Civil War-again?

[temporal1]

On this forum, i believe members are consistent about mourning loss of life.

Questions arise about allegations, accusations, due process, etc.
About employing self restraint rather than jumping on bandwagons that happen to be appealing in the moment.

Evidently, this is quite annoying, often times resulting in impatient accusations, insinuations of dark motives.
Which is sad.

[Jazman]

Challenging point to keep in mind. I would add that followers of Jesus can also criticize all killings/wars/torture etc, no matter whom is doing it and regardless of what 'side' the perpetrators self-identify as or categorized as... a follower of Jesus can condemn both the Pretti and Charlie Kirk killing, equally... they can condemn abortion and murder after birth equally... it actually leans towards simple...
It's partisan loyalties (and misinfo/disinfo) that gum things up and enslave people to all kinds of arduous moral/ethical gymnastics as they try to stay 'loyal' to their side by defending, down-playing, justifying, deflecting...

You mean, like, shooting people is tragic, no matter which people I like and hate? And even law enforcement and ICE need to be accountable if they do that without good cause?

Yes, and I would go beyond just saying/thinking "that's tragic" I would want to think about what it takes to avoid the tragedy entirely... I would want to ask, "How can I/we learn from this and do better" and then disciple/encourage/incentivize people (christian or non) to try to avoid based on answers to those questions and more. This would include everything from the common grace of morally intended but imperfect public policy (advocating and implementing) to history/ethics education in children's classrooms to the teaching/preaching of the Word to pew sitters...
I think the Bible models this... Biblical justice isn't just admitting "that's tragic..."; more follows or is called upon to follow after that initial admission.

So bringing it back to the thread topic. We have many examples of civil wars in history to study. We can if we want, analyze and see what lead to it. Therefore, we can learn how not to do it again. God gave us a brain. We have free will. We can find out nearly objective truth if we seek and dig for it. I believe those and more tools are more than enough to avoid a civil war...

[Jazman]

That’s what your side does.

Taking sides is what leads to civil war. Followers of Jesus are on the same side, even when they disagree.

Or adopting an attitude of ferocity/sectarianism/wrath/fear?
Maybe this is connected to or might inform your point OJ?

[Bootstrap]

That’s what your side does.

Taking sides is what leads to civil war. Followers of Jesus are on the same side, even when they disagree.

Or adopting an attitude of ferocity/sectarianism/wrath/fear?
Maybe this is connected to or might inform your point OJ?

"Fight the World Christianity" versus "Love Your Neighbor Christianity".

Compassion starts to be treated as dangerous and even sinful, even though it is at the heart of what we see in Jesus. We could almost call it "Civil War Christianity".

[JohnH]

Yes, and I would go beyond just saying/thinking "that's tragic" I would want to think about what it takes to avoid the tragedy entirely... I would want to ask, "How can I/we learn from this and do better" and then disciple/encourage/incentivize people (christian or non) to try to avoid based on answers to those questions and more. This would include everything from the common grace of morally intended but imperfect public policy (advocating and implementing) to history/ethics education in children's classrooms to the teaching/preaching of the Word to pew sitters...
I think the Bible models this... Biblical justice isn't just admitting "that's tragic..."; more follows or is called upon to follow after that initial admission.

Jazman,

Would you agree it would be good to disciple people not to bring a loaded firearm (particularly, a model of gun that is notorious for having defects which make it randomly fire) to go confront federal officers?

[JimFoxvog]

Would you agree it would be good to disciple people not to bring a loaded firearm (particularly, a model of gun that is notorious for having defects which make it randomly fire) to go confront federal officers?

I would.

I also think it would be good to disciple federal officers not to bring loaded firearms to protests.

[ohio jones]

I just read an blog post mirroring the subject of this thread. I'll share the part that talks about history:

My favorite one, so far, is from a guy who was actually a confederate soldier. He was 17 when the actions started and went down to sign up when all hell broke loose. And I love listening to his perspective and how insightful it is about the human condition.

He simply said that he’d heard his state was being invaded. So, he felt compelled to join the resistance and protect his town. That’s it. Nothing about race. Nothing about politics. Nothing about slavery (yet – wait for it). Nothing about states rights. Nothing about Lincoln, even.

Just a 17-year-old kid thinking his farm was about to get ravaged and his general store confiscated. He didn’t really know why. He was simply being a protector.

Later in the video, he actually brings up slavery and has this really intriguing statement. Something to the effect of when he and his buddies heard that emancipation of slavery was part of the issue, many of them actually agreed with it and absolutely believed slavery to be a bad practice. And he says something like (I can’t remember his exact wording), “Yeah, we thought it was right to end slavery.”

Confederate kids – clearly on the wrong side of history, in practice – probably didn’t have any idea what (or who) they were actually fighting for. But by the time they realized it, it was too late to turn back. They were already in a battalion; a unit. They were already committed to their brothers in arms. They had to see it through. 19th century honor and all of that....

I often sit on my back porch, imagine those soldiers from 170 years ago, and wonder which side I wouldn’t chosen. And it usually comes down to my age and where I would’ve been born.

If I were an illiterate 17-year-old farm boy, from around here in Tennessee, I probably would’ve done exactly what that confederate kid did. At 35, if I owned property and had a family, I may have tried to make some intellectual case for the one side or the other.

But I know for a fact, that if I were my age now, and it all started, I’d try to settle people down and lower the temperature first. Then ask some pertinent questions…

Are we sure we’re right about this? Is this in keeping with our laws? Are our laws just in the first place? Can this be solved without bloodshed? And, if so, what will it take to make that happen?

He goes on to discuss current events and politics, so I'll leave that for another time and place. But I appreciate his point about how easy it is to get caught up in the excitement of incitement, taking sides, digging in, lashing out -- rather than stepping back and looking for a peaceful solution.

[JohnL]

Here’s an interesting article about Cades Cove and how the Civil War affected its settlers. Many of the old buildings are still there.
https://www.thesmokies.com/tragedy-cades-cove/

[JohnH]

I would agree with him that we should take a step back and consider whether joining a rebellion against the federal government is something we should be involved in.

[temporal1]

I just read an blog post mirroring the subject of this thread. I'll share the part that talks about history:

My favorite one, so far, is from a guy who was actually a confederate soldier. He was 17 when the actions started and went down to sign up when all hell broke loose. And I love listening to his perspective and how insightful it is about the human condition.

He simply said that he’d heard his state was being invaded. So, he felt compelled to join the resistance and protect his town. That’s it. Nothing about race. Nothing about politics. Nothing about slavery (yet – wait for it). Nothing about states rights. Nothing about Lincoln, even.

Just a 17-year-old kid thinking his farm was about to get ravaged and his general store confiscated. He didn’t really know why. He was simply being a protector.

Later in the video, he actually brings up slavery and has this really intriguing statement. Something to the effect of when he and his buddies heard that emancipation of slavery was part of the issue, many of them actually agreed with it and absolutely believed slavery to be a bad practice. And he says something like (I can’t remember his exact wording), “Yeah, we thought it was right to end slavery.”

Confederate kids – clearly on the wrong side of history, in practice – probably didn’t have any idea what (or who) they were actually fighting for. But by the time they realized it, it was too late to turn back. They were already in a battalion; a unit. They were already committed to their brothers in arms. They had to see it through. 19th century honor and all of that....

I often sit on my back porch, imagine those soldiers from 170 years ago, and wonder which side I wouldn’t chosen. And it usually comes down to my age and where I would’ve been born.

If I were an illiterate 17-year-old farm boy, from around here in Tennessee, I probably would’ve done exactly what that confederate kid did. At 35, if I owned property and had a family, I may have tried to make some intellectual case for the one side or the other.

But I know for a fact, that if I were my age now, and it all started, I’d try to settle people down and lower the temperature first. Then ask some pertinent questions…

Are we sure we’re right about this? Is this in keeping with our laws? Are our laws just in the first place? Can this be solved without bloodshed? And, if so, what will it take to make that happen?

He goes on to discuss current events and politics, so I'll leave that for another time and place. But I appreciate his point about how easy it is to get caught up in the excitement of incitement, taking sides, digging in, lashing out -- rather than stepping back and looking for a peaceful solution.

i was told 50-ish years ago, by a retired Marine (leader, i don’t know his rank) a thoughtful, responsible, caring man, that it’s no mistake the military focuses on young men (teens, called babies now) because teens are physically able, and mentally pliable. older men know too much, would question and resist, i.e., they are harder to train.

your quote describes it.

i’ve long wondered why God designs teens to be so physically strong+able, without experience and maturity.
it’s a mind-boggling combination.

(male and female, different aspects involved.) why are female children+young teens equipped to reproduce so much earlier than their still-growing bodies and minds are prepared for?

i have questions.

it’s a design that heavily relies on the presence of fathers and elders to prevent disaster.
unfortunately .. there’s a shortage, and, worse, much of the present culture discourages fathers and elders.

humans. getting it wrong one thousand ways.