Christians in the military

[Shiranui117]

... to help them approach their suffering with the right attitude, not to actually relieve the suffering.

Not at all. Jesus did tell us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, elderly and lonely, give charity and visit prisoners.

The only suffering a person would ever be in a position to relieve is suffering that God has not deigned to do anything about, so arguing that we should follow God's example actually implies that we shouldn't help.

The opposite is true.

Also, Jesus described those who take critical matters into their own hands "you of little faith" and argued that we should rely on God to meet all our needs. He criticized them for asking "what shall I eat?" How is it any different to ask "what shall my neighbour eat?"

No, He said that we simply shouldn't spend all our time worrying about food and housing. If God takes care of nature, He'll take care of us, so don't sweat it so much. That's what He was saying.

Like I said a few posts back, the Bible has something for everyone.

I agree with your words, but not with how you mean them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all. Jesus did tell us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, elderly and lonely, give charity and visit prisoners.

Yes, but he also said not to worry about what we'll eat or wear, and to trust that God will provide everything we need.

When a person provides charity to another, isn't this an admission that he doesn't trust God to provide for that other person's needs?

The opposite is true.

How do you figure? Any hungry person that I could feed, God could have fed already. God chose not to feed him; why shouldn't I follow his godly example?

No, He said that we simply shouldn't spend all our time worrying about food and housing. If God takes care of nature, He'll take care of us, so don't sweat it so much. That's what He was saying.

He said that worrying about our material needs shows a lack of faith in God. He said to people who probably encountered hunger on a daily basis and who had watched people die of starvation "don't worry about food - God will feed you." I think this message goes well beyond just "don't sweat it so much."

If I can trust in God to meet my needs, why wouldn't I be able to trust in God to meet my neighbour's needs?

Edit: Where's the motivation for charity in someone who has faith in God? Even if I'm concerned about the well-being of my neighbour, God's on the case. It would no more be an act of indifference to not try to help than it would be not to try to fight a fire with my extinguisher once the fire department is on the scene: the professionals have the situation well in hand and I'd just get in the way. How would this be any less true for God, who's infinitely more capable than any team of firefighters?

I agree with your words, but not with how you mean them.

What does that mean? Do you agree with me or not?

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, but he also said not to worry about what we'll eat or wear, and to trust that God will provide everything we need.

Yes, but this isn't a license to sit on our hands and wait for things to drop out of the sky. Remember the case of the parents who chose not to give their child medical care, resulting in the death of the child? They had this perverted understanding of God's providence that you now propose.

When a person provides charity to another, isn't this an admission that he doesn't trust God to provide for that other person's needs?

God is providing through you. We are the presence of Christ in this world, members of His Body, His hands and feet.

How do you figure? Any hungry person that I could feed, God could have fed already. God chose not to feed him; why shouldn't I follow his godly example?

But you see, when you feed them, God is feeding them through you. Many pray to God for healing--and that healing comes through the doctors who prescribe medicines and perform surgeries. God has not neglected the hungry or chosen not to feed them, but instead has sent you to go and feed them on His behalf!

I think this message goes well beyond just "don't sweat it so much."

How so?

If I can trust in God to meet my needs, why wouldn't I be able to trust in God to meet my neighbour's needs?

But here's another question: HOW does God meet our needs? Does He drop things out of the sky, or does He orchestrate things so that we get a job that pays enough for food, or someone comes along unexpectedly and gives us either some charity or a good offer, or we are able to find a doctor who offers treatment at a price affordable for us?

What does that mean? Do you agree with me or not?

I agree that the Bible has something for everyone, yes. But I don't believe that the Bible's a salad bar where people can cherrypick thing to support their own views on life, no matter how contradictory they may be. Rather, the Bible has help for all of mankind's problems, if we take the time to understand the words of Scripture correctly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but this isn't a license to sit on our hands and wait for things to drop out of the sky. Remember the case of the parents who chose not to give their child medical care, resulting in the death of the child? They had this perverted understanding of God's providence that you now propose.

You say they "perverted" it; I say they simply took the message to heart, undiluted by realism.

God is providing through you. We are the presence of Christ in this world, members of His Body, His hands and feet.

This seems like a rather arrogant position for a religion that preaches meekness. You're arguing that the Christian is literally God's gift to humanity.

But you see, when you feed them, God is feeding them through you. Many pray to God for healing--and that healing comes through the doctors who prescribe medicines and perform surgeries. God has not neglected the hungry or chosen not to feed them, but instead has sent you to go and feed them on His behalf!

This God seems keen to take credit for the actions of others.

How so?

Telling someone who's acquainted with famine and starvation "don't worry about food" is a much more extreme message than telling it to someone who's never missed a meal in his life. When you argue that this command wasn't a big deal, I think you're speaking from a very modern point of view that's out of touch with the original audience of that message.

But here's another question: HOW does God meet our needs? Does He drop things out of the sky, or does He orchestrate things so that we get a job that pays enough for food, or someone comes along unexpectedly and gives us either some charity or a good offer, or we are able to find a doctor who offers treatment at a price affordable for us?

Based on my reading of the Bible (or at least the Gospels), the "Biblical" answer to this is that "earthly" needs of the flesh don't matter, so God often disregards them... instead seeing to our "spiritual" needs by preparing a place in Heaven for us. Why would you need a job or even food if death from starvation would simply mean a transition from this life to a glorious existence where you are rewarded many times over for whatever suffering you experienced before you died?

I agree that the Bible has something for everyone, yes. But I don't believe that the Bible's a salad bar where people can cherrypick thing to support their own views on life, no matter how contradictory they may be. Rather, the Bible has help for all of mankind's problems, if we take the time to understand the words of Scripture correctly.

I was more trying to get at the idea that it's entirely within the realm of expectation that a collection of writings from many people over centuries upon centuries would include a diverse range of views. I don't think that we should automatically assume that the Bible has one cohesive message.

If one passage suggests pacifism and the other suggests that war is acceptable (or sometimes even necessary), then maybe instead of twisting one or both so that we can reconcile them together, we should consider the possibility that, as the product of two different authors with different opinions and worldviews, they really do disagree.

 

[Shiranui117]

You say they "perverted" it; I say they simply took the message to heart, undiluted by realism.

Then I take it you have a very low opinion of Jesus' teachings in general.

This seems like a rather arrogant position for a religion that preaches meekness. You're arguing that the Christian is literally God's gift to humanity.

Christianity is God's gift to humanity, yes. But we Christians are sinners like everyone else. Saying that we are here to do God's work is not arrogant at all.

This God seems keen to take credit for the actions of others.

If we act in accordance with His will, are we not doing His work?

Telling someone who's acquainted with famine and starvation "don't worry about food" is a much more extreme message than telling it to someone who's never missed a meal in his life. When you argue that this command wasn't a big deal, I think you're speaking from a very modern point of view that's out of touch with the original audience of that message.

I'm not speaking from a modern viewpoint at all. The message is still the same, that we shouldn't be anxious. Maybe you should actually read the passage:

22 Then He said to His disciples, “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; nor about the body, what you will put on.23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap, which have neither storehouse nor barn; and God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds? 25 And which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? 26 If you then are not able to do the least, why are you anxious for the rest? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28 If then God so clothes the grass, which today is in the field and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith?
29 “And do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink, nor have an anxious mind. 30 For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things. 31 But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things[c] shall be added to you.


The point is, to seek God first. Nature doesn't do work to receive blessings from God, yet they get them. Jesus was speaking to people who worked for their entire lives, so how much more do you think they'll be getting, being hard-working people, than flora and fauna that don't work?

Based on my reading of the Bible (or at least the Gospels), the "Biblical" answer to this is that "earthly" needs of the flesh don't matter, so God often disregards them...

Wrong, read the passage above.

instead seeing to our "spiritual" needs by preparing a place in Heaven for us.

The spiritual is more important than the worldly, yes, but God will take care of both.

Why would you need a job or even food if death from starvation would simply mean a transition from this life to a glorious existence where you are rewarded many times over for whatever suffering you experienced before you died?

It's not "Suffer a lot and you'll be in Heaven." It's "endure through all your suffering, seek to do the will of God, stay strong until the end, and you will be crowned with glory."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then I take it you have a very low opinion of Jesus' teachings in general.

I think they're based on a worldview that I don't share.

Christianity is God's gift to humanity, yes. But we Christians are sinners like everyone else. Saying that we are here to do God's work is not arrogant at all.

We disagree on that point.

If we act in accordance with His will, are we not doing His work?

If "people doing what they're going to do" is an expression of God's will, does he get the blame for bad human actions? Or does he only get credit for the good ones.

I'm not speaking from a modern viewpoint at all. The message is still the same, that we shouldn't be anxious. Maybe you should actually read the passage:

22 Then He said to His disciples, “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; nor about the body, what you will put on.23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap, which have neither storehouse nor barn; and God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds? 25 And which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? 26 If you then are not able to do the least, why are you anxious for the rest? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28 If then God so clothes the grass, which today is in the field and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith?
29 “And do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink, nor have an anxious mind. 30 For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things. 31 But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things[c] shall be added to you.

I've read it many times. The portions you bolded support my interpretation.

The point is, to seek God first.

... and then the rest will follow naturally.

Nature doesn't do work to receive blessings from God, yet they get them. Jesus was speaking to people who worked for their entire lives, so how much more do you think they'll be getting, being hard-working people, than flora and fauna that don't work?

He's talking to people who he was about to send into the world to preach the Gospel with nothing but a begging bowl and the promise that they'd be provided for somehow.

Wrong, read the passage above. The spiritual is more important than the worldly, yes, but God will take care of both.

The fact that God usually doesn't take care of both suggests that you're wrong.

It's not "Suffer a lot and you'll be in Heaven." It's "endure through all your suffering, seek to do the will of God, stay strong until the end, and you will be crowned with glory."

This sounds like hair-splitting to me until you establish what "seek to do the will of God" means. I'd say it means something like "act out of love for others", but this sentiment needs no action on our part if God can be relied upon... just as our love for our neighbour doesn't compel us to push the firefighters out of the way to try to put out the fire ourselves. In that case, our lack of action doesn't imply a lack of regard - it implies trust in those who are more capable than we are.