War in Gaza

[Josh]

I think you would benefit from people who have been speaking for Israel too and I'm sure he's not the only one in Israel running this war on terror. Shame on Hamas for putting innocent people in harms way.

Most of my opinions about this I formed when I worked for an Israeli company and my colleagues felt free to share their political opinions with me. I was surprised to learn that so many Israelis (including Jews) are not in favour of things like the settlements in the West Bank, how Gaza was treated, etc.

[ken_sylvania]

Well I have met Messianic Jews in many sects of Christianity, and also the co-founder of "Jews for Jesus" who became an Orthodox Christian, than priest. He believes the Full Gospel but interprets differently than Anabaptists, who are not infallible at interpretations.

People are either Christians, or they are not. In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female.

Of course, there are a lot of denominations. The ones that believe that it's OK for a Christian to pick up a gun and kill people are wrong. Anabaptists are right about this.

I would not expect an Anabaptist to see it any other way, nor do I criticize God for commanding killing- nor will I criticize Jesus and His army for the killing that will take place against evil doers. The greater good

Will you follow Jesus' example in criticizing those who have rejected the Son of God, the Messiah, the Saviour of the world?

It is good if you don't criticize the Revelation army that follows Jesus but doesn't engage in any killing of evil doers.

[Josh]

This idea of a "Jesus army that kills evildoers" is a bit disturbing. Who composes this army?

[RZehr]

Clement of Alexandra, (150-215) a teacher in the early Church wrote a few things about Christian dress- quite strict ,& plain did he teach!

Regarding shoes, he said "Women should for the most part wear shoes. For it is not suitable for the foot to be shown naked. Besides, woman is a tender thing, easily hurt. But for a man, bare feet are quite in keeping, except when he is on military service."

It has been a accepted through the church age that Christian men might serve-
At any rate Jews won't agree, John the Baptist gave soldiers their requirements- whether Netanyahu is secular or not, he believes Jews have a right to this war to not be wiped off the face of the earth-

I’m not really familiar with what each of these early guys said. I am little familiar with who they were tho.
So I have two questions on this, one rhetorical, and one not.
First rhetorical: why would you/we find ourselves ignoring his opinion on bare feet for women, while latching on to his opinion about military service?
Second: Is it fair to take this as condoning military participation? Where I’m coming from is the assumption that if a man was converted while in the military, his instruction was to not harm anyone. Because he really didn’t have the freedom to quit the military.
Now if that assumption is more or less accurate, it would be much more correct to read his instruction here as a commentary on bare feet, and not on the acceptability of Christians joining the military and killing people. Right?

[Josh]

Let me understand this. Women need to wear some kind of footwear, but men should be barefoot, except when they're going to war.

Is that what I should understand to be established Christian doctrine?

Does the Bible ever point us to such customs for footwear (or lack thereof)?

[Ernie]

Second: Is it fair to take this as condoning military participation? Where I’m coming from is the assumption that if a man was converted while in the military, his instruction was to not harm anyone. Because he really didn’t have the freedom to quit the military.
Now if that assumption is more or less accurate, it would be much more correct to read his instruction here as a commentary on bare feet, and not on the acceptability of Christians joining the military and killing people. Right?

Correct. Many men in the Roman military were running errands and building roads, etc.

[Ken]

Second: Is it fair to take this as condoning military participation? Where I’m coming from is the assumption that if a man was converted while in the military, his instruction was to not harm anyone. Because he really didn’t have the freedom to quit the military.
Now if that assumption is more or less accurate, it would be much more correct to read his instruction here as a commentary on bare feet, and not on the acceptability of Christians joining the military and killing people. Right?

Correct. Many men in the Roman military were running errands and building roads, etc.

Is there any historical evidence that Roman legionaries were let off the hook from combat and allowed to assume non-combatant roles if they converted to Christianity? I have never heard or seen anything of the sort.

[Valerie]

Let me understand this. Women need to wear some kind of footwear, but men should be barefoot, except when they're going to war.

Is that what I should understand to be established Christian doctrine?

Does the Bible ever point us to such customs for footwear (or lack thereof)?

Is the Bible are "only" source for outward apparel as Christians or do churches have the freedom to add to Scripture on specifics?

[Valerie]

Clement of Alexandra, (150-215) a teacher in the early Church wrote a few things about Christian dress- quite strict ,& plain did he teach!

Regarding shoes, he said "Women should for the most part wear shoes. For it is not suitable for the foot to be shown naked. Besides, woman is a tender thing, easily hurt. But for a man, bare feet are quite in keeping, except when he is on military service."

It has been a accepted through the church age that Christian men might serve-
At any rate Jews won't agree, John the Baptist gave soldiers their requirements- whether Netanyahu is secular or not, he believes Jews have a right to this war to not be wiped off the face of the earth-

I’m not really familiar with what each of these early guys said. I am little familiar with who they were tho.
So I have two questions on this, one rhetorical, and one not.
First rhetorical: why would you/we find ourselves ignoring his opinion on bare feet for women, while latching on to his opinion about military service?
Second: Is it fair to take this as condoning military participation? Where I’m coming from is the assumption that if a man was converted while in the military, his instruction was to not harm anyone. Because he really didn’t have the freedom to quit the military.
Now if that assumption is more or less accurate, it would be much more correct to read his instruction here as a commentary on bare feet, and not on the acceptability of Christians joining the military and killing people. Right?

I quoted the whole quote of his. I'm sure it was part of a much longer teaching, I brought it up because Josh expects Israel to not defend itself it seems based on the interpretation of New Testament which not every Christian sect interprets the same.

[Soloist]

We don’t overly know the context of what he was referring to. He himself references non-resistance as well.