How Do Christians Prepare For War?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

There is a time for war; the Bible even says so.

What preparations does a Christian make before going to war?

I don't believe that a Christian committs premeditiation when enlisting in the armed forces. The soldier enlists in order to protect the innocent. I don't believe that everyman has revenge or anger in his heart when he pulls the trigger on the enemy. I believe that the true Christian can pull the trigger and kill his enemy in order to save his countrymen and family and his men and himself.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 07, 2004

Answers

(That should have been:)I don't believe that a Christian committs premeditated murder when enlisting in the armed forces. Usually, the soldiers wait until fired upon before shooting back, yes? I think that any American military engagement with the enemy has had that "rule" of 'returning fire'.

.............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004


To my emailer-friend, just in case you didn't receive my reply:

Generally, I agree with everything you've written. I do not believe in going to war for revenge or anger. But, I do believe in stopping terrorism. I don't know if America has made any significant changes in stopping terrorism. I hope that we have. I also think about the people who do not have an army that can defend them of terrorism. If I could, I would go fight for them because they are unable to. But, it isn't anger or revenge that would dominate my motives. It would be an act of doing what is right. It would be the same as if an intruder were holding my family in terror in my own house. It just so happens that an entire country is the house of many people, many innocent people.

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004


I see your point, rod. You feel that by killing the possible attackers, their countrymen, and families may prevent your family and countrymen and foreigners whom you are concerned about from being killed. I can see the logic in that. It is a pre-emptive strike. Unfortunately, no modern war is actually fought for the good of humanity. If this were so, we would have slaughtered the warlords of African countries like Sierra Leone a long time ago. The fact of the matter is that by leaving the warlords of Sierra Leone to torture and dismember the women and children of their country, the powers that be are keeping the diamond prices low. By supporting godless Chinese communists who have committed some of the worst human rights violations in history, we keep the prices of many manufactured goods low. In an ideal world, we could kill the "bad guys" and there would be peace. But the bad guys have family and friends who think they are the good guys. They will label us the bad guys and want to kill us in return. Killing begets more killing.

Here's an analogy:

You are standing in a room, arguing with an enemy. Things escelate, and he pulls out a gun and points it at you. You then reveal your own firearm and call your friend into the room. He brings his weapons as well. Your enemy calls his friends and your friend calls his friends. The room is soon full of people with guns pointed in every direction. At what point do you lay down your gun, put on an armored vest, and back out of the room?

I know that the Hebrews wrote that there is a time for everything, and they were correct. They lived in lands where they were surrounded by foes. They had to be ready to defend their homeland at all times. We are bordered by Mexico and Canada. America has the people and resources to be self-sustaining. We have dug our own graves by getting involved in overseas politics. When George Washington left office, he warned against two things: a two-party political system and binding foreign treaties. These two things now threaten the very foundations of the USA. Binding foreign treaties led to one of the largest losses in American history, the Vietnam Conflict. No matter how many Viets were killed, they kept killing Americans until we left. Peace has to start somewhere. We can help it along by refusing to kill foreigners based on the claims of Washington, D.C. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the mark of a tyranical government was that it discouraged militias and kept a large standing army.

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004


There will always be war.

There will always be greed.

Men will always find ways to kill other men for whatever reasons--good or bad.

Here is my idea of America at war:

America should take all the steps necessary to avoid a war, but if they do engage in war, they should go all the way. The situation in Iraq should have been completely conquered by America and had gain complete possesion of it with American government, flag, and commercialism. This halfway involvement is a big mess. Iraq should have become Iraq of America. When the time comes for it to become Iraq, the time shall be obvious. Only when America takes it and makes it American, will fair government and social structure become real. Then, hopefully, the wars will be minimized.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004


America should conquer its enemy and make their land American. It then should populate that land with American virtues. It should allow Christianity to flourish in that land and it should do it with a strong fist if necessary. But, only after America has received the first blows of terrorism.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004


Genocide may be the best way to go. I am not being sarcastic. We should bomb the whole region until the sand is all menlted into one sheet of glass, then drill through the glass for oil. The culture of this region is beyond repair.

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004


That seems a tiny bit on the drastic side don't you think J.?

Perhaps a history lesson taken from the Catholic Church as they dealt with the pagans and heathens would be of significance here? That's why I have great respect for the Jesuits who went and conquered the world, not with violence, with education. But, yes, they did involve themselves with revolution--Cardenal. Did it work? Perhaps it did?

It wasn't an oppresive force that did the converting--in some cases. It was the Gospel that brought the lost to their needs in worship to God. It is a very difficult line to see, I guess.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004


rod, you may want to contact your friend so he can participate in this thread again.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 07, 2004.

Yes, I did about 2 or 3 days ago. He has been extremely busy, but he will post again.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 07, 2004.


What about Israel?

Numbers 33: 50And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

51Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;

52Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

53And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.

Israel was given a direct command by God to drive out anyone who inhabited the land promised to them. Currently, the disputed land between the Arabs and Israelites has been a spot of conflict ever since Israel became a nation officially in 1949.

What I find facinating is that a last few Prime Ministers of Israel have been removed from office after offering to withdraw from certain areas of the Promised land.

Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister in 1993, then was defeated in 1999. Ehud Barak replaced Netanyahu and served as Prime Minister until Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister in 2001 and is still serving now. However, Ariel Sharon is now facing possible indictment for an alleged bribery scheme. This comes after Sharon announced his plan for unilateral withdraw from the "Roadmap to Peace" and the building of a security fence, surrendering (unofficially) disputed lands, such as the area of Judea.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), April 05, 2004.


Each of these Prime Ministers offered to surrender land to the Arabs in an attempt for a peace partner.

Israel has the capabilities of wiping out the Arabs, as long as the international community stays out of it. Historically, the UN has been very much against actions of Israel, even ones clearly justified, such as the assasination of terrorist leader Yassin.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), April 05, 2004.


Noting that Israel as a nation cannot be classified as Christian, I am curious if Israel should withdraw as they currently plan, continue to hold to land's currently under Israeli control, or use their military force to drive out Arafat.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), April 05, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ