PacifistAg said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

All the while, little concern is truly given towards those who are actually fighting the wars and all the countless lives destroyed by it. People will put out some yellow ribbons, play some low quality patriotic music that drapes the war effort in Christianese, then go about their day.

---

I think this is an inaccurate and unfair statement.

Sure more could be done. But I think most people genuinely do care and have concern for our troops.

---

I would argue that if they did care about the troops, they wouldn't be all gung ho about sending them to fight in wars. Especially entirely indefensible wars that we've been fighting for the past 70 years.

And there's certainly no concern for the troops of other nations, the same troops who also bear God's divine image, then there wouldn't be a desire that we kill them.

---

Bingo.

Institute the draft again and see how excited American's would be for another war. We've been so detached from real suffering and war. Hell, one of our presidents said to 'go shopping'. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the issue of who exactly this country sends to war historically (although that trend is changing a bit in the last few years).

---

I think it was Twain who had suggested in a short story he wrote (maybe The Curious Republic of Gondour) that a nation must vote to go to war. Those who vote "yes" are the first ones sent to fight. Those who vote "no" aren't sent.

We'd see opinions change REAL fast, but we'd also see a sharp decline in the number of wars we fight.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Amendment

Quote:

---

1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

---

https://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/constitution/files/Constitution_ProposedAmendments.pdf

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You're probably right. But from a 1000 foot perspective, it's a bit disappointing the solution to abuse is more abuse.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You can't really promise that. I would hope I would remain committed to the way of Christ in that situation. There are remedies that don't require the use of violence. My kids, my wife, they all know that we wouldn't kill for them.

Quad Dog said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You're probably right. But from a 1000 foot perspective, it's a bit disappointing the solution to abuse is more abuse.

---

To me, the saddest thing is that there's this mindset that it's violence or nothing. It's a complete lack of peacemaking creativity.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You're probably right. But from a 1000 foot perspective, it's a bit disappointing the solution to abuse is more abuse.

---

To me, the saddest thing is that there's this mindset that it's violence or nothing. It's a complete lack of peacemaking creativity.

---

How do you peacemake with someone abusing your child? At the bare minimum you'd be calling the police.

We are not only ignoring Twain's suggestion, but we are also ignoring the Constitution, which strangely neither liberals nor conservatives, Democrats nor Republicans, are pointing out.

When was the last time we went to war under an Act of Congress declaring war?

And methinks that one reason the generals love the all-volunteer army so much and are so adamant against resurrecting the draft is that a draft would be a deterrent to war. If we had been sending draftees to Iraq and Afghanistan, does anyone really think that those wars would have lasted ~30 years?

PacifistAg said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You're probably right. But from a 1000 foot perspective, it's a bit disappointing the solution to abuse is more abuse.

---

To me, the saddest thing is that there's this mindset that it's violence or nothing. It's a complete lack of peacemaking creativity.

---

I also get a weird vibe sometimes that people are out there imagining scenarios like the one above and imaging all the violence they would deal out. Then getting some sort of joy from that imagined violence.
I know a few gun lovers that get a weird sort of glee in imaging using their guns on someone breaking into their house. They have quickly accessible, strategically placed guns in the house for just that scenario that they've planned and imagined many times. I know someone too with a business card of a lawyer to call on his fridge for when he does shoot someone breaking in. It's all too much premeditated for me.

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You can't really promise that. I would hope I would remain committed to the way of Christ in that situation. There are remedies that don't require the use of violence. My kids, my wife, they all know that we wouldn't kill for them.

---

I truly believe it would be inherently evil to not stop your child from being abused. Just my two cents. To try to "talk-down" the abuser is just absurd. At that point, by the lack of action, you are condoning grave sin. Also never mentioned killing.

Do you get a weird vibe when people buy insurance, too? Are they premeditating burning down their house?

Howdy Dammit said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You can't really promise that. I would hope I would remain committed to the way of Christ in that situation. There are remedies that don't require the use of violence. My kids, my wife, they all know that we wouldn't kill for them.

---

I truly believe it would be inherently evil to not stop your child from being abused. Just my two cents. To try to "talk-down" the abuser is just absurd. At that point, by the lack of action, you are condoning grave sin. Also never mentioned killing.

---

I don't think he said he wouldn't stop it.

Quad Dog said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You're probably right. But from a 1000 foot perspective, it's a bit disappointing the solution to abuse is more abuse.

---

To me, the saddest thing is that there's this mindset that it's violence or nothing. It's a complete lack of peacemaking creativity.

---

I also get a weird vibe sometimes that people are out there imagining scenarios like the one above and imaging all the violence they would deal out. Then getting some sort of joy from that imagined violence.
I know a few gun lovers that get a weird sort of glee in imaging using their guns on someone breaking into their house. They have quickly accessible, strategically placed guns in the house for just that scenario that they've planned and imagined many times. I know someone too with a business card of a lawyer to call on his fridge for when he does shoot someone breaking in. It's all too much premeditated for me.

---

Imagining the scenarios playing out is part of being prepared, isn't it? I've had to call the cops once -- it took them two hours to get there. This is in the heart of Houston. Being prepared seems to be the wise choice, no?

Also, I know when I got my CHL the instructor was pushing USCCA membership, and a couple of their reps came out to talk to us, so the card on the fridge may just be something like that.

Jabin said:

---

Do you get a weird vibe when people buy insurance, too? Are they premeditating burning down their house?

---

I'd be curious what they think is going to happen and get weird vibes if they had multiple policies to the point of excess. On top of multiple fire prevention strategies in home too.

That's your prerogative but doesn't mean it's the truth.

This is but one of many verses showing war.

"And Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'""
1 Samuel 15:1-3 ESV

Quad Dog said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Do you get a weird vibe when people buy insurance, too? Are they premeditating burning down their house?

---

I'd be curious what they think is going to happen and get weird vibes if they had multiple policies to the point of excess. On top of multiple fire prevention strategies in home too.

---

What is "excess" and who determines that? And why are multiple fire prevention strategies wrong?

I knew a guy with a cabin in the mountains. As you know, fire is an increasing threat to mountain properties. He installed multiple fire prevention strategies, including putting in both a cistern and a pond as water sources, a sprinkler system with a battery operated pump, etc. Most people think he was being really smart, and were envious that they didn't have the resources to do what he did rather than considering him weird.

Isn't "excess" determined solely by one's personal assessment of the risk and the appropriate preparation for that risk? NASA put triple systems into its rockets, justifying it on the basis that the astronaut's lives were at stake. If you think that you and your family's lives may be at stake, why is it "weird" to have multiple safeguards?

Also, some people are just "belt and suspenders" types of folks. They assume that, if something is mission critical, the first line of defense will fail. There's an adage that "one is none and two is one."

People can be different without being "weird".

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/god-and-guns/

We haven't done this topic this week. This is a slightly slanted article, but it's more balanced than I thought it woudl be given the source. I have all kinds of mixed feelings about this. I think we should accept and welcome death and martyrdom if it comes for us as Christians. But what about non-Christians killing non-Christians? Or worse, what about Christians killing non-Christians? Is it better to kill that person and give those people a chance to know Christ, taking the burden of killing on ourselves?

I am sympathetic to non-violence from a Scriptural and early Christian view, but I'm also a Texan that grew up during the Cold War. So I own a gun and have no problems with people having them. Also, I understand that without the threat of nuclear weapons the entire world would likely be under some form of Communist totalitarian state. So it's hard for me to go all-in on non-violence

---

I know this will take the usual twists, but in the event, if you are not prepared mentally, physically and spiritually to use a firearm, then trouble lies ahead. I have zero problems with Christians having guns for self defense OR defense of innocent third parties. I do have a problem of idolizing firearms. They are tools. I prefer Ruger revolvers over semi autos because of added time to assess danger during trigger actuation.

Not to speak for Dog, but I think his point is that what that person did with their cabin in the woods was not necessarily excessive. If someone had a house in the city, right next to a fire hydrant and 2 blocks from the fire department and they took all those measures you mentioned, yeah, that would be pretty freaking weird, to me.

UTExan said:

---

I prefer Ruger revolvers over semi autos because of added time to assess danger during trigger actuation.

---

How slowly are you pulling the trigger in these life and death situations?

Just an observation. There's been a lot of opinions and little scripture in this thread.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You can't really promise that. I would hope I would remain committed to the way of Christ in that situation. There are remedies that don't require the use of violence. My kids, my wife, they all know that we wouldn't kill for them.

---

I truly believe it would be inherently evil to not stop your child from being abused. Just my two cents. To try to "talk-down" the abuser is just absurd. At that point, by the lack of action, you are condoning grave sin. Also never mentioned killing.

---

I just said I wouldn't use violence. There are other ways to intercede between violence and "talking down".

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

That's your prerogative but doesn't mean it's the truth.

This is but one of many verses showing war.

"And Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'""
1 Samuel 15:1-3 ESV

---

That's your prerogative but doesn't mean it's the truth.

Macarthur said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You can't really promise that. I would hope I would remain committed to the way of Christ in that situation. There are remedies that don't require the use of violence. My kids, my wife, they all know that we wouldn't kill for them.

---

I truly believe it would be inherently evil to not stop your child from being abused. Just my two cents. To try to "talk-down" the abuser is just absurd. At that point, by the lack of action, you are condoning grave sin. Also never mentioned killing.

---

I don't think he said he wouldn't stop it.

---

Exactly. To some, though, the refusal to use violence is tantamount to doing nothing. It goes back to the lack of creativity in peacemaking.

So how does that verse work in your belief?For me. It means what it says. God commanded Saul to kill those people.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

So how does that verse work in your belief?For me. It means what it says. God commanded Saul to kill those people.

---

I've already addressed this earlier in the thread.

PacifistAg said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You can't really promise that. I would hope I would remain committed to the way of Christ in that situation. There are remedies that don't require the use of violence. My kids, my wife, they all know that we wouldn't kill for them.

---

I truly believe it would be inherently evil to not stop your child from being abused. Just my two cents. To try to "talk-down" the abuser is just absurd. At that point, by the lack of action, you are condoning grave sin. Also never mentioned killing.

---

I don't think he said he wouldn't stop it.

---

Exactly. To some, though, the refusal to use violence is tantamount to doing nothing. It goes back to the lack of creativity in peacemaking.

---

What else is their other than words or actions?

Howdy Dammit said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You can't really promise that. I would hope I would remain committed to the way of Christ in that situation. There are remedies that don't require the use of violence. My kids, my wife, they all know that we wouldn't kill for them.

---

I truly believe it would be inherently evil to not stop your child from being abused. Just my two cents. To try to "talk-down" the abuser is just absurd. At that point, by the lack of action, you are condoning grave sin. Also never mentioned killing.

---

I don't think he said he wouldn't stop it.

---

Exactly. To some, though, the refusal to use violence is tantamount to doing nothing. It goes back to the lack of creativity in peacemaking.

---

What else is their other than words or actions?

---

Thoughts and prayers.

You addressed that verse? I'm sorry I didn't see it. Do you mind addressing the verse here? I'm curious. I didn't know there's another way to interpret that verse.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Ain't no pacifists if you walk in on your child being abused. I can promise that.

---

You can't really promise that. I would hope I would remain committed to the way of Christ in that situation. There are remedies that don't require the use of violence. My kids, my wife, they all know that we wouldn't kill for them.

---

I truly believe it would be inherently evil to not stop your child from being abused. Just my two cents. To try to "talk-down" the abuser is just absurd. At that point, by the lack of action, you are condoning grave sin. Also never mentioned killing.

---

I don't think he said he wouldn't stop it.

---

Exactly. To some, though, the refusal to use violence is tantamount to doing nothing. It goes back to the lack of creativity in peacemaking.

---

What else is their other than words or actions?

---

Why must actions always be violent? Why do you assume I wouldn't act simply because I wouldn't use violence?

I think he's asking what action would you take that isn't violent

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

You addressed that verse? I'm sorry I didn't see it. Do you mind addressing the verse here? I'm curious. I didn't know there's another way to interpret that verse.

---

I addressed the way those verses are interpreted using what Boyd calls a cruciform hermeneutic.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I think he's asking what action would you take that isn't violent

---

That's impossible to say until in that situation. It depends on setting, circumstances, etc.

One doesn't need to come up with definites for every imaginable far-fetched hypothetical.

Explain the verse then?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Explain the verse then?

---

Why? You'll then toss out another verse and demand I explain that one. I explained how all those verses are understood when looking at them through the lens of Christ crucified. Go back, read my post, and do the legwork yourself. I gave you the tool. It's not my job to swing it for you.

Not really. I'm asking about one verse. I'm not trying to play gotcha or anything. In fact I've stated multiple times now how much I agree with you. Except for that fact that all war is bad because we see God wage war here in the verse. Not only does He do it He asks Saul to be the instrument of that war. I'm just asking how you interpret that verse. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers.

I've read your posts. Maybe I'm missing it? But I don't see any explanation for that verse to make it not be war waged by God. You posted a lot about our calling of Christians which I agree with but it doesn't explain that verse.

Never said he will stab people. I said He will execute God wrath. Exactly what the Bible says and that it will violent in nature