tyrrants as saddam hussein. sometimes, war and violence are the only means. in the case of the neighbor-killer, would he stop (or laugh) if our response was to threaten sanctions against his family? our christianity need not mean we sit idly in the face of evil. instead, let us rejoice and give thanks for this victory and peace. let us pray for the brave men who won it for us, for those who gave their lives, and for our former enemies. and let us hope and pray for divine guidance in our daily lives as well as in world affairs.
gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) (03/08/91)
In article <Mar.5.23.40.23.1991.23074@athos.rutgers.edu> RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) writes: >In article <Mar.1.02.42.45.1991.15467@athos.rutgers.edu>, >gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) says: >> >>I look at these passages in the OT as the result of cultural bias on >>the part of the editors. After all, if you are recording the history > > Most of the OT is not about "cultural vindication of the Isrealites." I did not claim that the OT is ABOUT vindication, I only offered an explanation of why God appears to be so ruthless and cruel in the OT. After all, compare Nahum 1:1-6 to I John 4:16. It is clear that the way men think about God changed drastically after hearing the teachings of Jesus. > >>that you kill in this instance. However, I believe that no God who >>LOVES EVERYONE would tell one group of people to kill another. Maybe > > This is what *you* believe. Don't people who love their children >discipline them from time to time? You are also looking at God's acts Yes, this is what I believe and I stand by that belief. A Christian parent who disciplines a child does so (hopefully) out of love. Do you really think that anyone was showing love for the Hittites, Cannanites, etc. when God supposedly told the children of Israel to destroy their enemies totally, make no treaties, and show them no mercy (Deut 6:2)? From what we know about Jesus we gather that he was completely peaceful and merciful. We should strive to be like Jesus. > >>it made sense that God would hire executioners back when people tended >>to think of God as just the great judge and jury in the sky, but in >>light of the teachings of Jesus this simple-minded view is very >>questionable. > > What's so "simple-minded" about justice? Jesus himself preached >that there would be an end-time, and God would judge the world. >Look at Matthew 11:20-24. Jesus warns of judgement. Go and read a >bit before accusing others of being "simple-minded." Since you seem >to be so fond of Matthew... (7:7) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust >in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" > There is nothing simple-minded about justice. I was stating that is seems that the Isrealites had a limited view of who God is. While we don't have all of the answers, I think we are better informed on the subject of God's identity that those ancient people who lived many years before Christ. I am sorry that you misunderstood my meaning. My fault! >>We have had this debate about the meaning of this commandment before. >>I feel that we also need to take a close look at Matthew 5:21-26 where >>Jesus talks about this issue of killing and verses 43-48 where he > > No. Jesus talks about "murder," not "killing." A prominent professor from Southern Theological Seminary, Dr. Bill Hendricks, informed me at a Bible conference that the meaning of this passage is "Don't kill." Dr. Hendricks even goes so far as to claim the teaching has an impact on killing through pollution of the environment, apathy for those in need of medical care, etc. Whether you agree or not, there are serious scholars who take this passage to have implications on all forms of killing. If you doubt the scholarly credentials of Dr. Hendricks, he does hold degrees from Harvard and Cambridge. I'm not saying he is infallible or anything, but I do hold his opinions in great esteem. >you are *not* to love the atrocities because you love your enemy. If >you take your enemy's life here, it would not be murder. It is clear >that we are not to take pleasure in killing. God never commanded his >people to kill indiscriminately. > If one takes a literal interpretation of the OT, God does command his people to kill indiscriminately (IMHO). My worry is that we look at the Old Testament without considering the New Testament. Did the U.S. army check each of the approximately 100,000 Iraqis to see that each was committing atrocities before they killed them? Even if they were, what about turning the other cheek and not resisting an evil person? How are Christians supposed to explain to people that violence is not an acceptable means of solving problems when we give support to mass destruction of human life? -- Stan Silvert Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1104c ARPA: gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu
johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (03/11/91)
In article <Feb.19.00.54.45.1991.19224@athos.rutgers.edu> davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) writes: > > I'd like to know how Christians feel Jesus Christ would have >handled this whole affair if he were president of the USofA. > > David Hatcher By `this whole affair', I assume you mean the war in the Gulf. It's hard to say what Jesus would do if he were president, cause when he was here the first time, he didn't assume nor want to assume political power. But I can more easily answer the question, 'how would Jesus have me (or G. Bush, J. Carter, W. Harding, whoever) handle this situation?' I think he would say, "To whom much is given, much is required. The world is in danger of a budding tyrant about to take over much power (since oil is power these days), and if he learns that he can take over a country with impunity, he'll just keep getting stronger, like Hitler in the '30's. Don't be like those clergymen in Germany who didn't resist Hitler because they thought that reason would win out. Be like my servant Dietrich Bonhoeffer who resisted to death. You, as leader of the most powerful nation in the world (by my design, not by your virtue, so don't boast), have been given an opportunity to lead the resistance to this evil man, this prototype of Antichrist. Be strong and of good courage." A warlike Jesus?? What about "Blessed are the peacemakers"? Well, Jesus also told his disciples, toward the end of his mortal ministry, to carry a sword. Life has tragic choices that must be made, and if lives must be lost to prevent a greater evil -- large-scale tyranny, which would have ocurred had we let Saddam go unchecked -- then so be it. This whole standoff has been a test of our stewardship. One final thing. Some time in the future, Jesus is going to be the president, of the world. Actually, the King. And the Bible says He's going to be fierce to His enemies. Revelation (the book thereof) says that a sword out of His mouth will consume His enemies. And during His thousand-year reign in Jerusalem, He will shut up the rain from the skies of those nations which don't come each year to the Succoth Feast in Jerusalem. The same Bible that said "Blessed are the peacemakers" also says these other things. Instead of creating a pick-and-choose religion (or at least **before** you create a pick-and-choose religion) work on getting to know the big picture, know what issues have higher priority and what have lower. John Warren "... into the narrow lanes, I can't stumble or stay put." - Dylan
JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (03/14/91)
In article <Mar.11.02.42.22.1991.5498@athos.rutgers.edu>, johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) says: > >A warlike Jesus?? What about "Blessed are the peacemakers"? Well, >Jesus also told his disciples, toward the end of his mortal ministry, >to carry a sword. Life has tragic choices that must be made, and if >lives must be lost to prevent a greater evil -- large-scale tyranny, which >would have occurred had we let Saddam go unchecked -- then so be it. >This whole standoff has been a test of our stewardship. I agree. I think it is not as difficult to reconcile with the beatitude quoted as one might think, either. When I look at "Blessed are the peacemakers" I see the word "blessed". To me this means that these people have been blessed by God by the circumstances which allow them to be peacemakers. As in, "Blessed am I, for I have been blessed by God." Now, this may or may not have been what Jesus meant, but it seems to make sense to me. As for the "turn the other cheek" idea... Jesus didn't say anything (at that time) about what we were to do if we saw someone striking someone *else* (someone weaker) on the cheek, so it seems to apply in this case more as a warning about selfish motives... i.e. we have to make sure that we are not fighting a war because of national pride or what have you, but instead because of the injustices that our opponent is committing against some weak group of people (be they a racial group, a nation, etc.) --Jenni
smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) (03/19/91)
In article <Mar.14.03.49.00.1991.24866@athos.rutgers.edu> JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) writes: >In article <Mar.11.02.42.22.1991.5498@athos.rutgers.edu>, >johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) says: >> >As for the "turn the other cheek" idea... Jesus didn't say anything >(at that time) about what we were to do if we saw someone striking >someone *else* (someone weaker) on the cheek, so it seems to apply >in this case more as a warning about selfish motives... My question is, how far do we go with "turn the other cheek"? If someone is going to kill us, or someone else, are we really supposed to let them, or should we stop them? (Turn the other cheek as long as it doesn't kill anyone?) Walter