• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Live by the sword?

I realize Samual doesn't want to get lost down the WW2 rabbit hole. But there is value in unpacking it. One can never look clearly at this subject until one gets past the WW2 propaganda; it's the founding narrative of our time. One which supplanted the original founding narrative of our country in the Revolution and justified going on a century of foreign interventions.

We were driven to war with Germany on a wave of propaganda and lies. But the American revolution was different. I'm not saying there wasn't propaganda; but it was a more principled war in pursuit of justice and defense of rights. Whether one agrees with it theologically or not, the rallying cry of 'No King But Jesus' was a fundamentally different and spiritual proposition than the sorts of things that drove us into foreign wars since; most of which were little more than bringing other countries into submission to this or that corporation or bank. The American Revolution is also much more similar to what we face today.

On this subject, I ran across the following article today. It's an great historical review with reference to many eminent historians and first hand witnesses on what really happened in the lead up and during World War 2. If you want to have an informed opinion about that and not just parrot the cartoonish propaganda of the victors I highly encourage you to read it. Considering both sides of a story is key to being fair and informed.

Well, I'm sure there are more than just 2 sides on this one. And I don't claim this one is completely accurate, but it does jive with many suppressed truths which contradict the narrative. If there's one thing I've learned in my time it's that the only thing we can be sure of is the government's version of events is a lie.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

In this you will learn:

The long history of persecution against historians who cross the narrative, or whose prior published works become inconvenient when the narrative shifts.

How Germany pursued peace even as the Allies refused it.

Who pushed for war against Germany, how and why.

How Hitler refused to commit war atrocities even as it cost him the war while the Allies repeatedly violated international law and committed war crimes against Germany (which recounting is undoubtedly missing many such atrocities seeing as it doesn't even bring up Dresden).

How the Allies were responsible for the genocide of some 10-14 million Germans (no small amount of it premeditated).

Links to more information from historians, including several hard to find books made freely available.
 
Truth is, we live in a theocracy today. It's just an atheistic/satanic/secular humanist one. I'd vastly prefer living in a Christian theocracy. You can't separate the law from morals and sin. When justice is pure there is no difference between law and morality. And our very existence as a society and species depends upon community enforcement of sexual morals.
Well said!!
 
On this subject, I ran across the following article today. It's an great historical review with reference to many eminent historians and first hand witnesses on what really happened in the lead up and during World War 2. If you want to have an informed opinion about that and not just parrot the cartoonish propaganda of the victors I highly encourage you to read it. Considering both sides of a story is key to being fair and informed.

Well, I'm sure there are more than just 2 sides on this one. And I don't claim this one is completely accurate, but it does jive with many suppressed truths which contradict the narrative. If there's one thing I've learned in my time it's that the only thing we can be sure of is the government's version of events is a lie.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

In this you will learn:

The long history of persecution against historians who cross the narrative, or whose prior published works become inconvenient when the narrative shifts.

How Germany pursued peace even as the Allies refused it.

Who pushed for war against Germany, how and why.

How Hitler refused to commit war atrocities even as it cost him the war while the Allies repeatedly violated international law and committed war crimes against Germany (which recounting is undoubtedly missing many such atrocities seeing as it doesn't even bring up Dresden).

How the Allies were responsible for the genocide of some 10-14 million Germans (no small amount of it premeditated).

Links to more information from historians, including several hard to find books made freely available.
I have just finished reading this, and agree with @rockfox. This is well worth taking the time to go through. Most such articles just cover one aspect of the war. This one covers a wide range of different issues with WW2, in sufficient detail to back up the statements with references and point the reader towards sources for further investigation, but without getting bogged down - many of the sections are basically book reviews. It is long because many different aspects of the war are discussed, and it is good to have them all presented in one place for consideration as a whole. The relevance to today is also made clear. Good starting point for further investigations into these topics.

Here's a taste from the middle, on a topic we've already touched on:
Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain and certainly had sought to avoid the war that had been forced upon him. With France now defeated and British forces driven from the Continent, he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms and a new German alliance to Britain. The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations, and the German proposal probably would have received overwhelming approval both from the British public and political elites if they had ever been informed of its terms.

But despite some occasional wavering, Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue ...

Since ending the war with Germany was in his nation’s interest but not his own, Churchill undertook ruthless means to prevent peace sentiments from growing so strong that they overwhelmed his opposition. Along with most other major countries, Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and although the British leader had very much hoped the Germans would attack his cities, Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities. The population saw the heavy destruction inflicted by these German bombing raids and was never informed of the British attacks that had preceded and provoked them, so public sentiment greatly hardened against making peace with the seemingly diabolical German adversary.

In his memoirs published a half-century later, Prof. Revilo P. Oliver, who had held a senior wartime role in American Military Intelligence, described this sequence of events in very bitter terms:

Great Britain, in violation of all the ethics of civilized warfare that had theretofore been respected by our race, and in treacherous violation of solemnly assumed diplomatic covenants about “open cities”, had secretly carried out intensive bombing of such open cities in Germany for the express purpose of killing enough unarmed and defenceless men and women to force the German government reluctantly to retaliate and bomb British cities and thus kill enough helpless British men, women, and children to generate among Englishmen enthusiasm for the insane war to which their government had committed them.

It is impossible to imagine a governmental act more vile and more depraved than contriving death and suffering for its own people — for the very citizens whom it was exhorting to “loyalty” — and I suspect that an act of such infamous and savage treason would have nauseated even Genghis Khan or Hulagu or Tamerlane, Oriental barbarians universally reprobated for their insane blood-lust. History, so far as I recall, does not record that they ever butchered their own women and children to facilitate lying propaganda….In 1944 members of British Military Intelligence took it for granted that after the war Marshal Sir Arthur Harris would be hanged or shot for high treason against the British people…


Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities. But perhaps influenced by his chronic drunkenness, he later sought to carry out even more horrifying war crimes and was only prevented from doing so by the dogged opposition of all his military and political subordinates.

Along with the laws prohibiting the bombing of cities, all nations had similarly agreed to ban the first use of poison gas, while stockpiling quantities for necessary retaliation. Since Germany was the world-leader in chemistry, the Nazis had produced the most lethal forms of new nerve gases, such as Tabun and Sarin, whose use might have easily resulted in major military victories on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but Hitler had scrupulously obeyed the international protocols that his nation had signed. However, late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation. If Churchill had gotten his way, many millions of British might soon have perished from German nerve gas counter-strikes. Around the same time, Churchill was also blocked in his proposal to bombard Germany with hundreds of thousands of deadly anthrax bombs, an operation that might have rendered much of Central and Western Europe uninhabitable for generations.
 
Last edited:
Many of the early American colonies were theocracy's. They worked reasonably well. That's not to say such things never go too far in theocracies, they often did. Yet their fruit was the continued perseverance of their faith and nation. Our perspective today is colored by the modern principles of secular government. Yet it's fruit has been wicked beyond measure. Even the worst excesses of theocracy's can't hold a candle to the mass murder of our time (abortion), much less the degeneracy, loss of faith and breakdown in family formation and population.

Truth is, we live in a theocracy today. It's just an atheistic/satanic/secular humanist one. I'd vastly prefer living in a Christian theocracy. You can't separate the law from morals and sin. When justice is pure there is no difference between law and morality. And our very existence as a society and species depends upon community enforcement of sexual morals.

So who's definition of morals? Who's interpretation of the Bible? I would personally hate to live in a "Christian theocracy" because most Christians have an incorrect definition of morality. Not trying to start a debate here but I believe based on my understanding of scripture that eating unclean is immoral to the same degree of sexual immorality. So who's interpretation of scripture would be the standard? There are people who believe in Noahide and they believe anyone who is not Jewish is wrong to keep the Sabbath and the appointed times. They also believe that worship of Yeshua is idolatry.

This is why a theocracy will never work until its Yeshua himself that sits on the throne. The best we can do in the meantime is to ensure freedom of religion and prohibit actions that have direct negative impact on other people.
 
The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests

I'm all for going back and revisiting this war and the details of this war, especially in the terms of Christian pacifism and armed resistance, but this seems like heavy editorializing and opinion. NO logical reason? NO national interests? I can think of at least one possible reason. I wasn't there, but Perhaps British spies and/intelligence were informing them that Hitler was potentially unstable and not to be trusted. They may have feared a slippery slope with an unfaithful actor in these "peace" negotiations.

I agree that Germany was more interested in regional power than global domination, but with modern aircraft, the two nations weren't really all that far away from each other. Britain probably did have national interests (economic probably at the top of that list).
 
And, the best time for Allies to counter Germany was before Germany could consolidate and rebuild for the next phase...
 
A present day Theocracy?
We cannot even agree on whether or not we are supposed to be pacifists.
 
I'm all for going back and revisiting this war and the details of this war, especially in the terms of Christian pacifism and armed resistance, but this seems like heavy editorializing and opinion. NO logical reason? NO national interests?
The justification for that statement is is clearly outlined in the preceding parts of the article. The risk of taking any quote out of a long article is that some elements of the quote will build on preceding arguments. Rather than distracting the thread by explaining that point it would be better for me to simply recommend reading the article, where this is explained more clearly than I could do briefly.
And, the best time for Allies to counter Germany was before Germany could consolidate and rebuild for the next phase...
Massive assumption there that Germany was planning a next phase against the Allies. The only "next phase" they made was against Poland, the stated last step in their program (whether that program was right or wrong) to retake the land confiscated from Germany in WW1 and given to various surrounding nations. It's impossible to know if they had secret plans beyond that, or not, because at that point the Western powers declared war on Germany.
 
Last edited:
One of the most interesting aspects of that article is the explanation of the narrative control by the Western media, both before, during and after the war. The narrative control bears strong similarities to what we are seeing today with the mainstream media's biased coverage of contemporary issues.

For example, most New Zealanders think Trump is an idiot and Biden clearly and undeniably won your election. They also think our own government defeated COVID through acting "hard and fast", and don't see many negatives to that action. They also believe climate change is undeniably real. In all three cases these false perspectives are held strongly, because our media covers only one side of the story, deliberately. And people believing otherwise are vilified severely. We know that happens today.

The children raised in this generation, going through school at this time, will have extremely warped and false views of present-day events - but will believe these to be undeniably correct and that anyone arguing against them is to be mocked, and possibly even a danger to the public.

We know this is how the narrative is controlled, because we can see it happening today. So just consider for a moment that the narrative of PAST events may have been controlled in the same manner as it is controlled today - and the standard view of history that we believe is unassailably correct may, at least in places, be seriously warped due to deliberate misinformation.

@Mojo and @PeteR, my point is: Don't jump to the conclusion that an article is obviously wrong and not worth reading just because it seems to contradict statements you have always been taught are undeniably correct. This is an extremely well referenced article drawing on testimony from people who were intimately involved in events, and official documentation. Note the quote within the quote I made earlier, from a senior figure in American Military Intelligence at the time. If you're skeptical, as you should be, ignore the author's opinion (reading it only for the context of quotes) and focus only on the quotes from people at the time and official documentation. See where those take your understanding.
 
The children raised in this generation, going through school at this time, will have extremely warped and false views of present-day events - but will believe these to be undeniably correct and that anyone arguing against them is to be mocked, and possibly even a danger to the public.

Which is why my signature is.

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn UNLEARN and relearn" ~ Alvin Toffler

(I think)
 
Don't jump to the conclusion that an article is obviously wrong and not worth reading just because it seems to contradict statements you have always been taught are undeniably correct
Oh, I don't mind contradictions to what I have been taught. My antennae just perked up when I saw absolutist language in an excerpt meant to shed light on alternative explanations of history. That's some pretty strong language that was used there. Propoganda runs in more than one direction.

I'll delve into the articles later. I love history. Thanks for the references.
 
Back on the core topic, a key example of this dilemma in 1 Maccabees 2:29-41:
29 Then many who sought justice and judgment went down into the wilderness to live there— 30 they, their children, their wives, and their livestock—because evils were multiplied upon them. 31 It was told the king’s officers and the forces that were in Jerusalem, the city of David, that certain men who had broken the king’s commandment had gone down into the secret places in the wilderness; 32 and many pursued after them, and having overtaken them, they encamped against them and set the battle in array against them on the Sabbath day. 33 They said to them, “Enough of this! Come out and do according to the word of the king, and you will all live!”
34 They said, “We won’t come out. We won’t do the word of the king, to profane the Sabbath day.”
35 Then the enemy hurried to attack them.
36 They didn’t answer them. They didn’t cast a stone at them, or block their secret places, 37 saying, “Let’s all die in our innocence. Heaven and earth testify for us, that you put us to death unjustly.”
38 So they attacked them on the Sabbath, and they died—they, their wives, their children, and their livestock—in number a thousand souls of men.
39 When Mattathias and his friends found out about it, and they mourned over them exceedingly. 40 One said to another, “If we all do as our kindred have done, and don’t fight against the Gentiles for our lives and our ordinances, they will quickly destroy us from off the earth.” 41 So they decided that day, saying, “Whoever comes against us to battle on the Sabbath day, let’s fight against him, and we will in no way all die, as our kindred died in the secret places.”
Obviously this does not actually answer the question of which is the better option. Mattathias assumed resistance was the right path, and the entire history after that is one of resistance. There is no theological reasoning here about which choice is best, simply the pragmatic decision. The result of their resistance was, ultimately, great success.
 
If ancient Israel is the example, I rest my case.

I would disagree. I think that if you look at the good, and bad of ancient Israel it is better then what we currently have or have had.

As far as the 10 commandments being used as the supreme law, it still isn't simple enough. What constitutes a graven image? Do photographs count? Is the Sabbath Saturday or replaced by Sunday? Is adultery the modern or biblical definition? How exactly do you honor your mother and father? What's the exact definition of that? Taking the name of the Lord in vain? Does that mean never writing his name, never saying his name

Isn't simple enough? Try comparing the ten commandments with all the laws that are on the books today, and then tell me they aren't simple enough!
Many of the issues you bring up would resolve themselves if people actually studied God's law like it is the supreme law of the land. Instead most "Christians" today probably can't even quote the ten commandments in it's entirety, much less in the correct order! We are admonished to "study to show yourself approved" and to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" but instead we as a people treat God's law like "good advice", and treat man's "law" like we are going to hell if we don't obey it!
Someone's got to interpret and enforce those 10 commandments. I might not like the interpretation to some of those, nor like being held accountable to that interpretation. A secular government that leaves me alone to interpret scripture as the Holy Spirit leads is what I think is most realistic.
So you think it is better to have a government that randomly makes "laws", arbitrarily enforces them, and interprets them however suits them best? If you think a secular government is going to leave you alone to interpret scripture, then either you are deluding yourself, or you are not the same kind of Christian that was walking the earth in the first century.
But to keep it on topic, would an armed rebellion against a theocratic government that interprets the Law differently than I do be appropriate?
That would depend on what kind of theocratic government you are talking about, if you are talking Islamic theocracy, then yes it would be appropriate. On the other hand, if you are talking about a biblical theocracy then no, that is what Romans 13 is talking about, a government that continually punishes the wicked (wicked as can only be defined by God in his law) and continually praises those who do good.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to start a debate here but I believe based on my understanding of scripture that eating unclean is immoral to the same degree of sexual immorality.
Not trying to debate you, but I would disagree with you here.

From what I understand (and definitely correct me if I'm wrong) there was not a death sentence on eating unclean; they did get kicked out of the camp, but there was no death penalty. Now if they caught trichinosis from eating pork then you could argue that they got the death penalty, but that would not be carried out by the children of Israel.

On the other hand sexual immorality was punishable by death, and that penalty was carried out by the israelites.
 
Not trying to debate you, but I would disagree with you here.

From what I understand (and definitely correct me if I'm wrong) there was not a death sentence on eating unclean; they did get kicked out of the camp, but there was no death penalty. Now if they caught trichinosis from eating pork then you could argue that they got the death penalty, but that would not be carried out by the children of Israel.

On the other hand sexual immorality was punishable by death, and that penalty was carried out by the israelites.

I think the penalty for sexual sin is being cut off. Lev. 18:29 but yes elsewhere in Torah I do think certain ones carry the death penalty. However I would encourage you to look at Isaiah 65 specifically verse 4 and Isaiah 66:16-17

I was basing my statement on Lev. 18:22 male homosexuality is abomination... And Deuteronomy 14:3 eating unclean is abomination... Same Hebrew word there. I do not necessarily agree that the penalties have to match in order for the sin to be an equal level of wickedness... Sinning intentionally is rebellion no matter what the sin is and that is spoken against very harshly throughout scripture.
 
I think the penalty for sexual sin is being cut off. Lev. 18:29 but yes elsewhere in Torah I do think certain ones carry the death penalty. However I would encourage you to look at Isaiah 65 specifically verse 4 and Isaiah 66:16-17

I was basing my statement on Lev. 18:22 male homosexuality is abomination... And Deuteronomy 14:3 eating unclean is abomination... Same Hebrew word there. I do not necessarily agree that the penalties have to match in order for the sin to be an equal level of wickedness... Sinning intentionally is rebellion no matter what the sin is and that is spoken against very harshly throughout scripture.
In both of those Isaiah passages, God is dealing with the sin himself.
On the other hand, in the case of adultery, homosexuality, beastuality etc. it was the people who carried out the punishment.
I am aware of no place in the scriptures where it says to stone someone for eating swine flesh.

Yes, sin is sin, and James says "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." So ultimately as Paul says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," we are all worthy of death, but some sins required the perpetrator to be taken out of society via death penalty, eating unclean was not one of them.
 
I would disagree. I think that if you look at the good, and bad of ancient Israel it is better then what we currently have or have had.



Isn't simple enough? Try comparing the ten commandments with all the laws that are on the books today, and then tell me they aren't simple enough!
Many of the issues you bring up would resolve themselves if people actually studied God's law like it is the supreme law of the land. Instead most "Christians" today probably can't even quote the ten commandments in it's entirety, much less in the correct order! We are admonished to "study to show yourself approved" and to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" but instead we as a people treat God's law like "good advice", and treat man's "law" like we are going to hell if we don't obey it!

So you think it is better to have a government that randomly makes "laws", arbitrarily enforces them, and interprets them however suits them best? If you think a secular government is going to leave you alone to interpret scripture, then either you are deluding yourself, or you are not the same kind of Christian that was walking the earth in the first century.

That would depend on what kind of theocratic government you are talking about, if you are talking Islamic theocracy, then yes it would be appropriate. On the other hand, if you are talking about a biblical theocracy then no, that is what Romans 13 is talking about, a government that continually punishes the wicked (wicked as can only be defined by God in his law) and continually praises those who do good.
You make some good points. I still disagree, but you've countered with some good thoughts.

Because humanity is...human, neither one of us has seen the ideal we are looking for. It's utopia, and that doesn't exist. Ancient Israel had it made. They had the laws, they had the blessings, they had God's Spirit, and they still screwed it up.

The same could be said of the US.
 
Cant quote the scripures but from an outside point of view it seems as if a carpenter, raised by a carpenter during a time of Very harsh conditions who later was said to have personally used physical violence to protect his people, it seems as if his philosophy should endorse protecting oneself and your people via means available.
 
Cant quote the scripures but from an outside point of view it seems as if a carpenter, raised by a carpenter during a time of Very harsh conditions who later was said to have personally used physical violence to protect his people, it seems as if his philosophy should endorse protecting oneself and your people via means available.

You protect your family and your people or else accept slavery and/or extermination.
 
Back
Top