What is Your Stance?

[YoursTrue]

I believe my responsibility is to God first and country second. Chances are without an intervention from God I would fight for my country if it was in the right. I wouldn't fight for my country if it wanted to pick on a weak neighboring country just to annex it. Russia in the Crimea comes to mind.

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he didn't say, "Let your kingdom come, Lord, but in the meantime until it does -- let's fight for whatever country we're aligned with if we think it's right, even if fellow believers are in the enemy country and we might have to kill each other."

 

[YoursTrue]

No, of course not. You're right that all lives are precious.

But I'm confused. How else is one to answer the OP? You have to pick a side and fight. You're being forced to. I picked the side I identify with most because I identify with it, not because I hate the people on the other side. If it's that or being shot, I'm going to try to preserve my life. What other possible way can one answer unless 'I'd rather die'? Well, I'm being honest that I wouldn't rather die in this situation.

How about picking God's side in truth? When He wants something, He gets it. He doesn't rely on man to do His will. His will is going to be done. What we have to do (those who believe in Him, that is) is to discern what His will is.

 

[Left Coast]

The point is that God did not create men to dominate over each other, but that is what happened.

In your opinion.

We all have a certain history and attach ourselves to a history. In other words, what happened to our relatives, our close friends, etc., is important to many. I find it interesting that many embraced the idea of eugenics years ago and some rather well educated people used this to perform enforced sterlilizations on certain groups. Declaring their own superiority, of course. Including the right to live. In fact, right now the news has it that women in the migration detention centers in the U.S. are now receiving sterilizations they never asked for. I agree with you that the idea of racial superiority has probably affected humanity for a long time.

What is your reply to the questions in the OP?

 

[YoursTrue]

What does that have to do with the time for tea in China? Evolution does not mean Social Evolution. Nor does accepting evolution usually result in a person believing Jews are not human.

The belief in evolution (not "social" evolution) has a lot to do with the way one perceives the value of life.

 

[Left Coast]

How about picking God's side in truth? When He wants something, He gets it. He doesn't rely on man to do His will. His will is going to be done. What we have to do (those who believe in Him, that is) is to discern what His will is.

Which country in the OP is on God's side?

 

[YoursTrue]

In your opinion.



What is your reply to the questions in the OP?

It is my firm belief that God did not create man to dominate over others, especially in a warlike situation. Further, from my research, I see that "peace treaties" were often not kept, that unequal judgments were made after a war, that people fought for the rulers to have their riches and pieces of property. Be that as it may, as a Christian and follower of Christ (there's a bit of a difference sometimes in people's minds as to what a Christian is and what a follower of Christ is) I will not exercise my right to kill someone because someone else tells me to. Does that mean I might suffer the penalty for refusing to kill someone else's enemy, or even my own? Yes, of course. A look at the early Christian history demonstrates this. I am willing to suffer the penalty.
Let's take an example, and say as a woman an enemy tries to rape me. Naturally I can't go into every possible scenario, but I would fight tooth and nail to protect myself. If, in the course of the altercation it happened that my elbow jams into his windpipe and suffocates him, that would be too bad but that's the way it happens. I hope you get the point and see the difference between a person being commanded to fight and kill those he probably never met (same as the other side) and protecting myself. As I said, no need for me as a Christian and follower of Christ to delineate each and every possibility.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which country in the OP is on God's side?

That's a good one. The German soldiers had on their belt buckles, in German of course, "With us is God." And the Americans had their chaplains praying for the Americans to win. You figure it out. Take care.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am going to ask a question here of anyone and everyone that wishes to join in.

There are people of all different faiths on this board, and those without faith. We have Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, atheist, and the list goes on.

I am going to propound a fictitious scenario and want you to put yourself in it and simply answer what you would do.

Let us say that two countries, A and B, are going to war. You are in one of these countries, let's say A. People of your same belief and or religion are in country B. Let us throw me into the other country as well, so I am of country B.

You have been drafted into the army of country A and told to fight against country B.

Country B has adherents to the same faith or belief system you belong to. I am there as well. You are not given the option to decline military service and you will be given weapons and you will have to kill your enemy in country B.

What would you do? Do you go to war? Do you kill members of your same faith or beliefs in country B?

This is not a far-fethced scenario it has played out many times over the years, including in the 2 major wars of the 20th century, WWI, and WWII.

So please state what faith or belief you are, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. And please state whether you are willing to go to war for your country and kill members of your same faith or belief system in the opposing country that you are at war with in this fictitious scenario. And of course that would mean me as well. Would you pick up arms and perhaps put me to death for being on the opposing side?

ETA:

Country B is doing the same thing as Country A.

I think you haven't given nearly enough information to properly answer this question.
You limited it to "they have the same religious beliefs (or lack thereof)", but you have not said in what way they are different.

Clearly there must be some conflict in beliefs between them, why else would they be going to war?


Having said that, I'm a pacifist. I'ld require some serious reasons in order to agree to taking up arms.
I'ld be fine in helping my country fighting the Nazi's if I were a young dude back then.
But I will not join a war where the conflict is more about an ego battle between political leaders rather then anything else.

So for me to answer your question if I would take up arms, I would have to know what the war is actually about.

 

[Rival]

How about picking God's side in truth? When He wants something, He gets it. He doesn't rely on man to do His will. His will is going to be done. What we have to do (those who believe in Him, that is) is to discern what His will is.

Mate this is a fictitious war.

 

[YoursTrue]

Mate this is a fictitious war.

Mate, you seemingly have no side on the matter except you would not kill a Jew. (Does it matter if he was going to kill you?)

 

[Rival]

Mate, you seemingly have no side on the matter except you would not kill a Jew. (Does it matter if he was going to kill you?)

I picked a side I identified with and chose to fight. It was never going to be ideal, but of course I'd try avoiding killing the folks with whom I share a faith. That means more to me than my country.

How can you possibly know whose side G-d is on in a made-up war? What's your straightforward answer to the OP question?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The belief in evolution (not "social" evolution) has a lot to do with the way one perceives the value of life.

I disagree. It has solely too do with how much one trusts scientific method.

 

[syo]

Let us say that two countries, A and B,

There aren't countries in Anarchy.

 

[MNoBody]

it seems that the term Kill is used to define this commandment when it is accurately rendered thou shall not Murder, which is categorically different from killing [reason/purpose]
which has made the topic impossible to differentiate or sort.
apparently killing as opposed to murdering is not forbidden...and has been a long tradition of men, to kill, for survival for sport and for defense... of course such activity would be arguable, given philosophies of one-ness and quantum entanglement, but in the context of the abrahamic religions it seems there are many conflicting ideas about something rather simple.

 

[YoursTrue]

I picked a side I identified with and chose to fight. It was never going to be ideal, but of course I'd try avoiding killing the folks with whom I share a faith. That means more to me than my country.

How can you possibly know whose side G-d is on in a made-up war? What's your straightforward answer to the OP question?

How would you know which side God is on? Further, if God were on someone's side, that person would not need to fight. Even if he were killed. Therefore, when the future action from God appears (as Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Let your kingdom come") there would be no need to fight from humans. God will do the action. See Revelation.

 

[YoursTrue]

it seems that the term Kill is used to define this commandment when it is accurately rendered thou shall not Murder, which is categorically different from killing [reason/purpose]
which has made the topic impossible to differentiate or sort.
apparently killing as opposed to murdering is not forbidden...and has been a long tradition of men, to kill, for survival for sport and for defense... of course such activity would be arguable, given philosophies of one-ness and quantum entanglement, but in the context of the abrahamic religions it seems there are many conflicting ideas about something rather simple.

What I notice is that the early Christians were not known to kill or get even with their enemies. Constantine changed a few things.

 

[MNoBody]

 

[Deeje]

I picked a side I identified with and chose to fight. It was never going to be ideal, but of course I'd try avoiding killing the folks with whom I share a faith. That means more to me than my country.

How can you possibly know whose side G-d is on in a made-up war? What's your straightforward answer to the OP question?

In ancient Israel, you would have fought on God's side because you would have been protecting something that was God given....your land. Israel was not in an offensive war but a defensive one and God demonstrated that when he was backing his nation, they could not lose....however when Israel sough to ally itself politically with other nations, God withdrew his backing and they were defeated. We see modern day Israel in this situation.....spilling innocent blood, and allying itself with nations whose worship they despise. (Isaiah 1:15)

When giving Abraham strong assurance that the divine promise would be fulfilled upon his descendants, God said to him: “You may know for sure that your seed will become an alien resident in a land not theirs, and they will have to serve them, and these will certainly afflict them for four hundred years. But the nation that they will serve I am judging, and after that they will go out with many goods. As for you, you will go to your forefathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they will return here, because the error of the Amorites has not yet come to completion.” (Genesis 15:13-16)

This was speaking about their time in Egypt....over 400 years they would labor there before God released them.

The taking over of the land by the natural seed of Abraham would have to wait for a particular situation to occur.
This long period of time would allow for the chosen natural seed of Abraham to grow to a people of many members, numerous enough to displace the Amorite occupants of the land of Canaan who were going from bad to worse in the “error” of their pagan ways. Although Abraham’s natural seed would grow to a people of great size in a land foreign to the land of Canaan, yet God would hold the land in reserve for them until the “error” of the promised land’s inhabitants had become so bad that they deserved to be purged out of the land. That God would give the territory to Abraham’s natural seed at the time ripe for it, Jehovah then guaranteed that with a formal covenant. God backed them when any other nation tried to take it away from them. There you have "sanctioned" warfare.

Now, coming to the present day wars of the nations, how many are living in lands that are God-given?
How many are conquerors of the land they now occupy and who have displaced the original inhabitants and treated them as second class citizens in their own country? Did they have God's sanction to occupy these lands that were not their own, even when an enemy threatened them?

Jesus demonstrated that his disciples were to be no part of the political world or its conflicts. The situation in Rome at the time he walked the earth, saw the Jewish zealots were plotting to overthrow their oppressors. But Jesus did not side with them, saying that his Kingdom was "no part of this world". (John 18:36) He did not promote violence in any way, rather he taught his disciples to "love their enemies" and to "pray" for them. (Matthew 5:43-44)

So if there is no sanction from God in any conflict, the truth is, that God is not on either side.....he is on the side of those who "learn war no more". (Isaiah 2:2-4) I believe that his people were in jail as conscientious objectors.

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree. It has solely too do with how much one trusts scientific method.

Conclusions based on evidence change, one reason is that evidence leading to a conclusion about it can change. Or conclusions based on evidence can differ from scientist to scientist. I am not opposed to science, after all, we have vaccines and other remedies that help, among other things.
But people have minds to inquire and draw conclusions. Both the evidence and the conclusions about the evidence can change.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Conclusions based on evidence change, one reason is that evidence leading to a conclusion about it can change. Or conclusions based on evidence can differ from scientist to scientist. I am not opposed to science, after all, we have vaccines and other remedies that help, among other things.
But people have minds to inquire and draw conclusions. Both the evidence and the conclusions about the evidence can change.

It is true that science alters its conclusions based on new evidence, should that evidence indicate such new conclusions. That is a virtue of science, not a drawback.

The point is that when we trust science, we basically are saying, "I'm going with what the evidence says, and should new evidence be found that shapes a new conclusion, I will go again with what the evidence finds." Creationists simply don't say this. They do NOT trust science. They are not really interested in what the evidence says.

In the case of evolution, there is so much evidence that live has evolved that it is, basically, a fact. The theoretical aspects surround only what drives evolution. For example, Darwin proposed natural selection. It is not that Darwin was wrong, so much as that his answer was incomplete. Today's TOE proposes that it is natural selection plus other processes, for example, the importance of random mutation, or the necessity of populations being isolated, etc.

Nothing is going to be found that alters the basic idea that life has evolved and continues to evolve. And nothing is going to overturn Natural Selection. But there may be further discoveries as far as what other processes are important to evolution. IOW, the theoretical understanding of evolution may get tweaked, but it will never be overturned.