theophiles.org - US Military Destroys Afghan Language Bibles

US Military Destroys Afghan Language Bibles

Written by laika

Tuesday, 19 May 2009 17:23

At Reuters:

Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytising, a military spokeswoman said.

Comments

PinocchiosFurniture - Cannot Serve Two Masters...

|2009-05-19 19:37:35

Which is why Jesus said no man can serve two masters.

Christ's Kingdom is not of this world and cannot be acheived through political manipulation nor military coercion.

The military represents that which is entirely opposed to Jesus.

And why evangelization cannot occur at the point of the gun barrel...

And why Military service...and especially military chaplaincy... is incongruent with Christian faith.

emperorbma

|2009-05-19 22:47:06

I sense yet another thing that we're going to disagree heavily about...

Quote:

Which is why Jesus said no man can serve two masters.

Sure, and Jesus also says "greater love hath no man than to lay his life down for his friends." (John 15:13) Who is he who uses Scripture out of context, then, for Christ was speaking of money when He describes two masters, not defending one's fellow man from harm as a soldier means to...

Quote:

The military represents that which is entirely opposed to Jesus.

... and of the Centurion, Jesus said, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith." (Matthew 8:10) Jesus sure came out with the Judgment of Heaven against this Roman Centurion, didn't He? I mean, He even healed his kid!

Quote:

And why evangelization cannot occur at the point of the gun barrel...

And why Military service...and especially military chaplaincy... is incongruent with Christian faith.

... and no one was suggesting the Gospel should be conveyed at gunpoint. Chaplains are explicitly non-combat personnel.

Let me ask another question, then, are you honestly suggesting we deprive soldiers of hearing the Gospel simply because they are in a profession that does not agree with your interpretation of the Gospel? Nowhere does the Bible forbid the evangelization and ministry to soldiers and nowhere does it say a Christian cannot be a soldier.

While force is clearly non-ideal, it is also not anti-Christian. But go right ahead and implicitly condemn the soldiers if it makes you happy... I won't stop you.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-05-20 10:11:39

Also, there have been quite a few Saints (largely martyrs, IIRC) who were also soldiers. St. George comes to mind, for example.

emperorbma

|2009-05-20 21:25:23

Interesting, the things I didn't know...

PinocchiosFurniture

|2009-05-20 22:13:56

"Sure, and Jesus also says "greater love hath no man than to lay his life down for his friends." (John 15:13) Who is he who uses Scripture out of context, then, for Christ was speaking of money when He describes two masters, not defending one's fellow man from harm as a soldier means to..."

You sure you want to go there considering it is YOUR interpretations which have been taken entirely out of context?

Jesus, in context, was talking of Himself laying down His life for the Church....not soldiers dying in vain for their political masters....and CERTAINLY NOT of Christian military soldiers killing their Christian brother or sister who happens to be wearing the uniform of an 'enemy' nation.

Likewise, the parable of the "two masters" explains just that, that no man can serve two masters for he will either hate one and love the other. 'Mammon' is not synonymous with 'money'. Mammon is anything having to do with this world and that which is antagonistic to God. No man can serve God and also serve a political organization or state whose aims and goals are contrary to the will of God.

emporerbma also forgets (or never knew) his history regarding the Church, otherwise she would remember that in the early centuries, the Church forbade Christians from serving in the military under any and all circumstances...period.

If potential converts were in the military and approached the Church for admission as catechumens, they were obliged to forsake all such service before being accepted for Baptism.

This only changed when the Church became the political power in Rome.

Jesus NEVER taught that military service was acceptable to God. Ever.

emperorbma

|2009-05-21 00:46:03

Quote:

You sure you want to go there considering it is YOUR interpretations which have been taken entirely out of context?

Well, if I have misspoken, then I certainly have no qualms about being called wrong. I certainly wouldn't claim to be infallible. I do happen to believe I have presented things reasonably and faithfully in accordance with God's Word, however I can certainly entertain correction if it is really valid... I also do not think I am without the indwelling guidance and work of the Holy Spirit, but that authority is not mine to command as much as to follow.

Quote:

Jesus, in context, was talking of Himself laying down His life for the Church....

Well, except that Christ also says something about "I command you to love one another." (John 15:17) One must ask the honest question of whether "loving one another" entirely excludes using arms to defend those whom you love. Obviously, you have concluded that this means is excluded whereas I have not.

Quote:

not soldiers dying in vain for their political masters....and CERTAINLY NOT of Christian military soldiers killing their Christian brother or sister who happens to be wearing the uniform of an 'enemy' nation.

I could care less about these "political masters," I specifically was talking about "defending one's fellow man from harm as a soldier means to..." You didn't even address my criticism here.

Quote:

Likewise, the parable of the "two masters" explains just that, that no man can serve two masters for he will either hate one and love the other. 'Mammon' is not synonymous with 'money'. Mammon is anything having to do with this world and that which is antagonistic to God. No man can serve God and also serve a political organization or state whose aims and goals are contrary to the will of God.

Actually, I don't think a Christian soldier believes that anyone should put anything in place of God, so your criticism was somewhat off base in the first place. If the soldier considers his or her government to be God, that would be another thing entirely. Nevertheless, God has established and preserves the governments to serve His purpose, which includes granting them the "authority of the sword."

Furthermore, this criticism is also off base regarding my own position since I believe anything being placed above God is an idol and should be duly and promptly renounced.

Quote:

emporerbma also forgets (or never knew) his history regarding the Church, otherwise she would remember that in the early centuries, the Church forbade Christians from serving in the military under any and all circumstances...period.

Oh, I've read them, in fact, and the witness against soldiers is not as consistent or as clear as you seem to imply and seems to pertain more to the fact that the Roman soldiers were the ones slaughtering them rather than to excluding the possibility of all warfare.

This leads me to my next point...

Quote:

Jesus NEVER taught that military service was acceptable to God. Ever.

He never taught that it wasn't, either. Actually, considering what He did teach, He said that He "came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it." (Matthew 5:17) But, what does this Law that He describes command except warfare against the Canaanites? Yet, I see nowhere where Christ repudiated this and He had ample opportunity to do so. For example, He might have used that Centurion as an example...

Somehow, He did no such thing, so it is foolish to assume He means "no war, ever, even if it is to protect your fellow man from harm." I just ain't seeing it... call me blind, or maybe it isn't there.

Quote:

If potential converts were in the military and approached the Church for admission as catechumens, they were obliged to forsake all such service before being accepted for Baptism.

This may be true, but as I have said, consider the context of the fact that these Roman guys were:
1. Worshiping Mithras, the invincible sun, as their patron deity. Therefore, there is a religious conflict.
2. Actively persecuting Christians. Yes, these were the guys pushing them into the lions' den of the Colosseum.

I'm pretty sure even the most bellicose Christian sect would not let these guys in without a clear renunciation of their former position. It's just plain common sense...

Quote:

This only changed when the Church became the political power in Rome.

First of all, I never said the ecclesiastical authority should (or would) wield the sword. Actually, that was one of Martin Luther's criticisms of the Roman Church as well, that it wielded the sword.... but I digress. Moreover, I think I made it pretty clear also that the chaplain is a non-combat personnel already. Finally, I disagree with the claim that being made official religion of the Empire had anything to do with a reconsideration of prohibition on warfare.

The Church Fathers made clear that they did not oppose their empire, just the way the Roman Empire was trampling upon them and forcing its false religion upon them. Now, one thing that may have necessitated a reconsideration of this position (regardless of whether it is as you describe it or not) was the fact that the Barbarian tribes to the north were attacking more and more as the Roman Empire began to fragment and become unstable. Nevertheless, all the relevant Church Fathers were adamant in maintaining that they were not anti-Roman government and I do not believe that they opposed the authority, including the "authority of the sword," (cf. Romans 13) existing per se.

CoffeeZombie - re:

|2009-05-21 09:41:59

PinocchiosFurniture wrote:

As I mentioned above, the Church honors some soldiers as Saints. Take St. George, for example, who was martyred in AD 303. He was a Roman soldier in the Guard of Diocletian (who was, IIRC, well known for his persecution of Christians). There is also the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, who were soldiers serving under the Emperor who were martyred under Licinius in 320.

Of course, I am also inclined to mention St. Longinus, the soldier who pierced the side of Christ on the Cross. According to Tradition, he believed on Christ, was baptized by the Apostles, and decided to leave military service. This would seem to support your argument, except that my understanding is that he chose, of his own accord, to leave the military; it was not required of him by the Apostles.

My point here is to put some extra evidence here behind what emperorbma has said, that the witness against soldiering was not as consistent or clear as you seem to be implying.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-05-21 09:48:52

Another quick note: "When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it must never be identified with perfect Christian morality."

From this: http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=55&SID=3

PineHall - John the Baptist

|2009-05-20 23:30:54

PinocchiosFurniture wrote:

Jesus NEVER taught that military service was acceptable to God. Ever.

Also Jesus NEVER taught that military service was NOT acceptable to God.

In Luke 3:14, John the Baptist when asked by soldiers "What should we do?" did not tell them to leave their profession. Instead he said to them to be content with their pay and not to take advantage of others.

I don't know anywhere in the New Testament where a soldier was asked to leave his profession, or where military service was denounced as an unfit occupation for a Christian.

emperorbma

|2009-05-21 00:47:51

He also invokes the Church Fathers, though... They seem to have a profound wariness regarding the soldiering profession from what I've read of their works. Nevertheless, I also try to explain this in my post... :P

Only registered users can write comments!

Last Updated on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 17:35

Our valuable member laika has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

On a Wave of Jubilation* (17 May 2013)
Survey: Provo-Orem area most religious in US (07 April 2013)
Shroud of Turin in the news again (29 March 2013)
War on Christmas Heats Up (12 March 2013)
The Next Bible (12 March 2013)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online