Josh wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 3:57 pm They seem very far off from Jesus’ message of peace, which notably never called for one side or another to be victorious in battle. Jesus told his soldiers to lay down their swords, not swing them mightily. How must he feel when his followers are busy praying for soldiers to win - on both sides of a conflict?
i’m much less bothered by the bloodthirsty nature of those who never considered a better way than that of “presumed” COs as reflected on this forum wrt both Ukraine and Israel, via Just War, etc.
If only Jesus were as influential as the NYT. It would be a different world.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
Josh wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 3:57 pm They seem very far off from Jesus’ message of peace, which notably never called for one side or another to be victorious in battle. Jesus told his soldiers to lay down their swords, not swing them mightily. How must he feel when his followers are busy praying for soldiers to win - on both sides of a conflict?
i’m much less bothered by the bloodthirsty nature of those who never considered a better way than that of “presumed” COs as reflected on this forum wrt both Ukraine and Israel, via Just War, etc.
If only Jesus were as influential as the NYT. It would be a different world.
Presumably evangelical Christians have read the New Testament, Jesus’ words, and Matthew 5, haven’t they?
The better way has been right in front of them. It’s a choice to reject it.
Josh wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 3:57 pm They seem very far off from Jesus’ message of peace, which notably never called for one side or another to be victorious in battle. Jesus told his soldiers to lay down their swords, not swing them mightily. How must he feel when his followers are busy praying for soldiers to win - on both sides of a conflict?
i’m much less bothered by the bloodthirsty nature of those who never considered a better way than that of “presumed” COs as reflected on this forum wrt both Ukraine and Israel, via Just War, etc.
If only Jesus were as influential as the NYT. It would be a different world.
Presumably evangelical Christians have read the New Testament, Jesus’ words, and Matthew 5, haven’t they?
The better way has been right in front of them. It’s a choice to reject it.
This is what i did, and what i concluded. i know many others have not done as i have done.
i know many have not read the NT, but rely on others’ understanding, and many of those relied on others’ understanding, often for generations. To begin, most could not read, there was no printing press. It doesn’t seem like it now, but it is a privilege to have access to scriptures, much more a privilege to be blessed by the Holy Spirit for understanding. Without the latter, the former is useless.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
We may call it a certain success for pacifists that wars have to be framed as "a means to promote permanent peace" nowadays. That started with WW1 ("the war to end all wars"), was revived in WW2 and lures behind the momentaneous wars which are generally justified by references to "the good war" (WW2).
"Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue" (I had to look it up, was said by La Rochefoucault)
So "Say not the Struggle nought Availeth". It at least nurtures hypocrisy.
I wouldn't be too hard on those evangelicals that believe in a 'just war' belief that, like any war, results in collateral damage. Some of these same evangelicals may be leading people to the Saviour with a belief that this is to be a primary focus of a Christian. I think when some non-evangelicals start to show an active, eternal concern for the souls of others by their sharing the Gospel, then they might have more weight to their judging of some 'just war' evangelicals. Hypocrisy can be viewed from both sides, imo.
PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:04 am
We may call it a certain success for pacifists that wars have to be framed as "a means to promote permanent peace" nowadays. That started with WW1 ("the war to end all wars"), was revived in WW2 and lures behind the momentaneous wars which are generally justified by references to "the good war" (WW2).
"Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue" (I had to look it up, was said by La Rochefoucault)
So "Say not the Struggle nought Availeth". It at least nurtures hypocrisy.
I'm not sure that is anything new. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that ended the 30 years war (and the international order that followed) was essentially sold in the same way. From the Treaty of Munster itself:
That there shall be a Christian and Universal Peace, and a perpetual, true, and sincere Amity, between his Sacred Imperial Majesty, and his most Christian Majesty; as also, between all and each of the Allies, ... That this Peace and Amity be observed and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other;
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Sudsy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 12:45 pm
I wouldn't be too hard on those evangelicals that believe in a 'just war' belief that, like any war, results in collateral damage. Some of these same evangelicals may be leading people to the Saviour with a belief that this is to be a primary focus of a Christian. I think when some non-evangelicals start to show an active, eternal concern for the souls of others by their sharing the Gospel, then they might have more weight to their judging of some 'just war' evangelicals. Hypocrisy can be viewed from both sides, imo.
I would be very hard on anyone who reads Jesus’ words and then justifies murdering babies and children out of some misguided notion of biblical prophecy… whilst simultaneously getting upset about legal abortion in America.
