Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Christianity and War

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Deutschland
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Gender
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,019
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    14
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    19 Posts

    Christianity and War

    Christianity and War

    by Laurence M. Vanceby Laurence M. Vance

    "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation"



    ~ George Bush
    "From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?"



    ~ James 4:1
    "War is the health of the state"



    ~ Randolph Bourne
    "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"



    ~ U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler
    "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings. The earthquake means good business for construction workers, and cholera improves the business of physicians, pharmacists, and undertakers; but no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive forces in the general interest"



    ~ Ludwig von Mises
    "War is God’s judgment on sin here; hell is God’s judgment on sin hereafter"



    ~ Bob Jones Sr.
    "I saw in the whole Christian world a license of fighting at which even barbarous nations might blush. Wars were begun on trifling pretexts or none at all, and carried on without any reference of law, Divine or human"



    ~ Hugo Grotius
    "Our wars, for the most part, proceed either from ambition, from anger and malice, from the mere wantonness of unbridled power, or from some other mental distemper"



    ~ Desiderius Erasmus
    That the ongoing undeclared "war" in Iraq is supported by apologists for what World War II general, and later president, Dwight Eisenhower, called the "military-industrial complex" is no surprise. What is surprising, however, is the present degree of Christian enthusiasm for war.

    Our Christian forefathers thought differently, as will presently be seen.
    "Just war theory," although it has been misused by political leaders to encourage soldiers to needlessly fight, kill, bleed, and die, with the full support of the civilian populace, including many of its Christians, is nevertheless still relevant in this age of tanks, bombs, land mines, and "weapons of mass destruction."

    In his 1625 treatise De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), the famed Dutch Christian, Hugo Grotius (1538–1645), universally recognized as the "Father of International Law," set forth six jus ad bellum (just recourse to war) conditions that limit a nation’s legitimate recourse to war: just cause (correct intention [self-defense] with an objective), proportionality (grave enough situation to warrant war), reasonable chance for success (obtainable objectives), public declaration (fair warning, opportunity for avoidance), declaration only by legitimate authority, and last resort (all other options eliminated).

    Or, as the historian and economist, Murray Rothbard(1926–1995), said, in making his case that America has only had two just wars (1776 & 1861), "A just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them."

    Grotius also articulated three jus in bello (justice in the course of war) conditions that govern just and fair conduct in war: legitimate targets (only combatants, not civilians), proportionality (means may not exceed what is warranted by the cause), and treatment of prisoners (combatants are through capture rendered noncombatants).

    Grotius’ fellow Dutchman, Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536), was certainly no pacifist, yet he lamented: "War would be understandable among the beasts, for they lack natural reason; it is an aberration among men because the evil of war can be easily understood through the use of reason alone. War, however, is inconceivable among Christians because it is not only rationally objectionable but, even more important, ethically inadmissible."

    The fact that a government claims a war is just is irrelevant, for American history is replete with examples of American presidents who have exaggerated, misinformed, misrepresented, and lied to deceive the American people into supporting wars that they would not have supported if they had known the facts.

    In 1846 President James Polk, after Texas’ accession to the union, deliberately put US troops into an area still complicated by the existence of a boundary dispute with Mexico so as to be able to go to Congress with an incident and get a declaration of war.

    In 1861 President Abraham Lincoln waged war on his own people after declaring in his first inaugural address: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

    In 1898 President William McKinley began a "splendid little war" with Spain over Cuba. Its sequel to secure U.S. colonial power in the Philippines left dead 4,000 US troops, more than 20,000 Filipino fighters, and more than 220,000 Filipino civilians, all based on the news-media slogan "Remember the Maine!"
    In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson sought reelection on the slogan "he kept us out of war," but then proceeded, soon after his second inauguration, to ask Congress for a declaration of war: "the war to end all wars" to "make the world safe for democracy."

    In 1940 President Franklin Roosevelt campaigned for his third term, saying, "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." It was not long, however, before our "boys" were back once again on European soil.

    In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson announced to a crowd at Akron University: "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." This was followed by the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that saw over 500,000 "American boys" fight an "Asian boys" war. Over 50,000 of them came home in body bags.

    In 1991 President George Bush I used faked satellite photos to gain Saudi participation in the first Gulf War, and to convince the American people that Hussein must be stopped from conquering the whole region.

    In 2003 President George Bush II insisted on the need to "end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world." The holes in this statement have been unfolding before our eyes.

    Yet, the gullible Christian theologian Loraine Boettner (1901–1990), in his book The Christian Attitude Toward War, claims that the United States has "never had a militarist president." He even advocates that the government "should be given the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to waging war.

    But contrary to Boettner, and as mentioned previously, our Christian forefathers, being much better read and having a much better grasp of history than the modern Christian who spends all his time in front of the Internet and the television, had no enthusiasm for war at all.

    Back before the Civil War, when the Christians published theological journals worth reading, two Baptist ministers writing in The Christian Review demonstrated that Christian war fever was contrary to the New Testament.
    Veritatis Amans, in his 1847 article "Can War, Under Any Circumstances, Be Justified on the Principles of the Christian Religion? "approached the subject from the standpoint of war being justified only in cases of self-defense. Another Baptist preacher, in an unsigned article from 1838 entitled "Wickedness of War," approached the subject from the standpoint of the nature of war in general. Both articles look to the New Testament as their authority.

    Amans begins: "War has ever been the scourge of the human race. The history of the past is little else than a chronicle of deadly feuds, irreconcilable hate, and exterminating warfare. The extension of empire, the love of glory, and thirst for fame, have been more fatal to men than famine or pestilence, or the fiercest elements of nature."
    "And what is more sad and painful, many of the wars whose desolating surges have deluged the earth, have been carried on in the name and under the sanction of those who profess the name of Christ."
    "It has not been till recently, that the disciples of Christ have been conscious of the enormous wickedness of war as it usually exists. And even now there are many who do not frown upon it with that disapprobation and abhorrence, which an evil of such magnitude as an unjust war deserves."
    "Wars of every kind may be included under two classes – offensive and defensive. Concerning the former we shall say nothing. We need not delay a moment to discuss a question so directly at variance with the dictates of conscience, and the principles of revealed religion."
    "But under what circumstances is war truly defensive? We reply, when its object is to repel an invasion; when there is no alternative but to submit to bondage and death, or to resist."
    The anonymous Baptist preacher writing in a 1838 issue of The Christian Review continues: "The war spirit is so wrought into the texture of governments, and the habits of national thinking, and even into our very festivals and pomps, that its occasional recurrence is deemed a matter of unavoidable necessity."
    War "contradicts the genius and intention of Christianity," "sets at nought the example of Jesus," and "is inconsistent not only with the general structure and nature of Christianity and the example of Jesus, but it violates all the express precepts of the New Testament."
    "Christianity requires us to seek to amend the condition of man. But war cannot do this. The world is no better for all the wars of five thousand years. Christianity, if it prevailed, would make the earth a paradise. War, where it prevails, makes it a slaughter-house, a den of thieves, a brothel, a hell. Christianity cancels the laws of retaliation. War is based upon that very principle. Christianity is the remedy for all human woes. War produces every woe known to man."
    "The causes of war, as well as war itself, are contrary to the gospel. It originates in the worst passions and the worst aims. We may always trace it to the thirst of revenge, the acquisition of territory, the monopoly of commerce, the quarrels of kings, the intrigues of ministers, the coercion of religious opinion, the acquisition of disputed crowns, or some other source, equally culpable; but never has any war, devised by man, been founded on holy tempers and Christian principles."
    "It should be remembered, that in no case, even under the Old Testament, was war appointed to decide doubtful questions, or to settle quarrels, but to inflict national punishment. They were intended, as are pestilence and famine, to chastise nations guilty of provoking God. Such is never the pretext of modern war; and if it were, it would require divine authority, which, as has just been said, would induce even members of the Peace Society to fight."

    The "criminality of war," as Howard Malcom, president of Georgetown College, wrote in 1845, is not "that tyrants should lead men into wars of pride and conquest," but that "the people, in governments comparatively free, should so readily lend themselves to a business in which they bear all the sufferings, can gain nothing, and may lose all." That people would act this way, Malcom says, is an "astonishment indeed." "But," he continues, "the chief wonder is that Christians, followers of the Prince of Peace, should have concurred in this mad idolatry of strife, and thus been inconsistent not only with themselves, but with the very genius of their system."

    The founding fathers of this country, many of whom were deists, had more sense than many twenty-first-century Christians when it came to espousing a policy of peace through non-intervention; in other words, not being "a busybody in other men’s matters" (1 Pet. 4:15). George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." John Quincy Adams: "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy."
    So the War on Terrorism, like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, is in so many ways just a tragic joke. But why Christians support any of these bogus "wars" is an even greater tragedy.

    *I am indebted for these paragraphs on Grotius to Laurie Calhoun, "Just War? Moral Soldiers?" Independent Review, IV, 3 (Winter 2000), pp. 325–345, and for Joe Stromberg of the Mises Institute for bringing her article to my attention.

    October 29, 2003




    Last edited by Leofric; Saturday, April 15th, 2006 at 07:39 PM. Reason: left-justified the body

  2. #2
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Obviously it depends entirely on the reasons for going to war, something the writer of this article seems to have forgotten. It's the usual left-wing agenda under the guise of "Christian morality"; they'll exploit "morality" when it suits their purposes, and take advantage of consciences; rather typical of liberal "do-gooder" churchmen. God (or "Christian principles") doesn't say that fighting in a war is wrong per se.

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 12th, 2017 @ 06:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Posts
    852
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    God (or "Christian principles") doesn't say that fighting in a war is wrong per se.
    Well, you forget that in the Bible the New Testament follows the Old Testament. Thus, the New does the Old 'aufheben" in a Hegelian sense. And in the New Testament there is a clear, both explicitly and implicitly stated discard and disclaim of not only "war", but any form of (physical) violence. The only exception which you might put forward is the episode when Jesus kicks the Jewisch dealers out of the Temple. Difficult as this "blackout" is to explain though, you can hardly conceive it as a justification of war. The problem is that the North American Protestants - the WASPs - have always and still do put more emphasis on the OT with its "manifest" drive. You may perceive that as sort of subconcious, instinctive reaction to the all-too-gumpish turn-your-other-cheak doctrine, which wouldn't have guaranteed the conquista of what is now the USA.

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork
    Well, you forget that in the Bible the New Testament follows the Old Testament.
    Do you mean that because the New Testament is more recent, Christians should therefore consider it more valid or true? Actually, the Old and New Testaments don't contradict each other. The Old Testament believers were under just as much of an obligation to turn the other cheek as those of the new. The war waged on the Canaanites was conducted according to the specific command of God as a punishment on them. Waging war for the sake of it, at one's own discretion and without an explicit command from God, would have been just as wrong then as in New Testament times, and God no longer works in that way, now that the Bible is complete.

    The reason people think the Old and New Testaments are doctrinally inconsistent is that they don't understand either of them; they've missed the fundamental point, the essence of both.

    Thus, the New does the Old 'aufheben" in a Hegelian sense. And in the New Testament there is a clear, both explicitly and implicitly stated discard and disclaim of not only "war", but any form of (physical) violence. The only exception which you might put forward is the episode when Jesus kicks the Jewisch dealers out of the Temple. Difficult as this "blackout" is to explain though, you can hardly conceive it as a justification of war. The problem is that the North American Protestants - the WASPs - have always and still do put more emphasis on the OT with its "manifest" drive. You may perceive that as sort of subconcious, instinctive reaction to the all-too-gumpish turn-your-other-cheak doctrine, which wouldn't have guaranteed the conquista of what is now the USA.
    Read the book of Revelation (or any of the Gospels), you'll find God of the New Testament is a God of both judgement and mercy, just as in the old.

    The "turn your other cheek" doctrine is commonly misunderstood. To smite someone on the cheek was an insult, like spitting, rather than a threat to physical well-being; now the command is not to be taken literally, it's comparative; in other words the meaning is, it would be better to suffer another insult, than to retaliate in blind vengeance, because you feel your pride has been hurt. It does not forbid self defence, nor does it forbid defence of someone else.

    So from a Christian perspective, war is justifiable in some cases. In the case of the Iraq war, Hussein was giving the world very good reason to think he was making illegal weapons, and he wouldn't co-operate with inspectors. It was clear from the start that an invasion was the best thing to do, and the UN should have endorsed it.

    I would imagine Christians supporting it do so on the understanding that it was for the purpose of removing a threat to security, a very ambitious and dangerous leader. We can argue all day about whether their understanding is wrong, but that's a different matter altogether.

  5. #5
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 12th, 2017 @ 06:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Posts
    852
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    Actually, the Old and New Testaments don't contradict each other.
    Well, every real Christ must claim that, for if they did, how could he accept the "whole package"? If I have to choose between twisting my mind and twisting the meaning of some in fact clear statements, I'll choose the latter, for sure. I'd not want to go mad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    The Old Testament believers were under just as much of an obligation to turn the other cheek as those of the new. (...) Waging war for the sake of it, at one's own discretion and without an explicit command from God, would have been just as wrong then as in New Testament times (...)
    This is your interpretation. It's a possible interpretation, though an unlikely one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    The reason people think the Old and New Testaments are doctrinally inconsistent is that they don't understand either of them; they've missed the fundamental point, the essence of both.
    As I understand it, the essence is love & peace, obey to the government (i.e. don't revolt), and pay your tax. In heaven, you'll get an eternal reward. Am I mistaken?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    Read the book of Revelation (or any of the Gospels), you'll find God of the New Testament is a God of both judgement and mercy, just as in the old.
    I read them. And I expected you would bring the "Revelation" to the fore. But there is one big difference which makes the point. In the OT the "Chosen People" are subjects, subjectsin a legal sense; they live under God, but they are also subjects in the grammatical sense, which means they are actors, they are "agents" of God's Will. Whereas in the NT, and especially in the Revelation, they are mere objects of God's Will. For as you said: it doesn't work the same way as before.

  6. #6
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork
    Well, every real Christ must claim that, for if they did, how could he accept the "whole package"? If I have to choose between twisting my mind and twisting the meaning of some in fact clear statements, I'll choose the latter, for sure. I'd not want to go mad.
    A better option would be to look at it objectively, and in context. People who say they contradict don't understand them, and that's clear from the statements of such people.

    This is your interpretation. It's a possible interpretation, though an unlikely one.
    It's the only interpretation which makes sense. I'd be interested to see the evidence for yours, and whether you've made rational conclusions.

    As I understand it, the essence is love & peace, obey to the government (i.e. don't revolt), and pay your tax.
    You seem to be thinking this contradicts what I said earlier. Why is that?

    "Live at peace with all men as much as it lies in you"; i.e as much as possible; obviously when someone attacks you it's not possible. But yes, rebelling against the government and refusing to pay tax is wrong; this doesn't mean though, that taking up arms for defence is wrong.

    In heaven, you'll get an eternal reward. Am I mistaken?
    You're very mistaken if you're thinking the message of the Bible is that good works will get you into heaven. In fact you have indeed missed the the whole point; God's grace and mercy is the only thing that will get someone into heaven; as the Apostle Paul said, if our own merits saved us, then "Christ is dead in vain", his death would be pointless.

    In other words, no matter how good someone is from the world's point of view, whether Christian or otherwise, he is worthy of eternal punishment, but Christ took the punishment on himself, so that he saves "as many as God has given him" washes away their sins, and gives them, as it were, a new heart which loves righteousness and is no longer a slave of sin, even though sin will not be eliminated entirely until the death of the body; so good works are a product of being saved, not vice versa.

    I read them. And I expected you would bring the "Revelation" to the fore.
    Did you? Well as I implied, Jesus spoke, while on earth, more of damnation than the Old Testament.

    But there is one big difference which makes the point. In the OT the "Chosen People" are subjects, subjectsin a legal sense; they live under God, but they are also subjects in the grammatical sense, which means they are actors, they are "agents" of God's Will. Whereas in the NT, and especially in the Revelation, they are mere objects of God's Will. For as you said: it doesn't work the same way as before.
    Interesting logic here. Apparently you think that differences in manner of dealing somehow mean a fundamental contradiction in doctrine.

    However, in both cases, the believers are objects of God's will, you can't have read the Old Testament very thoroughly if you don't think so (take the very fact that they are "chosen". By whom?). And there are plenty of examples in the New of believers being agents of his will.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Imperator X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 4th, 2009 @ 01:47 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Subrace
    Nordid/Atlantid.
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Massachusetts Massachusetts
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Looking
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Religion
    Hindu - Shakta
    Posts
    792
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Monotheism was the foundation of religious intolerance and religiously motivated violence (remember the Maccabees) and after Constantine we saw the emergence of the first Totalitarian state. Constantine used Christianity as an excuse to wage war, conquer territory and gain ascendency over the other 3 Caesars he shared power with.

    Theodosius outlawed all practice of traditional (pagan) customs and beliefs and employed organized groups of men to carry out these edicts.

    Before the emergence of Christianity it was likely that a conquering nation would be influenced by the traditional deities of the conquered nations, afterwards we see the suppression of native beliefs and the imposition of the ways of the desert creeds.

    Christianity began through war, note the term paganus was not only used to denote a "country dweller" but also a civilian, ie. "outside the army of Christ."
    SVMDEVSSVMCAESARSVMCAELVMETINFERNVM

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator X
    Monotheism was the foundation of religious intolerance and religiously motivated violence (remember the Maccabees) and after Constantine we saw the emergence of the first Totalitarian state. Constantine used Christianity as an excuse to wage war, conquer territory and gain ascendency over the other 3 Caesars he shared power with.

    Theodosius outlawed all practice of traditional (pagan) customs and beliefs and employed organized groups of men to carry out these edicts.

    Before the emergence of Christianity it was likely that a conquering nation would be influenced by the traditional deities of the conquered nations, afterwards we see the suppression of native beliefs and the imposition of the ways of the desert creeds.

    Christianity began through war, note the term paganus was not only used to denote a "country dweller" but also a civilian, ie. "outside the army of Christ."
    It's clear from the Bible that waging war to spread Christianity and forcing people to accept it is ungodly, and indeed Constantine's measures "coincided" with a paganisation of the church. One cannot be forced by human means to believe on Christ, so attempting to do that will only create hypocrites, not true Christians.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    15 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    It's clear from the Bible that waging war to spread Christianity and forcing people to accept it is ungodly, and indeed Constantine's measures "coincided" with a paganisation of the church. One cannot be forced by human means to believe on Christ, so attempting to do that will only create hypocrites, not true Christians.
    Given that the soul is invaluably more important than the body, I see no reason why convincing the soul via the body to accept salvation is actually a bad thing. See, for example, the Inquisition.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  10. #10
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Re: Christianity and War

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Given that the soul is invaluably more important than the body, I see no reason why convincing the soul via the body to accept salvation is actually a bad thing.
    But as I was implying, man's sinful state means that only God can convince him, he cannot be convinced by human means. The latter can show and explain the truth to him, but only the former can give him the true faith to believe, and can save him from the just punishment of his sin. But I'd imagine your opinion is different on that.

    See, for example, the Inquisition.
    Well, they didn't convince the Protestant believers to change.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Iraq War Deaths Exceed Vietnam War Numbers
    By Roderic in forum The United States
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, July 7th, 2011, 03:22 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 10:07 PM
  3. The South African War: The First Total War of the 20th Century
    By Bittereinder in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, September 6th, 2010, 06:30 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 10:43 PM
  5. Nerf War vs. Real War: IRA and Al-Qaeda
    By Death and the Sun in forum England
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, July 18th, 2005, 03:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •