Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Right & Wrong
User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by jaydam » Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:35 pm

Homer wrote:
Can the Christian choose the lesser of two evils? Or must the Christian choose no evil at all?
There can be cases where the Christian must choose the lesser evil. Situations can arise in life where the only choices you face are acts that would normally be a sinful. A classic case in ethics is that of the USS Pueblo where the ship had been seized in 1968 as a spy ship by North Korea while in international waters. The ship's captain, Lloyd Bucher, signed a false confession to save his crew from execution.

As an aside, his confession is a hoot, he pulled one over on the North Koreans. Excerpts can be read here, very funny:

http://www.usspueblo.org/Prisoners/Pete ... ssion.html
I would not necessarily consider what he did to be a sin. Is it sinful to give untruth to men who have no regard for the truth? I would debate that to the point I do not deny the truthfulness of my allegiance to God. Certainly would make for an interesting thread.

I believe the greater or lesser evil reaches a new level when it involves weighing the taking of human life.

Let us look at some of the claims I have heard Christians make to justify our present wars:
"We should fight them there to prevent the fight from coming here and killing our people. It is the right things to do as an American, protect our people."
What I hear? Sucks to not be an American, because we will wage war on your streets rather than ours. We will have all the collateral damage take place over there because we don't want it to happen here. Our priority is American lives first. The lesser evil we chose is for you to suffer the war on your soil and have your women and children caught up rather than ours.
"Collateral damage really isn't our fault even though we pulled the trigger that led to the death of civilians. If the bad guy wouldn't have been bad or wouldn't have put himself among innocents those innocents would still be alive. Its the bad guy's fault, he made us kill those women and children."
I don't know how I can stand before God with that defense. "I pulled the trigger, but he made me do it by being a bad guy." Seems like the Adam in the garden defense.

I know this doesn't cover all aspects, but it is some of the thoughts going through my head.

Would I lie to protect life? Probably.

Would I take life to protect life? I don't know. Does it matter if the life I'm taking is an innocent or a criminal life? I don't know.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by jaydam » Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:50 pm

thrombomodulin wrote:I do not think refutation works.
Perhaps it fails to the point we are to be God's agents in some capacity, so it cannot stand that God does not place us there to save the life. But then the question because in what manner are we meant to attempt to save life?

Didn't the rules change when God shifted from having a physical nation? It seems that the new nation of God - the church - is not to be identified so much with supreme might, but with overwhelming love and peace.

In the Old Testament, the other nations feared God's nation entering the promised land because they saw how God delivered their enemies into their hands. But it seems that there was a time when this was anticipated to change, and the people of God would be different. Isn't this why people are seen turning their weapons over to be made farming insturments? When they join this new people of God, they don't need weapons?

Christ seemed to exemplify this understanding that the people of God will not further his kingdom by earthly means (warfare), and Paul echoed that when he said we do not fight with the weapons of this world.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by robbyyoung » Wed Dec 09, 2015 6:34 pm

jaydam wrote:
robbyyoung wrote:Brother, without controversy, God established believers as rulers in Paul's past and Paul's present. He is getting this information from the Hebrew historical record "The O.T." Paul and every other Jew or gentile during his ministry knew full well of this truth.
The OT was involved in the creation and maintenance of a physical nation, which the NT is not. Wouldn't the old style political leaders of a physical nation now be found as spiritual leaders of a spiritual nation?
robbyyoung wrote:I know you are not willing to contend that God will never have any ruling believers in the world after Yeshua's ministry, are you? If not...
We could debate the topic of rulers another day, but pertinent to the direct this discussion has gone, would it not so much be service to the state in any capacity, but specifically armed service to the state. It is this armed service that I would question.
Brother Jaydam, christian rulers and those in authority acting as God's agent for vengeance is the point of discussion. I see a dichotomy in God's agent or minister of the state and those outside this administration. Romans 12 &13 clearly makes this distinction; man is not to seek his own vengeance, however God uses man as His agent to repay or exact His vengeance. You said the following when replying to Homer:
Does being utilized as God's agent equate to not sinning? It seems to me that God can use sinning people as his agent, but that does not make their actions righteous.
If God can use sinners as an extension of His righteous arm to exact His vengeance, as God's agents, will they be held culpable for bearing the sword against wrongdoers? Romans 13 sure doesn't claim these agents are sinning in their roles. Furthermore, if God can use unbelievers in His righteous retribution, He can use believers in the same manner. This is the dichotomy I see in our discussion; however, I could be off center in my search to reconcile God's acting agents as christians.

Lastly, I am reminded of John the Baptist ministry as he proclaimed the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The soldiers asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” If it was prohibited for believers to be God's agent of the state "as a soldier" then John's ministry and advice to repent and change course was missed. I contend christians can serve in this capacity as John rightfully acknowledges.

God Bless.
Last edited by robbyyoung on Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:01 pm

jaydam wrote: Didn't the rules change when God shifted from having a physical nation? It seems that the new nation of God - the church - is not to be identified so much with supreme might, but with overwhelming love and peace.
They did. I agree that love and peace are the first choice, and I am of the opinion that violence should be utilized only as a last resort when other options would fail to attain the end of aiding the victim (e.g. killing an active shooter). I'm not sure the verses cited should be interpreted to preclude every use of a weapon - I am wondering if they might be reasonably be understood to describe what the normative methods are to be for advancing the kingdom.

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”