PDA

View Full Version : OT - Christian war perspective (from a minister)

mrskippy
03-31-2003, 12:31 AM
Pastor Charles Stanley of InTouch Ministries has some good writings on his site:

Biblical
Position (http://www.intouch.org/War/index_38027182.html)


Christian's duty during war (http://www.intouch.org/War/duty_38088298.html)
mrskippy
03-31-2003, 12:46 AM
It was the Christian's Duty During War that was sent to the troops. It wasn't necessarily just for them. It was for member's of Stanley's church, supporters of his ministry, and anyone who wanted it.

It's actually a pretty good read ... especially on the prayer card. Not just praying for the President, but praying for troops too.

http://www.itmimg.org/images/duty_brochure2.pdf
Fritz
03-31-2003, 05:36 AM
My wife, a Christian zealot, would disagree with Dr. Stanley. If I had to guess, it would have a lot to do with his reliance on the Old Testament.

My observation: You Christians can find justification for almost anything in the Bible.
Easy Mac
03-31-2003, 07:15 AM
In Romans 13:1 and 4, Paul writes, "every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. . .for it [the government] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

I think I've said this before, but if the preacher is going to quote this verse, then he is also giving Hitler the OK.
Fritz
03-31-2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Easy Mac
I think I've said this before, but if the preacher is going to quote this verse, then he is also giving Hitler the OK.

The okay to do what?
Bee
03-31-2003, 07:56 AM
I think to grow that silly looking mustache.
GrantDawg
03-31-2003, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Easy Mac
In Romans 13:1 and 4, Paul writes, "every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. . .for it [the government] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

I think I've said this before, but if the preacher is going to quote this verse, then he is also giving Hitler the OK.

What does the verse say the government is to do, Easy Mac? for it [the government] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. It is supposed to be for support and protection of people.

The government Paul (who wrote Romans) was under would also kill him. Do you think he supported the government? Or do you think he supported the role of government and their need to use the "sword" in protection?
KWhit
03-31-2003, 08:23 AM
I'm confused. How does war jive with that whole "Thou shalt not kill" commandment?

Maybe a new translation of the Bible should read "Thou shalt not kill unless you suspect that one day somebody might try to kill you. Then it's okay. Knock yourself out with the whole killing thing. In fact, you can even pray to God to let you kill even better than normal."
GrantDawg
03-31-2003, 08:25 AM
Thou shalt not murder
detroit_fan
03-31-2003, 08:37 AM
The Bible does not say, "thou shall not kill". Read the the epic battles of the old testament, that God directed his believers to carry out.
KWhit
03-31-2003, 08:42 AM
I'm certainly no Biblical Scholar, but I thought most translations were "Thou shalt not kill."

I did a couple of Google searches on the 10 commandments and found "Kill" used. Not murder. And I guess that the 10 commandments are in 2 books - Exodus and Deuteronomy. Who knew? And they both read "kill" in my translation.

I know that there are other verses that say things such as "To every thing there is a season ... A time to kill, and a time to heal..." etc. I'm just very skeptical of the contradictions in the bible.
GrantDawg
03-31-2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by KWhit
I'm certainly no Biblical Scholar, but I thought most translations were "Thou shalt not kill."

I did a couple of Google searches on the 10 commandments and found "Kill" used. Not murder. And I guess that the 10 commandments are in 2 books - Exodus and Deuteronomy. Who knew? And they both read "kill" in my translation.

I know that there are other verses that say things such as "To every thing there is a season ... A time to kill, and a time to heal..." etc. I'm just very skeptical of the contradictions in the bible.

It has been translated kill but the word deals with murder or at least the best way we can translate it from Hebrew.
GrantDawg
03-31-2003, 08:49 AM
dola- Strong's lexicon on the word


7523 ratsach { raw-tsakh’}

a primitive root; TWOT - 2208; v

AV - slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + 310 1, slayeth 1, death 1; 47

GK - 8357 { jx'r;
1) to murder, slay, kill
1a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1a1) premeditated
1a2) accidental
1a3) as avenger
1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be slain
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to murder, assassinate
1c2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
1d) (Pual) to be killed
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.
KWhit
03-31-2003, 09:00 AM
Okay. I'll buy that. Thanks for the info.
Easy Mac
03-31-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by GrantDawg
What does the verse say the government is to do, Easy Mac? . It is supposed to be for support and protection of people.

The government Paul (who wrote Romans) was under would also kill him. Do you think he supported the government? Or do you think he supported the role of government and their need to use the "sword" in protection?

Exactly, and the Nazi's felt like they were protecting and supporting their people against the Jews, whom they felt were evil and ruinous to the world. I don't say its right, I'm just pointing out the Bible gives protection to a lot of crazy shit, as Fritz said.

I'm sorry if I do not understand the point you are trying to make by asking me these questions.
GrantDawg
03-31-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Easy Mac
Exactly, and the Nazi's felt like they were protecting and supporting their people against the Jews, whom they felt were evil and ruinous to the world. I don't say its right, I'm just pointing out the Bible gives protection to a lot of crazy shit, as Fritz said.

I'm sorry if I do not understand the point you are trying to make by asking me these questions.

Your saying these verses gives Hitler the ok. They do not. Paul was not giving the Roman government the ok to kill Christians either. He is saying that the government does have a role to play and that would include the use of the "sword." The "sword" should be used to protect good and be a terror to evil, but it does not mean that the government will not misuse/abuse this right.
Easy Mac
03-31-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by GrantDawg
Your saying these verses gives Hitler the ok. They do not. Paul was not giving the Roman government the ok to kill Christians either. He is saying that the government does have a role to play and that would include the use of the "sword." The "sword" should be used to protect good and be a terror to evil, but it does not mean that the government will not misuse/abuse this right.

So he wasn't saying its ok to misuse the power (whether it is technically permissible would I guess be technicalities and interpretations), but that i forgot what i was going to type to finish my thought. Sorry

I understand what you are saying though and completely see what you mean now.
Fritz
03-31-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by GrantDawg
Paul was not giving the Roman government the ok to kill Christians either. He is saying that the government does have a role to play and that would include the use of the "sword." The "sword" should be used to protect good and be a terror to evil, but it does not mean that the government will not misuse/abuse this right.

Wish you could have a sit down with Mrs. Fritz
clintl
03-31-2003, 10:20 AM
FWIW, some of the vocal critics of the war are Christian ministers. A friend of mine who is a Lutheran minister is very much opposed to it.
mrskippy
03-31-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by clintl
FWIW, some of the vocal critics of the war are Christian ministers. A friend of mine who is a Lutheran minister is very much opposed to it.

Yeah, but the Southern Baptist Convention is the nation's largest evangelical church and its leader strongly supports the war effort. And most evangelical faiths tend to fall right behind. Methodists and Lutherans tend to fall behind their Catholic bretheran.

Stanley addresses the issue about killing in a war pretty well.

The Hitler example ... well, the sword was being used for evil ... just like Saddam. Hitler was killing Jews ... a big no-no. The war to oust him was justified.
Fritz
03-31-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by mrskippy
The Hitler example ... well, the sword was being used for evil ... just like Saddam. Hitler was killing Jews ... a big no-no. The war to oust him was justified.

Of course the war to oust Hitler had nothing to do with the Jews.

[Edit]
I suspect that if Hitler did not invade Poland he would have been able to kill every Jew in fatherland.

[edit again]
Likewise, the humanitarian reasons for war against Iraq are a sideshow, not the raison d'etre.
Fritz
03-31-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by mrskippy
Methodists and Lutherans tend to fall behind their Catholic bretheran.


I don't know about that. The United Methodist Church has some very "progressive" positions.

After reading their positions on subjects like abortion and divorce, it appears that the UMC is about being a low-impact Christian. In other words, moral challenges and conflicts with modern society are avoided by relaxing doctrinal standards. This certainly does not follow the Catholic model.
mrskippy
03-31-2003, 02:52 PM
The official UMC position, according to the Bishop on Larry King a few weeks back, was they were against the war. The Bishop said Bush, a member of the UMC, would likely be dealt with by the church. That's OK ... Bush is more Baptist than Methodist.
Fritz
03-31-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by mrskippy
The official UMC position, according to the Bishop on Larry King a few weeks back, was they were against the war. The Bishop said Bush, a member of the UMC, would likely be dealt with by the church. That's OK ... Bush is more Baptist than Methodist.

Funny, the UMC website (www.umc.org) only lists their position as "for peace." Unless I missed something, which is certainly possible.

Have a look and tell me what I have missed:

http://www.umc.org/headlines/iraq/
Easy Mac
03-31-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by mrskippy
Methodists and Lutherans tend to fall behind their Catholic bretheran.

Depends on where you are. Lutherans are split down the middle depending on the synod. ELCA is liberal, Missouri Valley is conservative.

And most Catholics I know (I'm catholic, go to church every week) are very much conservative, very much for the war on all fronts, but have mixed feelings only b/c of what the pope says. I'd say they are almost as conservative as the southern baptists.