Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Religion and Philosophy Clergy enlisted to aid imposing martial law

Whenever I've looked into the assertion advanced by some Protestant sects that the government is established by God, and was able to obtain a New Testament citation, it has been


It is notable that the importance and frequency of this citation's use from the pulpit in the Christian sects which state it as faith varies tremendously over time, and different administrations. I am curious as to whether Dr. Durell Tuberville faithfully embraced and gave vocal testament to this belief during the Clinton Administration. That answer would aid in understanding the rectitude of his intent.

The frequency of Romans 13 citations also seems to increase significantly during wartime, because it is also used to assuage soldiers' fears about their own salvation. "Thou shalt not kill" is short, to the point, and provides a clearly marked behavioural borderline that virtually all of humanity can understand the boundaries of.

I cannot understand how Romans 13 can be used to justify war though, and feel that this is a disingenuous distortion. There is no specificity in power: "there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God". Paul also counseled, "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil". Using this as a guide, the righteousness of the Iraq War is immediately questionable. Saddam Hussein was vested with the power as ruler of Iraq; therefore, Saddam's power was ordained by God, and he was only a terror to the evil.

There is a big difference between not resisting the power, and becoming an actively willed accomplice in its evil acts. The argument rationalising killing by soldiers seems to be contradicted by words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament:


In the chapter just prior to Romans 13 can be found an argument which opposes the use of it as a justification for Christian soldiers killing:


Let's see then: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth became an invalid law when Christ was born on Earth; if you are physically struck, do not react violently, even in self-defense, but instead expose another part of your body as an easy target, just in case the assailant desires to strike you again; if you are taken into a civil courtroom as a defendant, and your opponent unjustly receives a decision that gives him your coat, approach him and inquire if he also has a need for your shirt; do not act from a motivation of vengeance, it is not your right to possess; when your enemy approaches hungry and thirsty, freely give them what you possess to satiate their needs.

Take time for contemplation and reflection before moving Onward, Christian Soldier.

A Christian view of self defense.

I see this, and am not ignoring it. It is a new thrust to me, and I need time to analyze it. In my present thoughts, without checking though the context of the Luke citation is a sort of counter to the previous admonition by Jesus that his disciples go out and give testament possessing just the sandals on their feet and the clothes that they were wearing without giving a second's thought to their future provisioning, in faith knowing it would be provided. And also a badly reformatted by me: click the dust off of your sandals and move along when meeting those who refuse to listen. The Corinthians cite, I cannot begin to get a feel for, but have often found, justifications attributed to Paul fall apart with a wider look into the surrounding text. It's pretty tough to refute as a statement of pure pacifism:

I also feel than decorum compels me to again state, I claim no faith, and for that reason, would advise caution when engaging me. We play by differing rule-sets,and I have in the past bound people by their rules, not mine. It can lead to very unequal positioning.

will peace

Senator I'm afraid your writer is taking the Scriptures woefully out of context. When Jesus said "greater love hath no man . . .", according to the Gospel of John, he was talking about himself and the impending crucifixion. The "laying down of his life" was not in the act of defending someone else from wrongdoing by means of a weapon. It was in fact just the sort of act that his referenced theologians Moreland and Geisler declare to be "morally wrong".

What a stretch the author engages in, to take one obscure passage and connect it to an unrelated passage in order to refute a theme that is central to all of Jesus' teachings! And then he asks us to accept that two of the most important shapers of 20th Century thinking, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Juther King Jr,, were not following in Jesus' footsteps when they advocated non-violent resistance.

I offer my first reply, but remember I do not claim the faith, nor do I claim to be a student of divinity. I am one who reads the text simply, for if this is indeed a message pointing to salvation for all, then it must be a message that even the simple-minded can clearly perceive.

Here, I will respond just to the primary citations of Luke 22:36-38 and II Corinthians 11:26,27

Luke 22 recounts the Last Supper, and these three verses are but the very end of a long paragraph in this recitation. At the very least, I'd recommend that the whole paragraph be considered:

Who amongst all of the disciples is it a given had a purse with coin? Was it not Judas Iscariot? What had been written in prophecies about Jesus that was yet to come into being? It was his trial, death by crucifixion and revival to life after death that was still in the future. If self-defense was the intent, how could just two swords amongst the whole group in attendance for the Last Supper be sufficient to meet that goal?

Further on into Luke 22 is the part where an ear of a soldier who has come to arrest Jesus is cut off by a disciple, and Jesus picked it up and placed it back fully healed. This seems to be less than a rousing support for self-defense.

II Corinthians 11:26,27 utterly fails to offer up any justification for self-defense whatsoever, and Paul seems to be counseling against it. again, I offer the citation in context:

Paul recounting tribulations he encountered as an Apostle which included many beatings, and which he did not resist, but instead accepted as a part of his fate can in no way be associated with a justification for self-defense. Its citation for this purpose is exceedingly disingenuous, and downright offensive.

I do believe that Paul did offer up a small justification for self-defense, but because of the implications that it carries, you'll not see it cited by those who would use the Bible to justify Acts of War as Righteousness. I'll leave that for a later post though.

A Knight:

Twice you posted a disclaimer, 1-I also feel than decorum compels me to again state, I claim no faith, and for that reason, would advise caution when engaging me. We play by differing rule-sets,and I have in the past bound people by their rules, not mine. It can lead to very unequal positioning.

2-I offer my first reply, but remember I do not claim the faith, nor do I claim to be a student of divinity. I am one who reads the text simply, for if this is indeed a message pointing to salvation for all, then it must be a message that even the simple-minded can clearly perceive.
-----------------------------------------------------

The scriptures as written are instructions and history for
the children of God,called unto the name of his son Jesus Christ
who have the Holy Ghost as the intrepreter of the scriptures..

No scripture is open to private intrepretation,only through
the works of the Holy Ghost can you recieve its spiritual
message.

You a self proclaimed non-believer are NOT justified nor
sanctified to expound on the meaning of the scriptures..
through your declaration,you have removed yourself from ANY
relevant discussion on the scriptures...IMHO

Mike D.

You a self proclaimed non-believer are NOT justified nor
sanctified to expound on the meaning of the scriptures..
through your declaration,you have removed yourself from ANY
relevant discussion on the scriptures...IMHO

Mike D.
Mike - That's just plain BS, man. You can play by those rules but all that does is cut you off from reasonable people seeking reasonable answers. The answers you pose for your own salvation may seem reasonable to you, but to many, even Christians, they are not.

[/quote]

Scripture experts, I have a question.
After the rapture which I understand will take the faithful "body and soul" into the heavens. If Senator Craig goes to the "facilities" up there in the clouds, will the man in the stall next to him be able to hear his tapping?
Clouds are pretty soft, that's why I'm asking.

Am I to assume from this you do not believe in Ministry?

Might not be a bad idea to poke around for context. I dumped more of that into one post than I have even given many close friends.

Also: Luke 6:37-49; a pointer

***Note To Thread Posters***

Everyone here at CHB has the right to discuss, question and expound on any thread in any forum, regardless of faith, no-faith, creeds, or just generic spiritualness. We only stipulate that it be done in a civil and courteous manner. No poster has the right to tell others that they are not qualified to post. Please act accordingly. thank you

Scoutgal
Moderator.