|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
PAGE 23 DISCUSSION ON CHRISTIAN NONVIOLENCE
Response from "Sr.A"
Posted: Nov 24, 2002 6:24:25 am
To promiselander........Hello once again. Thank you for responding. However, I still didn't get clear enough answers(specific ones) from you regarding specific questions that I had asked(and if I wasn't clear enough then on my question, I'll once again try to be very clear now). Alot of what I understood from your last posting was re-worded slightly with the same meaning as before(mostly). One of the questions I AM looking a SPECIFIC answer from you is EXACTLY whether or not(according to your understanding of scriptures)if it is acceptable to God or not for a true Christian to serve a 'state'(government) in a role as some sort of a police force: yes or no? Only because sometimes you say that God NEVER wants Christians to commit violent acts, but also say that 'state' employees sometimes act under the authority of God to do so; so, that is why I need a specific answer from you(based on scriptures) if it IS or IS NOT acceptable for Christians to be a 'state' employee in this kind of role(knowing how you feel about this); YES or NO???? (I know I'm repeating myself, but only because I haven't gotton a clear-cut answer----- please be patient with me---I'm trying to CLEARLY understand you). Because IF you say that Christians should NOT be part of a 'state(govt.) that carries these acts out, than I can clearly understand your position: that you would be consistant in your belief that Christians should NEVER do these things. If , however, you say that Christians CAN be employees of the 'state' and carry out these acts, then I'm left to understand that this is ULTIMATELY a simple matter of CONSCIENCE ('GRAY' area matter for each believer, similar to the 'alcohol' example we agreed on in my earlier posting) and NOT an ABSOLUTE 'BLACK and WHITE' issue which I FEEL(understand me clearly here!) that you have been pretty ADAMANTLY ASSERTING through your postings. Bottom line is then (if this is how you feel about Christians acceptably being a part of a 'state' in these roles) then we agree on this issue. Furthermore,if I understand you correctly as well in saying that it is a 'sin' covered by the blood of Christ for a Christian (even in govt. roles) to commit such acts, then am I to assume that you feel Christains should then not be part of a 'state' role that performs these acts(because it still would be a 'sin' of some sort according to you, even if they were covered by the blood). In other words, how does one exactly then determine(according to your view of scriptures) that a Christian should or should not be a part of a 'state' in this kind of role? You also said(if I do recall correctly) that it is a 'higher' calling for one to completely live a non-violent life(what scripture is this in, or is this your interpetation) and does that mean a Christian who feels he be part of a 'state' to carry out some of these acts of justice is following a 'lower' calling? Additionally, you specifically said that I "excused all killing in the name of the military, the police the private citizen...". But, sir, I have never nor would ever say this(this is soley your assumption). I firmly believe that Christians are to following the teachings and general principles of the Bible and live a life of peace with all. I do believe, however, that sometimes it may be neccessary and acceptable for a Christian to unfortunately excercise violent acts in certain situations(based upon their conscience) to help curb even more evil acts from happening to (overall) help maintain more peace in the world. This would not be my 'first' preference (nor God's) but my other acceptable preference(as I believe God does). I would be happy to hear the answers from my specific questions and others you may have along with scriptural references(so that I can clearly understand you). Thank you, sir. Grace and Peace.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from promiselander
Nov 24, 2002 4:20:02 pm
Bro. A, I have tried time and again to answer your questions. I am not a brilliant person but I am not totally inept at communications. It took me years to see and understand certain truths to which I hold. I have been explaining them to people for a long time. However, I make a post which explains my position (after having made several others on the same subject) and you look at it in a few moments, then want me to explain my position to you.
I posted at 2 AM and you responded at 6:30 AM. Even if you started looking at it at 2 AM you had only 4 and 1/2 hours to think about it. (How long did you think about my answer by the way?) I am sorry, but no matter how smart you are, these things take some thought, more than you are giving them. My guess is that you did not start at 2 AM. OK, so you don't agree with me, fine, but don't tell me that I am not answering the questions or explaining my position. You are so eager to post back at me and ask your questions that you don't even get the answers when I give them to you. You are wanting me to answer in a certain way or with certain words and it ain't happening. I get the impression that if we were face to face, I would not even be able to finish a sentence before you would be asking me to explain myself. This may not be the case, but it is the impression I am getting from you.
I am not evading the issue. If you have a genuine interest in what my position is, read it and re-read it, but don't tell me that I am not answering the questions. Am I the only person you ever had trouble understanding? I will be glad to rehash these same questions with you through email, but I don't think it is going to help the rest of this group to just keep harping on the same material.
I did say,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
You, on the other hand, are willing to go beyond Scripture and excuse all killing in the name of the military, the police, the private citizen and who knows who all.
-----------------------------------------------------------
and also,
-----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I am saying that there is one standard. Obedience to God. You want me to put approval on killing in the name of the State and in the name of self defense and in the name of who knows what.
-----------------------------------------------------------
and you said,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, you specifically said that I "excused all killing in the name of the military, the police the private citizen...". But, sir, I have never nor would ever say this(this is soley your assumption).
-----------------------------------------------------------
I realized when I posted this, might look like I was broad brushing and I figured you would correct me. I also figured it would be good for you to see how I feel when I get misrepresented.
Though the exactness of my statement fails, the prinicple is still sound. You have come across as if we are justified to kill in the name of the military, law enforcement, penal justice, self defense, protection of others (and here is the unknown variable), "who knows what." Though you may not put approval on ALL killing by the State (yet to be proved), you are more likely to kill at the behest of the State than not to kill. That was my point.
Therefore, I would correct my earlier statement simply by dropping the word "ALL."
I get the impression that you want to say something but you want me to commit myself in some way, other than what I have. Why don't you just go ahead and say what you are wanting to say? And just out of curiosity, do you have a personal interest in this subject other than wanting to argue and disprove it?
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
