would jesus have joined the army?

[classical_hero]

Ahem.

Why does an Omnipotent being require an army?

If God creates and can destroy at will, what exactly are the soldiers there for?

Decoration?

Because God always has worked with man through man. God sent his son as a man so that we can be saved. Every action that God has taken part of has been to show man that he is creator and holds the power. God's special creation is man and as a result he works with them. If he needs to punish men for their sins, he will uese other men to execute his judgement. There will come a time when Jesus ultimately judges peoples sins and that is too late.

Jesus was a strict pacifist and would never have joined any sort of physical combat. Which is why Americans blessing themselves before invading something is ridiculous.

Why ad hominem?



What do you think of gays then?

Jesus many times resorted to violence to get his message across. Twice he cleared out the Temple of the things that were defiling it. Jesus had many confrontations with people of the time and many times the response of the people was to stone him. The reason why Jesus did not react, is that he was here for one reason and that was to die on the cross. He could have defended himself, but he sacrificed his life for our sake. He died on the cross to homosexuals can come to know that he wants to save them from their sins.

 

[useless]

Not all of us -Want- to be saved.

 

[Angst]

Jesus many times resorted to violence to get his message across. Twice he cleared out the Temple of the things that were defiling it. Jesus had many confrontations with people of the time and many times the response of the people was to stone him. The reason why Jesus did not react, is that he was here for one reason and that was to die on the cross. He could have defended himself, but he sacrificed his life for our sake. He died on the cross to homosexuals can come to know that he wants to save them from their sins.

If you're a follower of Jesus, follow him and act in his image. His clearings were not those of swords. What part of "turn the other cheek" don't you get?

 

[Leoreth]

Because God always has worked with man through man. God sent his son as a man so that we can be saved. Every action that God has taken part of has been to show man that he is creator and holds the power. God's special creation is man and as a result he works with them. If he needs to punish men for their sins, he will uese other men to execute his judgement. There will come a time when Jesus ultimately judges peoples sins and that is too late.

In other words, God only works through miracles if we don't need him utilizing people to his ends to rationalize what people do.

 

[MobBoss]

Jesus was a strict pacifist and would never have joined any sort of physical combat. Which is why Americans blessing themselves before invading something is ridiculous.

Strict pacifist, eh?

John 2:14-16

14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”

Matthew 10:34

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Luke 22:36

36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

What do you think of gays then?

I think they embrace sexual sin as described in the New Testament.

Not all of us -Want- to be saved.

Doesnt change the fact that we are commanded to bring you the good news. What you do with it is your business.

If you're a follower of Jesus, follow him and act in his image. His clearings were not those of swords. What part of "turn the other cheek" don't you get?

What part of it do you think you dont get? I read a study once on this that argued it was an act of defiance, not supplication. Let me explain.

When one was struck with the back of the hand, you were hit as a slave or someone inferior was hit. By 'turning the other cheek' it then forced to person to strike you with the open hand or fist, which meant something entirely different in that culture: that you werent a slave or inferior. Ergo, it wasnt necessarily an act of submission; but one of defiance. However, because of culture differences and time, that particular aspect of that is transparent to us.

Now thats a really, really brief snyopsis of the actual point, but you get the idea, and its at least worth a discussion or two in men's groups.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Rofl, and you have the nerve to call me a whiner. Btw, form, how can a disabled man make threats of violence? ROFL. Dude, your're the one that tried to insult me over claiming a disability rating, insult me for being a 'clerk' as you put it, and then cowered when I humbly offered to show you what type of combatives training even army clerks receive. And now you whine over 'threats of violence'. At least have the balls to reap what you sow my good man.!

You are a far bigger whiner than I am. You are probably the biggest one in this forum.

You started the insults and use them far more frequently than I do, or anybody else for that matter. We are only giving you back what you so richly deserve.

Nobody said that clerks can't be just as prone to violence as anybody else. I think you have amply shown that repeatedly despite claiming to be so "disabled".

Why don't you start acting like a Christian by "forgiving" and not "bearing false witness" so frequently? Your "lies" are continuing to damage your "credibility".

For someone who claims to know so much about Christianity, you certainly aren't much of a representative of it.

But even that is dubious given how frequently you try to twist it into even supporting violence and even warmongering by deliberately taking passages like this out of context. Even "turning the other cheek" is now an act of defiance? What utter nonsense.

No wonder so many Christians think evangelists like you give Christianity a bad name.

 

[Oruc]

For someone who claims to know so much about Christianity, you certainly aren't much of a representative of it.

But even that is dubious given how frequently you try to twist it into even supporting violence and even warmongering by deliberately taking passages like this out of context. Even "turning the other cheek" is now an act of defiance? What utter nonsense. No wonder so many Christians think evangelists like you give Christianity a bad name.

Well when I was an atheist MobBoss really improved my opinion of Christians.

 

[JollyRoger]

In relative terms, my opinion of most other so-called Christians has improved.

 

[Yeekim]

He would have joined the army, had it been necessary for humanity's salvation.

 

[warpus]

He would have joined the KISS army

Spoiler :

 

[JollyRoger]

Given his many arguments with those of the Jewish faith, he would join the PLO.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

From what I've read the Hebrew word translated as kill or murder is the same one used to refer to how predatory animals kill their prey after either stalking or laying an ambush for the unsuspecting victim. When dealing with humans it refers to premeditated homicide. Killing in self defense would not qualify, but a lot of the killing in warfare probably would.

They had the death penalty for breaking the commandments.
I.E thou shalt not covert another mans slaves.

Coveting was not a capital offense. (I assume you mean covet, as covert is not even a verb.)

There are some Jewish scholars who think that the word translated covet would be better translated as steal, or at least as scheme or intend to steal. Apparently it involves a bit more than just wishing you had something. Orthodox Jews interpret the commandment Thou Shalt Not Steal as referring to kidnapping rather than theft of property. Kidnapping, which included cases of returning runaway slaves to their legal masters, was a crime that warranted decapitation.

 

[MobBoss]

From what I've read the Hebrew word translated as kill or murder is the same one used to refer to how predatory animals kill their prey after either stalking or laying an ambush for the unsuspecting victim. When dealing with humans it refers to premeditated homicide. Killing in self defense would not qualify, but a lot of the killing in warfare probably would.

Actually, in looking this up in the concordance, the word used in the actual commandment in Exodus is a different root word than the one used for warfare. The one used in the commandment could probably be also translated as 'assassinate'; while the one used in warfare was 'to slay'. They also had another word for kill as well when used in the context of 'slaughter' used mostly in reference to animals.

 

[JollyRoger]

What term was used when God was doing away with all but Noah's clan?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I didn't say that all of the killing in warfare would be forbidden, but surely some military killings are more like assassinations. This particularly true in modern asymmetric warfare, with improvised explosive devises planted on the sides of roads and smart bombs dropped from the sky to take out unsuspecting targets. That is very different from the warfare of antiquity, which consisted more of duels between champions and pitched battles between armies.

 

[MobBoss]

You are a far bigger whiner than I am. You are probably the biggest one in this forum.

You started the insults and use them far more frequently than I do, or anybody else for that matter. We are only giving you back what you so richly deserve.

Nobody said that clerks can't be just as prone to violence as anybody else. I think you have amply shown that repeatedly despite claiming to be so "disabled".

Why don't you start acting like a Christian by "forgiving" and not "bearing false witness" so frequently? Your "lies" are continuing to damage your "credibility".

For someone who claims to know so much about Christianity, you certainly aren't much of a representative of it.

But even that is dubious given how frequently you try to twist it into even supporting violence and even warmongering by deliberately taking passages like this out of context. Even "turning the other cheek" is now an act of defiance? What utter nonsense.

No wonder so many Christians think evangelists like you give Christianity a bad name.

Yeah, sure Form. Whatever. But you are right on one thing. I forgive you.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

indeed. jesus was very tolerant with all sorts of sinners.


now do you think jesus would have chosen to be a soldier?

Well Jesus has chosen to be crucified and judging from that anything is possible. The question would be if by joining an army or making a war would serve his purpose. The answer seems to be negative.

On the other hand. At present we need armies and soldiers as they were needed two milleniums ago. It is an necessity and one can be good christian and soldier in the same time.

 

[timtofly]

So God wanted people to disobey his holy law? So much for the morality of God being "absolute" as MobBoss put it.
The point just is, that it is IMO ridiculous to argue that being a "true" Christian just means to have faith in the Bible, without referring to possible ways to not have faith in certain parts of the Bible. For the simple reason, that the Bible is so archaic in many of its messages, that everything else would make it impossible not be a total social out-law at this day and age. In the end you all cherry pick what you like. Maybe not absolutely, but to an extend significant enough. If that is your understanding of the faith, fine. But then don't tell me that it is only about faith in the word of God. It is about the faith in the word of God which doesn't make you too uncomfortable. That much honesty to others and yourself can not be asked too much.

IMO I think that God wants people to depend on him, but he does not force people to. Even as Christians we forget that God cannot allow evil in his presence (absolutism). However, he allows his creation to redeem themselves by leaving evil behind and trusting (depending on) God.

I also do not think that christians cherry pick. If anything, non-believers question what the OT says and they have no answer, but they sidestep the issue or just say that was in the OT. There are religions that say you have to "keep" what is in the Bible in order to be a christian. This is called faith, and that keeping the Bible is the faith that God expects. Most people have grown up with this idea in their head their whole life. I do not think that God would tell a person living today to go against the Bible, but I also do not think that God tells people today to keep every command in the Bible. God still works in the present on a personal level and for the most part the morals of the day do not go against God, thus one does not have to go out of their way to obey God, but can do so in todays society without sticking out like a sore thumb.

I think we agree that if one relies solely on the Bible for their faith, they are being dishonest with themselves and with others. One cannot keep the whole of the Bible, nor should they be expected to. I do not see anything wrong with using the Bible as a guide and picking and choosing different things, as long as they do not do that while saying they keep the whole Bible at the same time. I also do not think that an individual, even a church authority figure, has any right to point out faults in others by using the Bible to do so. I do think that the Bible can be quoted in context even the "accusing" parts as long as it is not directed for the purpose to point out other people's faults. It is the reading of an historical count as led by God, that teaches, not humans taking it upon themselves to be the moral authority on any subject.

 

[Leoreth]

Actually, in looking this up in the concordance, the word used in the actual commandment in Exodus is a different root word than the one used for warfare. The one used in the commandment could probably be also translated as 'assassinate'; while the one used in warfare was 'to slay'. They also had another word for kill as well when used in the context of 'slaughter' used mostly in reference to animals.

Even if all of that is true, you would still need to demonstrate that it was indeed intended to cover only the translation it literally means.

Because currently it appears as if you're trying to lawyer yourself out of a commandment, which is an interesting approach.

 

[Core Imposter]

I feel a great sadness sometimes.