“Let us do good to all people” (Galatians 6:10), from the mouth / pen of the apostle who said “We do not use the weapons of the world” (2 Corinthians 10:4).
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
In waging physical war, noncombatants are inevitably killed and wounded. Right?
When I learned war (as an Air Force ROTC student in college) the instructor used the term “collateral damage” to describe it.
Can we agree that killing our noncombatant enemies isn’t doing good to all people?
Followup note: We could not agree that killing our noncombatant enemies isn’t doing good to all people.
Why?
Killing noncombatants and principles of Just War theory.
“7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.”
Those counseling followers of Jesus to kill our enemies have asserted that the Crusades were “good“ and “justified.” The crusaders intentionally killed Muslim, Jewish and Christian noncombatants - men, women and children.
Those counseling followers of Jesus to kill our enemies have appealed to World War I and World War II. Noncombatants were killed in the millions - “collateral damage.” And what do they say about that? “Regrettable but unavoidable.”
Noncombatants - men, women, children - were intentionally targeted and killed in World War II. London, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. What do they say about that? “Good” and “justified” - when “our side” did it; “evil” and “unjustified” when “their side” did it.
Killing noncombatants works with Total War theory.
This is where those counseling followers of Jesus to kill our enemies really are.
One of the appeals they made was to 1 Samuel 15:3. “Good” and “justified” because commanded by God. If it was “good” and “justified” in that war it is “good” and “justified” in every war, they reasoned.
Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christian leaders did not appeal to that passage of scripture. They didn’t counsel followers of Jesus to do to their enemies what Samuel did to his. They taught and lived a radically different response to evil.
What do those counseling followers of Jesus to kill their enemies think about that? They skip past Apostolic and Ante Nicene history. What do they say about followers of Jesus who counsel followers of Jesus not to kill our enemies?
To begin with, the concealed identity church (represented here by
@Wrangler) says that those so counseling are not followers of Jesus (“You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”); they are “cowardly,” “disgusting,” “men in form but not substance.” The counsel to follow the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles toward our enemies, they say, is “not good” and “not justified.”
@Armour of God @NayborBear
We were unable to agree that killing our noncombatant enemies - the lowest hurdle to clear - is not doing good to all people because you believe that it isn’t applicable to all people.
Jesus and the apostles applied it to all people. What they taught and counseled is good to all people.
