You can call me Pete. I chose the login ID long ago, somewhat randomly, out of a book called "Darwin's black box", which I was reading near the time I first joined the forum.TheEditor wrote:Hi Thrombomodulin (btw, is there a shorter name I can use? )
Although a label for my favorite view would be among those listed (I think you know what it is, we've discussed this before), this wasn't really about the particular view that I hold, but rather something common to all the views you listed. I took your comments to be affirming the idea that one should not apply to the bible to support their political views (for you said " they wed their political paradigm to their Biblical one somehow, and judge Christians that don't agree ... I really think it is an impossibility to wed the spiritual views with the political ones without treading on the sanctity of the spiritual"). It is with this that I was expressing disagreement.TheEditor wrote:For starters, 'Me thinks thou protesteth too much'. You stated that I 'critiqued your position.' Did I? I threw a whole lot of political labels out there, but I don't think I critiqued any particular view.
To make the questions direct. Did the JW's base their stance on war (a political matter) on the bible, or did they not use the bible to arrive at their stance? Do you continue to hold the JW / Anabaptist / pacifist stance on war? If so, do you do so on grounds separate from the bible so as to preserve the "sanctity of the spiritual"? If indeed you affirm the bible could, or should, be used to support a Christian's stance on war, then can you explain how it can be consistent to criticize those who attempt to do the same to inform their views in other political matters?