The Warrior

[basics]

conon394,

" You don't stop people from annoying your neigborhood, you go and do the same to theirs for gain and profit and acclaim. " These are your words not mine.

[conon394]

conon394, " You don't stop people from annoying your neigborhood, you go and do the same to theirs for gain and profit and acclaim. " These are your words not mine.

Exactly and than you would be a warrior.

[basics]

conon394,

So, our fathers and forefathers were not warriors just because they sought no gain other than to defend our liberties and freedom? I mean what you are implying is that our enemies were the warriors, not us, because they wanted to dominate and rule us.

[conon394]

So, our fathers and forefathers were not warriors just because they sought no gain other than to defend our liberties and freedom? I mean what you are implying is that our enemies were the warriors, not us, because they wanted to dominate and rule us

They were soldiers and there is a difference in my opinion. If they were seeking nothing other than to defend, if war was not the only thing that defined them than yes they were nor warriors. That is not a slight nor saying a warrior is better than a soldier. Its a Soldier who is defined by what he or she defends and also the rest of their life that life that is not war. A warrior is defined by war both the defense of their stuff and it is theirs and taking stuff because they can (and as Morticia Iunia Brut pointed out a few related hobbies to do while not fighting but are still just keeping you in shape to fight).

To call them warriors is if you mean soldiers in a modern wars say back say I dunno modern conscription a disservice actually. A warrior is comfortably wrapped in a warrior culture and validated by it. What you do in war is not something you don't talk about is to be idolized. I don't mean some big thing politicians say but at the ground level the killing and fighting. You live in a world with fellow warriors in a caste of one sort or another who have the same experiences and expectations. The Soldiers job is actually harder - you have to become a soldier and than also are expected to return or blend back into a civilian life surrounded by people who can't really understand your experience or don't care or just mouth platitudes or all of those.

[basics]

conon394,

Way back when Britain stood alone against the might of Nazi Germany a few boys took to the air to combat the Wermacht. I say boys because the bulk of them were boys not yet well into their twenties, never having been in combat before fighting what seemed impossible odds and yet they prevailed in the end bringing about one of the greatest wartime speeches ever made. " Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few " Are you telling me these boys were not warriors?

[conon394]

That is exactly what I said is in not? They were Soldiers.

[Gromovnik]

God hates warriors.

[basics]

God hates warriors.

Gromovnik,

Please elaborate?

[Gromovnik]

Jesus was against violence, even in self-defence.

[basics]

Jesus was against violence, even in self-defence.

Gromovnik,

That's so very true.

[Kissaki]

All good questions, but I think I'll focus on this one:

• What does a pro-war movie look like? Once again, a prominent example, where war itself is seen as a good thing, is the movie 300. Despite priests and politicians blocking war, despite the traitor Ephialtes was "created" by the army, despite a tragic death caused a father to go mad with bloodlust. Despite all of those aspects, non of it diminished the sacrifice, "a beautiful death", which lead to a good end. The father (sic.) filled his heart with hate, and this was a good thing. He used this hate to kill more enemies. The message was that war was a good thing. No gray area.

Ironically, I think the best pro-war movies are anti-war movies. Japanese WWII propaganda movies aimed to show precisely how harsh, gruelling, painful and terrible war actually is - and there's something in that. Someone once opined to me that "nothing wants me to be a crewmember aboard a German WWII U-boat as much as watching Das Boot". And insn't that just the thing, though? I know I'm not the only one who consumed war movies with an unquenchable thirst when I was a kid - A Bridge Too Far, Bridge On the River Kwai, Guns of Navarone, Zulu, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket etc. - which only fuelled my dreams of becoming a soldier. It's precisely the fact that war is hell which makes it attractive and glorious - certainly to those who have yet to experience it. And it is also what gives one reason to feel pride at having experienced it.

It's like rites of manhood: the pain is the whole point of it. Masculine ideals revolve strongly around the ability to endure hardship, and the worse the hardship the manlier the endeavour. When we watch anti-war movies, we may be repulsed at the horror the heroes experience - but are filled with admiration for them because of it. And that makes us want to be like them, to be admired the same way we admire them.

The only way a movie can truly be an anti-war movie, in my opinion, is if it tells a story from a civilian perspective - and the only times we see soldiers is when they loot and rape. A movie about soldiers who hate the fighting, however, is functionally a pro-war movie no matter how much it styles itself the contrary.

[Kissaki]

Jesus was against violence, even in self-defence.

That's the New Testament, though. In the Old Testament, God is very much a god of war.

[Prodromos]

That's the New Testament, though. In the Old Testament, God is very much a god of war.

Are 2 Thessalonians and Revelation part of the New Testament?

4 That is why we boast among God’s churches about your perseverance and faith in the face of all the persecution and affliction you are enduring. 5 All this is clear evidence of God’s righteous judgment. And so you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 After all, it is only right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to grant relief to you who are oppressed and to us as well. This will take place when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels 8 in blazing fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the penalty of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His might, 10 on the day He comes to be glorified in His saints and regarded with wonder by all who have believed, including you who have believed our testimony.

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

[Kissaki]

Are 2 Thessalonians and Revelation part of the New Testament?

I'm not the one you want to quote those verses to. Although, since you have quoted them to me, I am compelled to point out that the NT is quite explicit on granting God a monopoly on violence. Nowhere is that more explicit than in Romans 12:14-21:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. On the contrary:


“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”


Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" is one of the most misquoted verses of the Bible. It is not a permission slip for Christians to visit vengeance upon enemies, but the exact opposite: it is God who says "vengeance is mine", meaning he's allowed - we are not.

In other words, whatever passage in the NT which describes God or his minions engaging in war and battle, it is not relevant to what God thinks of human warriors.

But, as I pointed out, in the OT he is extremely fond of them. Joshuah, Saul, David, Samson, Jepthah and others... all thoroughly despicable characters in their own way, and God loved them. If one is to assume that the god of the NT is the same as the god of the OT (and that is not an uncontroversial assumption), then they have some explaining to do, those who believe God doesn't love warriors.

[basics]

Kissaki,

And when He lifted the cup He said, " This is the new Testament in my blood....." signifying something was to change quite dramatically from that time. The accounts that the Old Covenant warriors were given were cleared just as the sin of the New Covenant warriors was the moment Jesus cried, " It is finished...." from the cross. From that moment on God's people no longer had to seek their own revenge but leave that recompense at God's feet. Forgiveness and love became the standard on which men and women of God were to follow.

















.

[Kissaki]

Kissaki,

And when He lifted the cup He said, " This is the new Testament in my blood....." signifying something was to change quite dramatically from that time. The accounts that the Old Covenant warriors were given were cleared just as the sin of the New Covenant warriors was the moment Jesus cried, " It is finished...." from the cross. From that moment on God's people no longer had to seek their own revenge but leave that recompense at God's feet. Forgiveness and love became the standard on which men and women of God were to follow.

The problem with that narrative is that you Christians tend to claim there is such a thing as objective morality, which means it cannot change. So that begs the question: why wasn't forgiveness and love the standard in the OT?

[basics]

Kissaki,

The best I can answer to that is because even God's people couldn't stop sinning whereas when Jesus entered humanity the message became clearer. That is that the Law still stands and sin still had/has to be beaten and so the only way to achieve that is through the cleansing blood that Jesus Christ paid on the cross for all them for whom He died. Back under the Old Covenant certain people were accounted righteous before God, their accounts being cleared at the cross as well as them living and yet still to be born. So, forgiveness and love were just as viable way back then as it still is today.