|
|
Post by goz on Jun 13, 2018 21:36:18 GMT
Isapop It just donned on me that you may literally be simply whining about using the word "pacifist" If you'd like I can change it to peaceable.  Could I please whine about your use of the word 'donned' instead of dawned? ie: it just dawned on me.  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 21:39:08 GMT
Isapop It just donned on me that you may literally be simply whining about using the word "pacifist" If you'd like I can change it to peaceable. Could I please whine about your use of the word 'donned' instead of dawned? ie: it just dawned on me. Oops. Butt I thought I knew how to spell it. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 13, 2018 22:20:43 GMT
According to God's will, is it part of the natural order that the primary defenders against violence, including when that may require wielding weapons, should be men? Whether as protectors of the family, or leaders of armies? Or, should men and women equally share the responsibility for defending against violence? The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is, it depends on the situation. Every individual (regardless of gender) has the responsibility of defending themselves and their loved ones if/when their is no one else to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 13, 2018 22:41:05 GMT
Could I please whine about your use of the word 'donned' instead of dawned? ie: it just dawned on me. Oops. Butt I thought I knew how to spell it. Well, I forgive you just this once, because it is probably how you Americans pronounce it. Here we would rhyme it with 'door'. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2018 23:03:13 GMT
My two cents (on the issue of Christian violence/nonviolence): But if, for whatever reason, you did feel like lethal force was the only option available, then I don't think that would be something you should ever feel righteous about. Yes, a Christian ought not to feel righteous about having to resort to lethal force. But is he violating Christian principles to use such force if he believes it necessary to save another life?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 23:18:04 GMT
My two cents (on the issue of Christian violence/nonviolence): But if, for whatever reason, you did feel like lethal force was the only option available, then I don't think that would be something you should ever feel righteous about. Yes, a Christian ought not to feel righteous about having to resort to lethal force. But is he violating Christian principles to use such force if he believes it necessary to save another life?
I'm not sure that's a particularly relevant question, as it presumes legalism, which Jesus has revealed that God isn't interested in. The only principle that God is interested in is love (for everyone, including enemies). How that works itself out "practically" in an unlikely hypothetical situation could vary. Believing that God is merciful and just, he would certainly understand your state of mind in any given situation and accommodate that accordingly. But both Jesus and Paul (in word and in action) tell us that God is interested in the orientation of your heart. So that's the question that matters. Not whether one specific action in a complex situation "technically broke a rule" or not. If you're a Christian and you're spending most of your time wondering whether you've "broken specific rules" or not, you're doing it wrong. Accept God's grace and let it transform the orientation of your heart so that you actually BECOME the type of person who will love their enemies, which will obviously factor in to how you respond to them. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 23:26:50 GMT
Yes, a Christian ought not to feel righteous about having to resort to lethal force. But is he violating Christian principles to use such force if he believes it necessary to save another life?
I'm not sure that's a particularly relevant question, as it presumes legalism, which Jesus has revealed that God isn't interested in. The only principle that God is interested in is love (for everyone, including enemies). How that works itself out "practically" in an unlikely hypothetical situation could vary. Believing that God is merciful and just, he would certainly understand your state of mind in any given situation and accommodate that accordingly. But both Jesus and Paul (in word and in action) tell us that God is interested in the orientation of your heart. So that's the question that matters. Not whether one specific action in a complex situation "technically broke a rule" or not. If you're a Christian and you're spending most of your time wondering whether you've "broken specific rules" or not, you're doing it wrong. Accept God's grace and let it transform the orientation of your heart so that you actually BECOME the type of person who will love their enemies (which will factor in to how you respond to them).
Isapop only wants yes or no answers. He's binary like that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 23:30:39 GMT
I'm not sure that's a particularly relevant question, as it presumes legalism, which Jesus has revealed that God isn't interested in. The only principle that God is interested in is love (for everyone, including enemies). How that works itself out "practically" in an unlikely hypothetical situation could vary. Believing that God is merciful and just, he would certainly understand your state of mind in any given situation and accommodate that accordingly. But both Jesus and Paul (in word and in action) tell us that God is interested in the orientation of your heart. So that's the question that matters. Not whether one specific action in a complex situation "technically broke a rule" or not. If you're a Christian and you're spending most of your time wondering whether you've "broken specific rules" or not, you're doing it wrong. Accept God's grace and let it transform the orientation of your heart so that you actually BECOME the type of person who will love their enemies (which will factor in to how you respond to them).
Isapop only wants yes or no answers. He's binary like that. Well, a lot of these questions assume that God cares about legalism, when he doesn't. So yes or no answers to irrelevant questions are... irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2018 23:59:17 GMT
Yes, a Christian ought not to feel righteous about having to resort to lethal force. But is he violating Christian principles to use such force if he believes it necessary to save another life?
I'm not sure that's a particularly relevant question, as it presumes legalism, which Jesus has revealed that God isn't interested in. There would be no hedging around if the question was about a Christian committing adultery. That's regarded as violating Christian principles (he did wrong), and the person ought to feel that he did something for which he needs to ask God's forgiveness, and resolve not to do it again. No legalisms involved. The Christian believes in his heart that lethal force was necessary to save a life, and so he used it. Should he, likewise, be regarded as having violated Christian principle, that he did wrong, and feel the need for forgiveness? Or is what he did permissible for a Christian?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 14, 2018 0:11:28 GMT
Is 'part of the natural order' when I request yoghurt instead of ice cream on top of my fruit salad, from the waitress?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 0:24:04 GMT
I'm not sure that's a particularly relevant question, as it presumes legalism, which Jesus has revealed that God isn't interested in. There would be no hedging around if the question was about a Christian committing adultery. That's regarded as violating Christian principles (he did wrong), and the person ought to feel that he did something for which he needs to ask God's forgiveness, and resolve not to do it again. No legalisms involved. The Christian believes in his heart that lethal force was necessary to save a life, and so he used it. Should he, likewise, be regarded as having violated Christian principle, that he did wrong, and feel the need for forgiveness? Or is what he did permissible for a Christian?
If I killed someone, regardless of the reason, I would ask for forgiveness, yes. But it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Again, it's NOT about "breaking a rule." It's about living in love. Are you loving your partner when you're cheating on them? Clearly not. Are you loving someone when you're in the process of killing them? Highly doubtful. But when there are other lives at stake, it's stickier. You have to love them too. What do you do? There might not be a "clean" answer, AND THAT'S OKAY. A clean-cut "yes or no" answer may satisfy YOU, but God isn't particularly interested in being legalistic about stuff (per Jesus). The world and life are more complicated than that, and God is aware of that reality. So that's why this question feels irrelevant. But God doesn't want you killing people, if you're asking in the general sense (assuming it's not a highly complex situation that can only play out in a hypothetical or extremely rare instance). God wants you to love your enemy. That probably rules out killing them in almost all cases. Question for you: Why demand a clean-cut answer when there might not be one? Living in love on a moment-by-moment basis doesn't necessarily always work itself out unambiguously. And that's okay. But that's the goal. We can trust that God will make things right in the end. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 14, 2018 8:04:38 GMT
if/when their is no one else to do it. I don't think anyone really disputes that. The question is whether men should be the PRIMARY defenders, most of the time not just when there is no one else available. In countries where civilians are legally permitted to own firearms, men vastly outnumber women among the owners. And everywhere, police are far more likely to be men than women. Soldiers are far more likely to be men than women. Senior military officials are far more likely to be men than women. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2018 9:13:20 GMT
In the Bible men and women appear to have their expected, set roles. I can't think of any martial females offhand. And all of scripture is suitable for instruction. In the Bible, pretty much all the people in charge are men. Does that therefore mean that men should also be in charge in modern societies? Since the Bible (and its views on the place of women) has never been updated with fresh advice, one supposes the old instructions remain in place, at least for the devoutly-challenged. Hence the idea of the submissive 'good wife' still to be found within conservative religious groups. A similar manifestation can be seen in the recent arguments over the role of women in the church. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2018 10:47:55 GMT
if/when their is no one else to do it. I don't think anyone really disputes that. The question is whether men should be the PRIMARY defenders, most of the time not just when there is no one else available. In countries where civilians are legally permitted to own firearms, men vastly outnumber women among the owners. And everywhere, police are far more likely to be men than women. Soldiers are far more likely to be men than women. Senior military officials are far more likely to be men than women. Aside from the military, the other examples are ones of preference. Men choose those roles in greater numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 14, 2018 13:53:06 GMT
if/when their is no one else to do it. I don't think anyone really disputes that. The question is whether men should be the PRIMARY defenders, most of the time not just when there is no one else available. In countries where civilians are legally permitted to own firearms, men vastly outnumber women among the owners. And everywhere, police are far more likely to be men than women. Soldiers are far more likely to be men than women. Senior military officials are far more likely to be men than women. I’d say whoever decides to become a primary defender should be one (whether they are male or female). The fact that men are generally more inclined to be primary defenders doesn’t mean that they should be by virtue of them being male. It means they should be by virtue of the fact they chose to do that. To suggest that irrespective of context or choice, men should be primary defenders just because they are male would be detrimental. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 14:58:03 GMT
The reason men are "primary defenders" more often than women is because of the biological differences between men and women. Men tend to be bigger, stronger, and faster. Those things are important in combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2018 15:24:00 GMT
I'm not sure that's a particularly relevant question, as it presumes legalism, which Jesus has revealed that God isn't interested in. There would be no hedging around if the question was about a Christian committing adultery. That's regarded as violating Christian principles (he did wrong), and the person ought to feel that he did something for which he needs to ask God's forgiveness, and resolve not to do it again. No legalisms involved. The Christian believes in his heart that lethal force was necessary to save a life, and so he used it. Should he, likewise, be regarded as having violated Christian principle, that he did wrong, and feel the need for forgiveness? Or is what he did permissible for a Christian?
That's because there is a guideline, not even a principle but a rule, regarding adultery and fornication in general.
Does this part sound familiar to you at all?
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 14, 2018 18:48:30 GMT
The reason men are "primary defenders" more often than women is because of the biological differences between men and women. Men tend to be bigger, stronger, and faster. Those things are important in combat. Biological differences resulting from God's will? So you think it is God's will that men should tend to be the primary defenders? |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 14, 2018 18:51:37 GMT
I don't think anyone really disputes that. The question is whether men should be the PRIMARY defenders, most of the time not just when there is no one else available. In countries where civilians are legally permitted to own firearms, men vastly outnumber women among the owners. And everywhere, police are far more likely to be men than women. Soldiers are far more likely to be men than women. Senior military officials are far more likely to be men than women. I’d say whoever decides to become a primary defender should be one (whether they are male or female). The fact that men are generally more inclined to be primary defenders doesn’t mean that they should be by virtue of them being male. It means they should be by virtue of the fact they chose to do that. To suggest that irrespective of context or choice, men should be primary defenders just because they are male would be detrimental. There are many societies where it is obligatory for young men to be soldiers. They are not given a choice. And women are not allowed to be soldiers. I take it that you disagree with this and feel that any requirement for military service should apply equally to men and women. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 21:08:05 GMT
The reason men are "primary defenders" more often than women is because of the biological differences between men and women. Men tend to be bigger, stronger, and faster. Those things are important in combat. Biological differences resulting from God's will? So you think it is God's will that men should tend to be the primary defenders? Did I say that? I don't think so. But you're not interested in an honest discussion, are you? |
|
