" Founded A Christian Nation "

[Marilyn C]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

I was simply addressing the actual issues James was talking about.  You tried to use "war" in a national sense, which is not what James is saying.   You need to find passages that actually condemn national war.  You need to find passages that prohibit Christians from joining the military, if you want to make a cogent argument.

So, was it immoral for us to go to war to stop the Hitler war machine and his attempt to take over the world??   Do you think our response to Hitler was to simply let him roll over us and enslave us to the Third Reich??  

 

Sorry but you are mishandling Scripture to force it to address what YOU want it to say, and not what is actually being said.  You have to do that because you have no legitimate argument from Scripture.

War, strife individually or collectively is not of God.  You are confusing `us` for the nation. We are not of the nations, we are the ekklesia `the called out ones` from the nations & from Israel. The nations will be in conflict till the Lord comes, as you well know.

And you my dear bro, are very confused as regards who we, the Body of Christ is.

Marilyn.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Marilyn C said:

War, strife individually or collectively is not of God.  You are confusing `us` for the nation. We are not of the nations, we are the ekklesia `the called out ones` from the nations & from Israel. The nations will be in conflict till the Lord comes, as you well know.

And you my dear bro, are very confused as regards who we, the Body of Christ is.

Marilyn.

Again, you have not made the case that Christians cannot join the military.  You are taking verses from the Bible that do not address national war and trying to mold the Bible around your own secular pacifistic views and that is an illegitimate use of the Bible.  

I am not confused at all.  I am not the one twisting the Bible around to defame Christians who died to protect our freedoms from evil nations that would have enslaved su.

I would also point out that you don't have the courage to give a straight answer about our response to Hitler and if the world was right in going to war against the NAZI war machine.    That is the ultimate test of whether or not you are consistent in your theology or not.   Do you condemn the allies for going to war against Hitler???

[justadisciple]

I'm disappointed by your attitude, shiloh357, but your reaction does not surprise me, given that this topic is a very sensitive one and I am guessing you have a lot invested in it (ie. you probably own guns and have held this position openly for years, so being willing to soften on it could be extremely difficult for you now).

Nevertheless, I do think it is important to look carefully at the flaws in your arguments, just so others are not intimidated by your forceful approach.  It is clear that you are not open to considering any Scripture anyone else can present you, as you dismiss every single one with one technicality or another.

However, by the very nature of your arguments, you have admitted that you do not have any real Scripture to support it. Your position is not based on something the Scriptures actually say, but on a faulty conclusion.

Here is your argument in a nutshell:

1. The Bible says we should provide for our family.  
2. That must include providing protection.  
3. Therefore it is lawful for Christians to take up arms and use violent and deadly force if necessary to protect ourselves and our family.

That's about as close as you have gotten to an argument based on New Testament Scripture.

The problem, apart from being mostly based on nothing more than your own reasoning, is that the conclusion in point 3 does not actually follow. There is nothing in the New Testament that justifies you taking up arms and being willing to kill others "in self defense".  It is a position based on silence... but the conclusion is in stark contrast to everything else the New Testament says on the topic of violence.

On the other hand, I am basing my position on what the New Testament Scriptures actually say on the topic of violence, and so it is a position consistent with Jesus' teachings and the New Testament. It naturally and logically follows that if the New Testament Scriptures consistently call us to a non-violent approach, that a non-violent approach to any situation not specifically covered by Scripture is more in harmony with the New Testament than a violent one.  You cannot escape that logical conclusion.

Therefore, if there is to be an EXCEPTION to the spirit of the New Testament, it must, of necessity, be clearly stated in New Testament Scripture itself.  

However, you maintain that any Scriptures that talk against violence are doing so in the context of persecution and not self-defense, and therefore do not apply to defending ourselves nor to going to war, and practically to any other situation that worldly people would normally resort to violence for.

But there are several problems there with your reasoning:

First of all, Jesus did teach against violence in self defense. 

He said: 

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-40)

There is no mention of persecution there.  In fact, Jesus gives a clear example of self defense and he tells us to not resist evil, but to allow people to hit us, and not only that... allow them to hit us AGAIN! 

Secondly, your approach would be virtually impossible to practice, because you would have to determine beforehand the motivations of the person coming to attack you. So, someone comes in to kill you and your family, but you do not know if they are persecuting you for your faith or if they are just a theif coming to steal.  How do you decide when to kill them "in self defense" and when to "turn the other cheek" in response to persecution.  

For example you defend the right of churches to have armed personnel, ready to shoot and kill anyone that would do them harm... but what if the people doing them harm are persecuting them for their faith?  How would they even know?

Having said that, I do not believe you are being honest about claiming that Jesus' teachings on non violence apply to times when we are persecuted for our faith.  I believe you would feel justified in using carnal weapons even in times of persecution.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that, but everything you have said so far would indicate that you do not believe in turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, losing your life for the Gospel except in trivial ways like "not gossipping back in the work place".  When it comes to real life persecution and violence, your approach is "it is nonsense to allow others to kill you and your family, therefore it is okay to use carnal weapons to defend ourselves".

You dismissed my analogy of selling cocaine on the grounds that that activity is illegal, whereas owning guns (in America) is legal.  That doesn't make sense.  What about selling Marijuana?  It is legal in some places.  Is that okay then?  No wonder you have so much confusion on this issue!  You think right and wrong is determined by men's laws!

Now, I am not a pacifist, at least not in the strictest sense of the word.  I do believe that a certain amount of restraining force is a valid option as a response to violent people. And I do not condemn you or other people in the world for wanting to protect yourself and your family, even though I think it is an approach based on fear rather than faith.  

But my approach is to take Jesus' word and example seriously.  He is the example of our faith.  He calls on us to follow him, to suffer as he did by taking up our own cross and laying down our lives in humble service to God.  And nowhere does he nor the rest of the New Testament justify us in taking up carnal weapons and be willing to kill others in the name of self defense.  That is just a carnal approach to trying to save our fleshly lives, instead of seeing the real spiritual warefare that happens between good and evil.

For someone who claims to believe to be in possession of eternal life... why are you so invested in saving your earthly one at all costs?

[justadisciple]

12 hours ago, John Robinson said:

As an Army vet, I've long held the suspicion that most of what passes as pacifism is really nothing more than cowardice in better clothes.

I agree.  I too believe that most of what passes as pacifism is cowardice. Nevertheless, Jesus showed us that true love for others, turning the other cheek, laying down our lives for our friends, being innocent as doves, and following in his footsteps, taking up our cross is the ultimate act of bravery.

Christian martyrs have shown great strength and bravery too, suffering and giving their lives for the Gospel without taking the lives of others.  And Desmond Doss is a great example of how a true Christian who does not kill others can be brave in their commitment to obeying Christ.

[Neighbor]

On 11/23/2017 at 12:18 PM, Unfailing Presence said:

A question I think it worthy to review on Thanksgiving Day .

You often hear the back and forth debate about whether or not America was founded  as a " Christian Nation "  .

I myself do not think it even  plausible to define an entire nation as being " Christian " ,   but in terms of founding institutions , documents , traditions  I cannot think of a nation founded more in Christian spirit and sentiment than America .                         

Who would believe in 2017 that Harvard for instance  was founded a fundamentalist Christian College ? 

As were the majority of our oldest and most renowned institutions of higher learning . Institutions that would refuse Christian thoughts to even be spoken out loud  on campus today .

Which gets to my point , If America could not be considered to be founded on a predominantly Christian basis ,  what nation or country could ?

Is there any better example in all human history ? 

I have never heard any other nation in all human history held up as being " Christian founded "  

You would think even the detractors of America being founded that way would  hold up the example of some other " Christian Nation "  to juxtapose and show how badly America missed the mark ? 

But I have never , ever heard any other nation offered up by either supporters or detractors . 

Won't somebody tell me of one , if a better example exists ? 

Remember I am speaking specifically about the " founding " , not what exists today . 

                                                                  " Beside us to aide us , our God with us joining , ordaining , maintaining His Kingdom divine.                                                                                                                                                                           So from the beginning the fight we were winning , Thou Lord wast at our side - all Glory be Thine ."    ( Source unknown ) 

Hi, I don't know that there is all that much  in the way of evidence of the USA being founded as a Christian nation, but accepting  it as fact for the sake of the thread's premise, may I suggest looking at  the nation Israel? If one wants to see a nation to be founded on Christianity, it is Israel that as a nation reveals God's sovereignty over all things, and births Christianity.

It is the nation Israel and it's warrior people that sustains knowledge of God in mankind. The very headstrong  and stiff necked people that God loves and calls His own will yet unfold as Christians at the home of our Lord Jesus. He will sit and rule from there for  the great time of reveal of Him yet to come. It is there that He will rule over all of earth. Jesus  died for His sheep as the Good shepherd at Israel. Our Lord's blood was spilled there. It is there that Christianity is still being birthed to fullness to come.

So is there any land like Israel when it comes to revealing Jesus, and is there any land other than Israel where God will rest His feet? I think I will have to say; no the USA is not the Christian land, Israel is. It is not America that will be the hub of things to come, It is Israel, always has been and always will be.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Neighbor

[Guest shiloh357]

35 minutes ago, justadisciple said:

 

Nevertheless, I do think it is important to look carefully at the flaws in your arguments, just so others are not intimidated by your forceful approach.  It is clear that you are not open to considering any Scripture anyone else can present you, as you dismiss every single one with one technicality or another.

However, by the very nature of your arguments, you have admitted that you do not have any real Scripture to support it. Your position is not based on something the Scriptures actually say, but on a faulty conclusion.

Actually, I have never said that I don't have Scripture to support my argument.  What I said is that I have a moral paradigm.  I am sure you understand what a paradigm is.   The Bible doesn't list every possible sin that a person could commit; so it establishes a paradigm that allows us to use what the Bible says is sin in order to judge what the Bible doesn't address.

If you asked me to show you in the Bible where child molestation is addressed as a sin, I could not provide you any Scriptural support for that, as the Bible doesn't mention it.   If you asked me show you Scripture that forbids pornography or child pornography, I cannot cite a single verse to that says that porn is a sin.   If you ask me to show you from the Bible that spousal abuse is a sin, there would be no passages I could cite that forbid spousal abuse.

Do I NEED Scripture to say that all of those things are sinful?   No.   There is enough light from Scripture concerning the behavioral paradigm that it establishes for me to declare those things as sinful and I don't need a single verse from the Bible do so.

The same applies to something like defending one's family.    I don't NEED a verse that says a man is permitted to defend his family by any means be it violent or non-violent.   The moral paradigm concerning family values established in Scripture is sufficient to judge self-defense as a biblically moral response to a violent threat.

Unlike your position which rests on twisting the Bible and perverting Scripture, my position is biblical and does not violate any teaching of Scripture. 

Quote

 

Here is your argument in a nutshell:

1. The Bible says we should provide for our family.  
2. That must include providing protection.  
3. Therefore it is lawful for Christians to take up arms and use violent and deadly force if necessary to protect ourselves and our family.

That's about as close as you have gotten to an argument based on New Testament Scripture.

The problem, apart from being mostly based on nothing more than your own reasoning, is that the conclusion in point 3 does not actually follow. There is nothing in the New Testament that justifies you taking up arms and being willing to kill others "in self defense".  It is a position based on silence... but the conclusion is in stark contrast to everything else the New Testament says on the topic of violence.

 

Actually, the Bible says nothing about using violence in self-defense.  As I have pointed out numerous times, you have provided nothing from the Bible that you don't have to twist or pervert, or take out context in order to justify your position.  

When the Bible says that  a man who doesn't provide for his family is worse than infedel (unbeliever), that is not a qualified statement.   It doesn't limit provision to just food, water, clothing and shelter.   A man is to provide in every sphere of life for his family and if a violent intruder breaks into the house at night, that provision includes defense.  

Quote

On the other hand, I am basing my position on what the New Testament Scriptures actually say on the topic of violence, and so it is a position consistent with Jesus' teachings and the New Testament. It naturally and logically follows that if the New Testament Scriptures consistently call us to a non-violent approach, that a non-violent approach to any situation not specifically covered by Scripture is more in harmony with the New Testament than a violent one.  You cannot escape that logical conclusion.

Those passages about non-violence that you have cited are issue-specific to the problem of persecution.  They say nothing about self-defense from criminal activity.   You don't seem to want to be honest about the context of the passages you use.   You ignore the context because if you applied proper hermeneutics and exegesis, you could not make the argument you are trying to make from the verses you use.   So you have to misapply them by mold the Bible around your beliefs instead of the Bible speaking for itself.    You are forcing the Bible to be subservient to your purposes rather than letting the Bible set your agenda.

Quote

Therefore, if there is to be an EXCEPTION to the spirit of the New Testament, it must, of necessity, be clearly stated in New Testament Scripture itself.  

To logically and internally consistent, you would have to apply that same argument to the issues of child molestation, porn and spousal abuse.  That's where your argument breaks down.
 

Quote

 

However, you maintain that any Scriptures that talk against violence are doing so in the context of persecution and not self-defense, and therefore do not apply to defending ourselves nor to going to war, and practically to any other situation that worldly people would normally resort to violence for.

But there are several problems there with your reasoning:

First of all, Jesus did teach against violence in self defense. 

He said: 

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-40)

There is no mention of persecution there.  In fact, Jesus gives a clear example of self defense and he tells us to not resist evil, but to allow people to hit us, and not only that... allow them to hit us AGAIN! 

 

No, that is not teaching against self-defense.   Jesus was teaching against taking revenge.   The Rabbis took "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" to mean that they could inflict harm in revenge against another person.   Originally, in the OT, that passage was understood to mean that you had to make restitution for harm you caused someone else.   Whatever injury you caused, had to be financially compensated, i.e., paying for an injured eye or tooth. 

Jesus was saying if that if someone strikes you on your cheek (dishonors you or your name) you were not to do likewise; but turn the other cheek.  Slapping someone on the  face was not violence.  It was an act of personal insult.   Jesus was not talking about criminal violence, getting beat up  or something.  He was talking about someone slapping someone on the cheek as means demeaning them.  It was a cultural thing. 

So again, you are misapplying the text.

Quote

Secondly, your approach would be virtually impossible to practice, because you would have to determine beforehand the motivations of the person coming to attack you. So, someone comes in to kill you and your family, but you do not know if they are persecuting you for your faith or if they are just a theif coming to steal.  How do you decide when to kill them "in self defense" and when to "turn the other cheek" in response to persecution.  

That is just patently ridiculous.   We can all tell the difference between a violent intruder breaking into your house and an act of persecution such as what sometimes befall missionaries. We can tell between rape and simply being sent to prison for sharing your faith. 

Stop insulting people's intelligence.

Quote

For example you defend the right of churches to have armed personnel, ready to shoot and kill anyone that would do them harm... but what if the people doing them harm are persecuting them for their faith?  How would they even know?

Walking into any building and opening fire on innocent people is crime. Everyone knows that.  Even if someone comes in and starts shooting up the place because they are an Atheist and hates Christians, their actions cross the line into criminal activities and we are a nation of laws that protects us as citizens.

Furthermore, the Bible doesn't permit us to react violently to persecution be it slander, gossip, dishonor, getting fired from a job for sharing faith, being expelled from school for reading a Bible.   Most persecution isn't violent persecution.  We are to respond according to biblical prescription in those events.  But that does not cover violent criminal activity.

Quote

Having said that, I do not believe you are being honest about claiming that Jesus' teachings on non violence apply to times when we are persecuted for our faith.  I believe you would feel justified in using carnal weapons even in times of persecution.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that, but everything you have said so far would indicate that you do not believe in turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, losing your life for the Gospel except in trivial ways like "not gossipping back in the work place".  When it comes to real life persecution and violence, your approach is "it is nonsense to allow others to kill you and your family, therefore it is okay to use carnal weapons to defend ourselves".

When a violent intruder breaks into your home, you literally have a matter of seconds to respond, like less than 5 seconds to react.  You have to make a split decision and you have to be prepared to make that decision and have plan in place already before the event occurs so that you can react accordingly.  You don't have the luxury of time to sit him down and ask the intruder beforehand what his intentions are.   When violent person breaks into your home, you assume he means to kill and you respond accordingly.

Quote

You dismissed my analogy of selling cocaine on the grounds that that activity is illegal, whereas owning guns (in America) is legal.  That doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense.   Your argument was what didn't make sense.   You were trying  to make it appear that my argument was that ANYTHING can be justified on the grounds of providing for one's family.   You created a strawman and then tried to apply it to me and I simply knocked it down.

Quote

What about selling Marijuana?  It is legal in some places.  Is that okay then?  No wonder you have so much confusion on this issue!  You think right and wrong is determined by men's laws!

I am opposed to MJ and the legalization of MJ.   I have made that position known on this board to the consternation of our resident pot-smokers here on WBs.   I think there are plenty of legal means to provide for one's family that one does not have to resort to immoral or illegal behavior.   I don't define right and wrong based on what is legal according to mans' laws. I have never held that position.

Quote

Now, I am not a pacifist, at least not in the strictest sense of the word.  I do believe that a certain amount of restraining force is a valid option as a response to violent people. And I do not condemn you or other people in the world for wanting to protect yourself and your family, even though I think it is an approach based on fear rather than faith.  

You operate from presumption not faith.    If you are really operating from faith as you appear to think, then I challenge you to leave your doors unlocked at night and when you leave your house.  I challenge you to drop your home insurance, car insurance and health insurance.   Quit your job and simply live by faith that God will provide and you have no responsibility to live in this world responsibly. 

Quote

 

But my approach is to take Jesus' word and example seriously.  He is the example of our faith.  He calls on us to follow him, to suffer as he did by taking up our own cross and laying down our lives in humble service to God.  And nowhere does he nor the rest of the New Testament justify us in taking up carnal weapons and be willing to kill others in the name of self defense.  That is just a carnal approach to trying to save our fleshly lives, instead of seeing the real spiritual warefare that happens between good and evil.

For someone who claims to believe to be in possession of eternal life... why are you so invested in saving your earthly one at all costs?

 

You are not taking Jesus' example seriously as it relates to  why Jesus lived as He lived.   Jesus was never the victim of criminal activity that we have record of.   Jesus' response to His enemies was in the arena of persecution.   Jesus had to go to the cross, and He put up no resistance to His enemies because He had to be crucified.   Jesus will NOT be following that example when He returns and slaughters the armies of the world.   Evidently, not even Jesus really lives up to the imaginary concept of Jesus that you possess.   Jesus is going to respond quite violently when He returns to defend Israel.  Imagine that.   Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, killing his enemies. 

[justadisciple]

I can appreciate your point of view and I am thankful you have communicated now in a more respectful tone.

As I said before, I am not a pacifist in the strict sense of the word. I do believe Jesus will return to execute judgement and he has that right because he first laid down his physical life in love for his enemies.

Before he comes back, however, he calls us to follow his example to the cross, not his future role (which we will follow later). Now is the time to take up our own cross and suffer if need be in this world. No cross, no crown.

29 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You operate from presumption not faith.    If you are really operating from faith as you appear to think, then I challenge you to leave your doors unlocked at night and when you leave your house.  I challenge you to drop your home insurance, car insurance and health insurance.   Quit your job and simply live by faith that God will provide and you have no responsibility to live in this world responsibly. 

I don't see any problem with locking doors. I have already said that I believe that is a valid way of self defense, as is fleeing. It is not the same as killing someone. Having said that I often do not lock my doors even when I am threatened with violence.

No need to challenge me. I already live like that. I have no home insurance, car insurance or health insurance. I already quit my job 20 years ago, forsook everything I owned and have been living by faith as a full-time missionary for the last 20 years, having missioned for years in many places including India, Africa, and South America. I am currently in the Philippines. In all that time I have seen some rough things and my life has been in danger more than once, but God delivered me from each situation and will continue to do so till He determines otherwise.

I do not agree with much of your position. I do not think it is consistent with the spirit of Jesus' teachings nor the example he set for us to follow. But I do not want to debate the issue any further with you. In the end we each have to be true to the highest revelation of God's will as we understand it and give our accounts to Him.

[4LdKHVCzRDj2]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

If you are really operating from faith as you appear to think, then I challenge you to leave your doors unlocked at night and when you leave your house.  I challenge you to drop your home insurance, car insurance and health insurance.   Quit your job and simply live by faith that God will provide and you have no responsibility to live in this world responsibly.

21 minutes ago, justadisciple said:

No need to challenge me. I already live like that. I have no home insurance, car insurance or health insurance.

Yes, people who live in the developed world and have all those things have no idea how many people are living without any of that daily.

 

The poorer the people, the more faith they are dependent on... As an example, the poor when is in pain or trouble they go immediately to God for help while the rich go to money, hospital, this and that, and only when their worldly resources are over they think about going to God.

 

That is one of the reasons you see more miracles in poor regions, people have much more faith there. They believe, they do not let science or their extensive knowledge of science discourage them.

 

Nowadays most people just want to have material prosperity in abundance... Wake up, all those things will be destroyed sooner or later.

They just want to sit back and relax, they do not have the courage to trust in their faith or at least exercise it and make it grow.

"I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?" - Luke 18:8

[other one]

Just for the record I'd have you know that I "always" pray all the way to the ER. Tuesday I was so sick I could hardly get out of red and I prayed a lot.

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, justadisciple said:

I can appreciate your point of view and I am thankful you have communicated now in a more respectful tone.

As I said before, I am not a pacifist in the strict sense of the word. I do believe Jesus will return to execute judgement and he has that right because he first laid down his physical life in love for his enemies.

The example Jesus set for us on the cross is consistent with a crucified life.   The example is that of surrender.   It is not one of non-violence.    It is important to understand that using Jesus as an example of non-violence is not really practical or logical in that Jesus' purpose was to give His life on the cross.  He was born for that purpose.   Jesus' reasons for non-violence had to do with not thwarting the reason He came.   Had Jesus defended Himself, He would not have gone to the cross and we would not be saved.  He did not hold up any virtue of non-violence.    You complete skew the message when you try to force something on to the biblical text that is simply not there. 

And I would also add that allowing someone to murder your family because you think the Bible teaches us to love our enemies is a very tortured interpretation of Scripture.   Nowhere is "loving" one's enemies defined in Scripture as allowing someone to murder an innocent person.  

Your approach to loving your enemy forces you to put the enemy ahead of your own family.  And if you would stand by and permit your family to raped or murdered in the name of "loving" the person who is raping and murdering them, that speaks very poorly of your and your very irresponsible, and pathetic interpretation of Scripture.  

 

Quote

I don't see any problem with locking doors. I have already said that I believe that is a valid way of self defense, as is fleeing. It is not the same as killing someone. Having said that I often do not lock my doors even when I am threatened with violence.

The problem is that when that doesn't work and when there is no place to run and fleeing isn't an option, then what?   You "love" the criminal by letting him murder your family?  That flawed interpretation of Scripture demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Bible defines "love."

 

Quote

No need to challenge me. I already live like that. I have no home insurance, car insurance or health insurance. I already quit my job 20 years ago, forsook everything I owned and have been living by faith as a full-time missionary for the last 20 years, having missioned for years in many places including India, Africa, and South America. I am currently in the Philippines. In all that time I have seen some rough things and my life has been in danger more than once, but God delivered me from each situation and will continue to do so till He determines otherwise.

That's all fine for you.   The problem is that you are making a moral judgment about those who choose to own a gun and defend their families and you offer up an irresponsible approach to the Bible on this matter.

Edited December 1, 2017 by shiloh357