Killing in War - Ok or Not?

[JayJayDee]

Really?
Is that your purpose in using it?

And isn't this the circular argument that never gets to the heart of the issue? Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth?" Only we can answer that for ourselves. "Our" truth will determine "our" future. You choose yours and I will choose mine. OK? But choices should always be made by evaluating the information.

I am a provider of information just as Jesus was. He didn't force people to listen to him....neither do we.

 

[JayJayDee]

Lie

Do you see "withholding information" anywhere in the definition of this word?

-- You're actually lying to yourself. You falsely claim that "withholding information" is somehow equal to false information, or "falsehood", or "untruth".

True! Even Jesus withheld information when he felt that those who demanded it did not deserve a reply. (Matt 27:13, 14)

 

[JayJayDee]

But the rules under which the priest served did not require it of him either. As an apostle and priest he preached the Gospel through the written word of the Holy Bible. What did Christ say about that? He said that even if someone were to come back from the dead, they would not listen if they listened not to the prophets. There are prescribed readings of the Gospel for every day in the Church calendar. And I might add the quote, "my grace is sufficient for thee".

If the priest was a Christian disciple of the Master, then he would have preached to the soldiers to put down their carnal weapons and get out of the military. A Christian cannot even train to kill. You cannot be friends with the world and still be friends with God. (James 4:4)

It has already been shown in this thread that God delivers even His own people to war if they disobey. As such, it has been often taught that the worst sin is disobedience. The prophecy in Daniel confirms this, as after Christ would be slain, there would be war until the end. The specifics of the conflict we call World War II fits into the Daniel prophecy and what Christ said, "You shall hear of wars, and rumors of wars." As to protesting, it would have only made matters worse as the war was Heaven sent.

The war was predicted...prophesied...foretold...NOT heaven sent.

The Fatima prophecy in 1917 A.D. during WWI given by Jesus' own Mother foretold of a worse war to follow if men would not amend their lives. It was a matter of weathering the storm. Taking sides would only have put innocent people at further risk. The Vatican was helping victims as it could in acts of charity. (There is a saying, "Actions speak louder than words.")

Oh my goodness! Is that what you have been taught?!
If it wasn't for the support of the churches, the military could never have carried out the slaughter that took place.

"Actions speak louder than words"??? They certainly do. Inaction also speaks volumes, which this priest admitted. They did nothing to encourage Christianity in their role as military chaplains. They granted absolution to murderers who went out and murdered more innocents.

The Catholic Church supported Hitler and the Nazi regime. This is not friendship with the world?????

http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.ht

 

[Kolibri]

Why would he want them to have [swords] in the first place?

To create an object lesson. From now on, God's people would no longer have a land to call their own. They would again be foreign residents in a land not theirs. Peter was corrected - as were us all - to not to use a deadly weapon even in self-defense.

It was the "final part of the days" of the Jewish system of things. It was time to "learn war no more." (Isa 2:2,4)

 

[BSM1]

To create an object lesson. From now on, God's people would no longer have a land to call their own. They would again be foreign residents in a land not theirs. Peter was corrected - as were us all - to not to use a deadly weapon even in self-defense.

It was the "final part of the days" of the Jewish system of things. It was time to "learn war no more." (Isa 2:2,4)

No offense, but this doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Bunyip]

The great tactician and military philosopher Clauswitz said that war was politics by any other means.As such I see it as essentially amoral. Yes it is wrong to kill, in war we balance the relative merits of our wrongs, but they remain wrongs. Wars tended to be fought by the poor on the behalf of the rich, they are inescapably unjust.

 

[Kolibri]

No offense, but this doesn't make a lot of sense.

Soon Jesus told them that the Christians would be making "disciples of all the nations." The Jews had national boundaries. They fought to protect those boundaries and their existence while awaiting the Messiah. Now Christians, as a people, would no longer have national boarders. The had no plot of land to call their own. Or is it another line of thought that you were referring to as not making sense. I can't rebuttal w/o knowing the part that does not make sense to you. =)

 

[JayJayDee]

The fact of the matter is that propaganda is not always the lies you claim it to be.

How do you know? Can you absolutely discern between lies and truth? How are you any different to anyone else? Do you have powers that we don't have? We all accept what we "believe" to be true. What you "believe" may not be what others "believe". This is our reality.

Do you "believe" the nightly news? If so...why? If not...why not?

 

[Sleeppy]

I am not the least bit surprised finding a dishonest person claiming that dishonesty is not dishonest.

Deception

Something that deceives, or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.

Here is where your argument has ground. This is why I acknowledge your confusion. And here is why it is somewhat faulty ground:

1) Are the observers associating the swords with information that is not provided?

Yes. The observers must first assume that the swords are to be utilized for offensive measures.

a) Is this assumption accurate? Is it necessary?

Not necessarily. The observers may, or may not, adopt information qualifying as "something that deceives."

2) Are the swords intended to deceive observers?

Yes. The swords are "intended to deceive." They are deceptions.

3) Are the sword carriers being deceptive?

Yes. They are carrying swords "intended to deceive" observers.

a) Are the sword carriers lying?

No. They are not presenting false information. They are withholding information. They are taking advantage of an assumption that the swords are to be used violently.

-- In this case, lie ≠ deception.
Intending to take advantage of a false assumption = deception.


With regards to complete accuracy-

The observers must deceive themselves with an unproven assumption of the swords function. Withholding the information that the sword carriers are pacifists, with no intention of using the swords violently, qualifies as deceit - the sword carriers did intend certain observers to deceive themselves. However, in this case (not necessarily all cases), deceit is just not equal to lying. In this case, utilizing a lie is deceit.

In order for the sword carriers to be considered liars, they would need to have presented a "false statement". They would need to have presented an "intentional untruth", or a "falsehood". They did not necessarily present any false statement. They did not necessarily present "intentional untruth" or "falsehood". If they had communicated to the observers that the swords were intended for violence, and did not in truth intend violence, they would have lied. If they had done the opposite, they would have lied. Instead, they did not provide the information necessary to prevent the observers' false assumption. Liars? No. Deceitful? Yes. Dishonest? No.

 

[BSM1]

Soon Jesus told them that the Christians would be making "disciples of all the nations." The Jews had national boundaries. They fought to protect those boundaries and their existence while awaiting the Messiah. Now Christians, as a people, would no longer have national boarders. The had no plot of land to call their own. Or is it another line of thought that you were referring to as not making sense. I can't rebuttal w/o knowing the part that does not make sense to you. =)

What has this to do with Yeshua instructing the apostles to purchase swords? Also, Yeshua never used the word "Christian". That term came much later.

 

[Kolibri]

Luke 22:37 showed that the having the swords on hand would fulfill Isaiah 53:12 in that he would be "counted with lawless ones/transgressors."

And yet there was more it than that. Using the swords to defend themselves would have been both futile and contrary to Jehovah's will. For one, they were faced by a large crowd of armed men. (Mt 26:27) Two swords against this many would gotten them killed, especially since they would have been going against Jehovah's will for the moment. (Mt 26:52-54) And later that day Jesus could plainly and honestly say to Pilate: “If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source." (John 18:36)

Jesus' disciples were plainly told that, for them, armed resistance was not an option. Later Paul confirmed that they understood this when he wrote: "For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly." (2 Cor 10:4a)

Because of the difference in the number of swords and men per side at the moment of arrest, using the swords for the purpose of an illusion of defense just does not hold water.

Also, Yeshua never used the word "Christian". That term came much later.

While I don't see the difference as they were the same group of people, I do agree the term Christians was not coined yet.

 

[Sleeppy]

Luke 22:37 showed that the having the swords on hand would fulfill Isaiah 53:12 in that he would be "counted with lawless ones/transgressors."

Because of the difference in the number of swords and men per side at the moment of arrest, using the swords for the purpose of an illusion of defense just does not hold much water.

Does carrying swords equate to lawlessness? --This was a peculiar explanation, considering even Isaiah's viewpoint of war, past, present, and leading up to the end of warfare.

Are we missing something here?

 

[Kolibri]

Does carrying swords equate to lawlessness? --This was a peculiar explanation, considering even Isaiah's viewpoint of war, past, present, and leading up to the end of warfare.

Are we missing something here?

I have always thought it to mean they were going to treated as if they were criminals. The swords added to the perception.

 

[Sleeppy]

I have always thought it to mean they were going to treated as if they were criminals. The swords added to the perception.

Makes sense somewhat.. But this was towards the end of Jesus' life. Earlier in his ministry, we have accounts of them, including Jesus, being called criminals.

The two swords were also already in possession. Why hadn't Jesus noticed his friends were carrying them, before he instructed them to?

 

[McBell]

If you aren't able to prove your point, move on. You couldn't prove your point before, so you waited for another opportunity to prove another. Wait for the next opportunity, as well. Maybe you'll have better luck.

You abandonded the first one without answering your own questions.
But that is no surprise since you were merely using it to deflect.

In order for the sword carriers to be considered liars, they would need to have presented a "false statement". They would need to have presented an "intentional untruth", or a "falsehood". They did not necessarily present any false statement. They did not necessarily present "intentional untruth" or "falsehood". If they had communicated to the observers that the swords were intended for violence, and did not in truth intend violence, they would have lied. If they had done the opposite, they would have lied. Instead, they did not provide the information necessary to prevent the observers' false assumption. Liars? No. Deceitful? Yes. Dishonest? No.

You need to re-read the definition this time for comprehension.
No where in the definition does it mention there must be presented false anything.

In fact you admit their intent was to deceive, which is all the definition requires to be considered a lie.

 

[Sleeppy]

You abandonded the first one without answering your own questions.
But that is no surprise since you were merely using it to deflect.


You need to re-read the definition this time for comprehension.
No where in the definition does it mention there must be presented false anything.

In fact you admit their intent was to deceive, which is all the definition requires to be considered a lie.

Actually, I created a new thread asking everyone else here. I also answered the question there. Check it out; it's on page 3 of this Religious Debates section. You can answer the question there, as well.

A "false statement" requires the presentation of a statement. An "intentional untruth" requires misrepresentation of truth. "Falsehood," same story. Comprehension? I'll ignore that insult along with the last one. Keep it up.

 

[the_sign_of_TSOMIH]

If the priest was a Christian disciple of the Master, then he would have preached to the soldiers to put down their carnal weapons and get out of the military.

Those soldiers would have laughed at your absurd thinking. They were better off just hearing the Gospel preached to them so they could enjoy the freedom to make the choice for themselves, rather than listening to a JW who is biasedly anti-Catholic rant his propaganda in the name of 'Christianity'.

 

[McBell]

Actually, I created a new thread asking everyone else here. I also answered the question there. Check it out; it's on page 3 of this Religious Debates section. You can answer the question there, as well.

A "false statement" requires the presentation of a statement. An "intentional untruth" requires misrepresentation of truth. "Falsehood," same story. Comprehension? I'll ignore that insult along with the last one. Keep it up.

You also ignore the definition itself.

And you wonder why you are called dishonest?
Sad really.

 

[Sleeppy]

You also ignore the definition itself.

And you wonder why you are called dishonest?
Sad really.

That's amazing. I can somehow provide the definition, quote the definition, and expound upon the definition, in the context of my argument- all while ignoring it.

And I'm the dishonest one here? That is sad. Cheer up and move on.

 

[McBell]

Actually, I created a new thread asking everyone else here. I also answered the question there. Check it out; it's on page 3 of this Religious Debates section. You can answer the question there, as well.

You will have to at the very least reveal the name of this thread you created.
I have searched your created threads clear back to December 25th and have not been able to find it.