The good man that turned bad out of necessity
- Thread starter Riven
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How many US citizens were killed when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima?
AI Overview -
“An estimated 3,012 US citizens were killed in Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945.
While the atomic bomb wiped out a massive portion of the city’s population, historical records show that the victims included thousands of Americans belonging to two distinct groups:
Ethnic Japanese-American Civilians
• Estimated Casualties: Roughly 3,000 civilians.
• Context: Prior to World War II, Hiroshima was a major source of Japanese immigration to the United States. Thousands of American-born children (Nisei) and their mothers had travelled back to Hiroshima to visit family or attend school.
• Outcome: When the war broke out, they became trapped in Japan and were unable to return to the US, ultimately putting them directly in the path of the nuclear blast.
American Prisoners of War
• Confirmed Casualties: Exactly 12 American military personnel.
• Context: These men were US Navy and Army Air Force aviators who had been shot down during conventional bombing raids over Japan in the weeks leading up to August 1945.
• Outcome: They were being held captive at the Chugoku Military Police Headquarters, located just 400 meters from the bomb’s hypocenter. Their deaths were painstakingly documented decades later by Hiroshima survivor Shigeaki Mori.”
I’ll reword my question then.
Do you consider Catholics to be your brothers and sisters in faith?
To further simplify it, do you consider Catholics to be your fellow Christians?
If you do, that makes them your spiritual family.
True enough. But there is a difference between a spiritual family and your real family.
I think I know what you mean when you say “real” - something like biological, natural, genealogical: mom, dad, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, grandparent, etc. - but the distinction you’re making - one is real, the other is not, or is less - is something that doesn’t match with my worldview.
My spiritual family is just as real to me as my “real” family is. I wouldn’t kill either group.
You’ve probably heard the phrase “family of man”. The connotation is that all human beings are related; a family. If we could trace our individual genealogical lines back far enough, we all arrive at Adam and Eve. Looked at from that perspective, I wouldn’t kill any human being.
***
You said earlier that Catholics / Christians being killed at Nagasaki had no impact on you, even after seeing a couple of photographs connecting faces to the rubble, but added later that if family were involved - your “real” family - it would have an impact on you. What I’d like to find out is what kind of impact that scenario would have on you.
You could kill your spiritual family (in a war scenario) and you have no issue with other Christians killing your spiritual family - that’s the Christians killing Christians issue; Christian Nationalism.
Could you kill your “real” family (in a war scenario)? For example, like what occurred in the US Civil War, or at Hiroshima in World War II.
Could you live with other Christians killing your “real” family (in a war scenario)?
If my real family took up arms against me, I would have no choice but to defend myself. Of course I would have an issue with it though. It's not like I would derive joy from it.
Not without reprisal.
With lethal force?
So if that was your “real” family that was destroyed by the atomic bomb dropped by the United States, what kind of reprisal would you undertake? And against whom would you undertake it? The pilot and crew? The US military? The weapon manufacturer? Someone or something else?
Take a look at this photograph from the liberation of Auschwitz.
What do you see? Soldiers from the USSR; an atheist government. Enemies of God. God’s ministers. This is Romans 13:4, as Paul would recognize and acknowledge.
The issue of Christians killing their enemies.
I had mentioned that Christians killing Christians and Christians killing non-Christians is an important issue for me, and you responded, “likewise.”
***
A. Christians as an enemy of Christians.
This is unnatural.
Jesus said that what is done to a follower of his is something which he, Jesus, considers done to himself.
It follows then that : something good done to a follower of Jesus is something good done to Jesus; something bad done to a follower of Jesus is something bad done to Jesus.
A follower of Jesus who would kill a follower of Jesus would by extension kill Jesus. That’s horrific.
A Christian should never be an enemy of a Christian (and obviously a Christian should not be an enemy of Jesus).
A Christian killing a fellow Christian should be unthinkable, but Christians have done it and are doing it. This is the low bar. I’m trying to persuade Christians not to kill their fellow Christians. It shouldn’t be necessary, but it is. It shouldn’t be hard, but it is.
B. Non-Christians as an enemy of Christians.
This is natural.
Non-Christians are enemies of God and Jesus. The degree of enmity is variable, ranging from complete indifference to outright hatred.
Non-Christians killing or otherwise harming Christians isn’t surprising. It’s virtually a daily occurrence somewhere in the world. They did it to Jesus. They do it to his followers.
Christians killing or otherwise harming non-Christians is treating our enemy as our enemy treats us. That’s the exact opposite of what Jesus and the apostles taught and modeled.
Christians who kill or otherwise harm their enemies are pushing away the people whom they are sent to attract; are destroying what they are sent to save. This is abandoning the Great Commission; a betrayal of Jesus.
This is the elevated bar. I’m trying to persuade Christians not to kill their enemy. Their enemy is the mission field. This is necessary instruction, and part of discipling new followers of Jesus. It shouldn’t be necessary to provide this instruction to longtime followers of Jesus, but it is. It shouldn’t be hard, but it is.
That’s background.
***
I’ve tried to lay out for you why the issue is important to me. If I’ve said something that isn’t clear to you, please do ask me for clarification.
This brings us back to my question: why is this issue important to you?
This sounds to me like you‘re saying that you would seek revenge on Christians who would kill or wound your ”real” family in a wartime setting. Is that what you are saying?
If it is, Jesus and the apostles teach that the followers of Jesus must not do that.
Vengeance belongs to, and must be left to, God. God has an agent for doing that in this present age. That agent is God’s ministers / servants -> Nero and the like (Romans 13:4).
@Riven. You’ve seen this drawing before.
What you’re looking at is one Christian trying to rescue another Christian. He succeeded.
The Christian who rescued the drowning Christian was an enemy of the state; a prisoner of the state who had escaped from prison. The Christian who was rescued from the water, rescued from drowning, rescued from death, was a guard who, while pursuing the escaping prisoner, had fallen through the ice while running across a pond.
Had he not turned and rescued his enemy, the fleeing Christian could have gotten safely away.
The state recaptured the escaping prisoner and had him burned at the stake.
The escaping Christian gave up his life to save his enemy.
What do you think about the Christian enemy of the state?
What you’re looking at is one Christian trying to rescue another Christian. He succeeded.
The Christian who rescued the drowning Christian was an enemy of the state; a prisoner of the state who had escaped from prison. The Christian who was rescued from the water, rescued from drowning, rescued from death, was a guard who, while pursuing the escaping prisoner, had fallen through the ice while running across a pond.
Had he not turned and rescued his enemy, the fleeing Christian could have gotten safely away.
The state recaptured the escaping prisoner and had him burned at the stake.
The escaping Christian gave up his life to save his enemy.
What do you think about the Christian enemy of the state?
I missed this story. I’d like to share it with you, and with my other readers.
”Charles Darwin once visited the aborigines who inhabit the vicinity of Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America. The natives resented his theories and teachings and he barely escaped with his life.
Sometime after that, Thomas Bridges, the British missionary visited Cape Horn, armed only with his Bible and the Spirit of God. The natives readily accepted his message of redeeming love, and today there exists in that quarter of the world a high state of Christian civilization. The Bible had once more triumphed over the philosophies of man, and the universal application of its message had been demonstrated once more.”
(B.R. Lakin, You Can Be Sure: Six Timely Sermons, pp. 32-33)
Bold is mine.
I don’t need to spell it out. You get the message.
“I wouldn’t trade places with the President, or with the King of a great empire. We wield a mightier sword than they, ‘The sword of the spirit which is the Word of God.’”
(B.R. Lakin, You Can Be Sure: Six Timely Sermons, p. 38)
The ministering role of Nero is an important one in Paul’s mind, but the ministering role of the Christian is the greater.
(B.R. Lakin, You Can Be Sure: Six Timely Sermons, p. 38)
The ministering role of Nero is an important one in Paul’s mind, but the ministering role of the Christian is the greater.
It's not important for me. Humans kill other humans for a variety for reasons. It seems to be important for you though.
Thank you for making it clear to me.
I’m a minister of the gospel of peace.
It’s important to and for the Prince of Peace.
Similar threads
