quote:

---

quote:

---

Japanese board? Why? Because I don't view American lives to be of any greater value than Japanese lives? I believe both are of infinite value to our Creator. I certainly don't subscribe to the "eye for an eye" revenge mindset, so it matters not to me that they drew first blood.

---

Because even though you don't think American lives are greater than Japanese lives I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you do at lease see some value in American lives and would take issue with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In which case you should take it to the Japanese board.

Or do you have nothing to say to them because Jesus never had a lesson on striking first. Oh wait... he did say who ever is without sin may cast the first stone. Is that it? Do you think the Japanese are without sin?

---

I see American lives as having infinite value, just as I do w/ Japanese, Iranian, etc lives. I don't care about what set of imaginary lines a person was born within. All bear the image of God, and all are infinitely valuable.

Of course I take issue with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was evil. Fortunately, my Savior told us how to respond to evil, and it didn't involve mass murder. Of course Japanese aren't without sin, but this isn't the anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, so that's why it hasn't been discussed.

Maybe he should have stepped in a little sooner then.

I'm glad that you would let every Jew in Europe, and every civilian in China be massacred before you dropped a bomb in Germany or Japan. I guess I'm just not that magnanimous.

I can see why WWII posses such an issue for the pacifists and isolationists. Not only was it completely justified, and preceded by a direct unprovoked attack on American soil, but it also exposed the folly of appeasement. Quite the trifecta to agrue against.

quote:

---

Maybe he should have stepped in a little sooner then.

I'm glad that you would let every Jew in Europe, and every civilian in China be massacred before you dropped a bomb in Germany or Japan. I guess I'm just not that magnanimous.

I can see why WWII posses such an issue for the pacifists and isolationists. Not only was it completely justified, and preceded by a direct unprovoked attack on American soil, but it also exposed the folly of appeasement. Quite the trifecta to agrue against.

---

I always find it laughable when WWII is used as an argument against nonviolence, when WWII is the result of the of the cycle of violence. WWII doesn't pose an issue for me, because WWII is an indictment on the cycle of violence, not of Christian nonviolence.

Imagine if every person that claimed Christ had simply refused to be blinded by idolatrous nationalism and embraced the nonviolent approach of Christ. If every self-identified Christian in Europe just said "no, I'm not going to fight". If every self-identified Christian in America just said "no, I'm not going to return evil with evil". Hitler loses all of his power. Heck, Hitler never rises to power because in that largely "Christian" country, he would have had no support for his racist evil. WWII happened because Christians chose the ways of the world, not the ways of the Kingdom. That's not an indictment of Christian nonviolence. Nonviolence wasn't tried. It was rejected by those that claim Christ, and the world erupted as a result.

never mind.

Have fun in lala land with John Lennon

quote:

---

quote:

---

Maybe he should have stepped in a little sooner then.

I'm glad that you would let every Jew in Europe, and every civilian in China be massacred before you dropped a bomb in Germany or Japan. I guess I'm just not that magnanimous.

I can see why WWII posses such an issue for the pacifists and isolationists. Not only was it completely justified, and preceded by a direct unprovoked attack on American soil, but it also exposed the folly of appeasement. Quite the trifecta to agrue against.

---

I always find it laughable when WWII is used as an argument against nonviolence, when WWII is the result of the of the cycle of violence. WWII doesn't pose an issue for me, because WWII is an indictment on the cycle of violence, not of Christian nonviolence.

Imagine if every person that claimed Christ had simply refused to be blinded by idolatrous nationalism and embraced the nonviolent approach of Christ. If every self-identified Christian in Europe just said "no, I'm not going to fight". If every self-identified Christian in America just said "no, I'm not going to return evil with evil". Hitler loses all of his power. Heck, Hitler never rises to power because in that largely "Christian" country, he would have had no support for his racist evil. WWII happened because Christians chose the ways of the world, not the ways of the Kingdom. That's not an indictment of Christian nonviolence. Nonviolence wasn't tried. It was rejected by those that claim Christ, and the world erupted as a result.

---

Japanese is a difficult language to learn.

I'm curious about this. One might wonder whether an earlier show of force against a madman might have nipped it in the bus. Instead, peace was made on both fronts.

And while it's not "WWII", the Holocaust was not a result of a cycle of violence. It was the direct result of doing nothing.

quote:

---

never mind.

Have fun in lala land with John Lennon

---

It has nothing to do w/ John Lennon. I'm simply a follower of Christ and trying to respond in the ways that He instructed us to. I find that turning my fears over to Him and loving others is much more effective than taking those fears and using the world's means of addressing them.

But, if that means I live in "lala land", so be it. Christ's love is the "tortured's love for the torturer". It doesn't make sense to the world, but it is what changes hearts.

quote:

---

And while it's not "WWII", the Holocaust was not a result of a cycle of violence. It was the direct result of doing nothing.

---

Disagree completely. It's the direct result of using the world's methods to address your fears. If all those that claimed Christ in 1930's/40's Germany had actually lived out the love that Christ showed us, then Hitler never rises to power. How many in his mass rallies turned around and went to their church the next Sunday? He had power because the people turned their fears over to him, not God.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And while it's not "WWII", the Holocaust was not a result of a cycle of violence. It was the direct result of doing nothing.

---

Disagree completely. It's the direct result of using the world's methods to address your fears. If all those that claimed Christ in 1930's/40's Germany had actually lived out the love that Christ showed us, then Hitler never rises to power. How many in his mass rallies turned around and went to their church the next Sunday? He had power because the people turned their fears over to him, not God.

---

This is fantastic as long as you're dealing with believers I guess. What would your advice have been to the Jews? Careful with all the New Testament stuff here...

Unfortunately your philosophy leaves you with no means to deal with events the 99.9999% of time that people don't follow your interpretation of scripture.

I think people in concentration camps were probably more comforted by the sound of American bombs than by the thought that if only the Germans had been better Christians that the whole mess would have been avoided...

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And while it's not "WWII", the Holocaust was not a result of a cycle of violence. It was the direct result of doing nothing.

---

Disagree completely. It's the direct result of using the world's methods to address your fears. If all those that claimed Christ in 1930's/40's Germany had actually lived out the love that Christ showed us, then Hitler never rises to power. How many in his mass rallies turned around and went to their church the next Sunday? He had power because the people turned their fears over to him, not God.

---

This is fantastic as long as you're dealing with believers I guess. What would your advice have been to the Jews? Careful with all the New Testament stuff here...

---

Per a quick search on wikipedia, in 1933, 67% of the German population identified as Protestant, and about 33% identified as Catholic. In 1939, after the annexation of Austria, it was 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% as deist, and 1.5% as non-religious. If all those that claimed Christ actually lived out His teachings, then the Jews would have had nothing to fear in Germany. The problem is that those that claimed Christ let fear and anger turn them towards the violent ways of the world. They showed their true god was nationalism, not Christ.

I think we've established they're not real Christians. What was your advice for the Jews?

quote:

---

Disagree completely. It's the direct result of using the world's methods to address your fears. If all those that claimed Christ in 1930's/40's Germany had actually lived out the love that Christ showed us, then Hitler never rises to power. How many in his mass rallies turned around and went to their church the next Sunday? He had power because the people turned their fears over to him, not God.

---

Yes, but since the Germans didn't do that, what was the quickest way to stop Hitler's rein? By praying for him or by actually stopping him and his armies? Yeah yeah, violence is never the answer, but the answer is painfully obvious to most anyone else.

quote:

---

I think we've established they're not real Christians. What was your advice for the Jews?

---

Okay, so can we at least stop with the assertion that WWII or the Holocaust are a result of the failures of nonviolence, or as some call it "doing nothing"? Christ's methods were never tried. Had those that claim to follow Him actually done so, then this all would have been avoided.

As for my advice for the Jews, given the failures of the church to actually follow Christ's teachings, I'd say flee and go into hiding. I don't know though. I don't have all the answers, but all I do know is the way Christ taught for His followers to go. I can't imagine the horrors of their situation, but I also know that answering evil with evil isn't going to stop the cycle of violence. It will just continue.

Yes! Hiding! No Jews thought of that.

I think problem you have is you define evil as defending yourself and others.

quote:

---

Yes! Hiding! No Jews thought of that.

---

I never said, or implied, they didn't. It's funny, it seems like any differing perspective is somehow required to have answers to all questions. I get it. You don't agree with how I, and much of the early church, understood Christ's teachings on nonviolence. All I know is Christ gave us pretty clear instructions on how to treat others, even those seeking to hurt us. I simply choose His methods over the methods espoused by the powers and principalities of this world.

You asked a question and I attempted to answer it the best I could given my faith in Christ. If you don't like the answer, so be it.

quote:

---

I think problem you have is you define evil as defending yourself and others.

---

I think problem you have is believing that I don't believe we can defend ourselves or others. I've never once said that. It's the means to defend oneself that we disagree on.

It's clear we aren't going to come to any sort of agreement. We clearly have fundamental differences in how we understand Christ's teachings. I've stated my case, and am not sure there's anything else that can be added. At this point, I don't really see the use in continuing this discussion because we are just starting to talk past each other and misrepresent positions, and I genuinely do not wish to build any animosity between us as we are getting to that point in our discussion. Fair enough?

Why are you allowed to run and hide? Where did Jesus say that was okay? That sounds like resisting.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm

If the Nazis feed one of your kids into the fires, give them the other. Isn't that what Jesus is saying? Where from that do you get that it's okay to run?

quote:

---

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm

If the Nazis feed one of your kids into the fires, give them the other. Isn't that what Jesus is saying? Where from that do you get that it's okay to run?

---

I'm pretty sure we've dealt with all these attempted "gotcha" questions before. Go look at the other threads on them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm

If the Nazis feed one of your kids into the fires, give them the other. Isn't that what Jesus is saying? Where from that do you get that it's okay to run?

---

I'm pretty sure we've dealt with all these attempted "gotcha" questions before. Go look at the other threads on them.

---

Should be easy to deal with. Isn't hiding resisting?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm

If the Nazis feed one of your kids into the fires, give them the other. Isn't that what Jesus is saying? Where from that do you get that it's okay to run?

---

I'm pretty sure we've dealt with all these attempted "gotcha" questions before. Go look at the other threads on them.

---

Should be easy to deal with. Isn't hiding resisting?

---

Has been discussed before. I recommend you use the search function to look it up. I'm not playing this "gotcha" game, especially when it has strayed so far from the actual topic of the thread.

quote:

---

Why are you allowed to run and hide? Where did Jesus say that was okay? That sounds like resisting.

---

Yeah, give your other cheek too!

Okay. Have a great day guys.

Ok you too, See ya Retired

quote:

---

I am entirely opposed to the Doolittle raid and firebombing of Tokyo, but the atomic bomb is being discussed because today is the 70th anniversary of this act of mass murder.

---

As long as we're celebrating anniversaries... Happy 70th Anniversary of the end of WWII. Dang... that was fast. Seems like just a few days ago we're talking about the bomb and all those bloody battles of WWII. Over just like that. Cause, meet effect.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

You're saying the emperor did not cite the bomb as the reason for surrender?

quote:

---

You're saying the emperor did not cite the bomb as the reason for surrender?

---

Did I say that?

Sorry, I thought there was a reason you said "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

Ironic isn't it?

quote:

---

Sorry, I thought there was a reason you said "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

Ironic isn't it?

---

So, in your view Emperors are always honest?

You're right. I'm sure the surrender 5 days after the bomb was dropped was just coincidence.

Surely the Soviets declaring war and invading Manchuria on Aug 9 played no role at all either.