John 15:13

Originally posted by checkbaiter
In war people die. It has nothing to do with that particular verse.
The verse talks of sacrifice for a friend, not an enemy such as in war.

On the contrary we are free to take Christian principles and apply them to real life scenario. Its what people who have learned to use their powers of discernment do.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't necessarily think Jesus was excluding all other acts of apparent selfless self-sacrifice by any human being, including in war, but I do think he was being pointedly specific about what was going to happen to him and for who's sake it was going to happen.

The piece I find a little interesting is Jesus' use of "friends" rather than "bride". OK ...[text shortened]... Jesus uses those terms "no greater love has anyone who lays down their life for their friends".

While that may be the case we still have the principle of no one has greater love than if they lay down their life for someone else. It is as far as i can discern, from reading the media that remembrance day is a day to remember the self sacrifice of those who died in war, please correct me if I am wrong. What I am questioning is whether such self sacrifice is loving or truly selfless because I find this extremely difficult to reconcile that with the idea that they were engaged in acts of killing or attempting to kill other people at the time.

If a bomber is shot down while trying to bomb a civilian population and the pilots and crew die in the process is this also an act of loving self sacrifice?

Originally posted by yoctobyte
I have been thinking about this verse as of late, and I think it is kind of a double meaning type of verse.

1st we think of it as is relates to us or others and what that expression of great love would look like. One could say a soldier fighting for his country, one could say donating an organ for a friend or family member. Stepping in front of anothe ...[text shortened]... ne who lays down his life for his friends, and that is exactually what he did. No greater love!

Yes these are excellent scenarios to consider. Certainly Christs example was one of pure loving self sacrifice. Motivated by a desire to give up his life for the benefit of mankind it was truly an act of loving self sacrifice, as is someone donating a major organ etc

However, If a bomber is shot down while trying to bomb a civilian population and the pilots die in the process is this also an act of loving self sacrifice?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes these are excellent scenarios to consider. Certainly Christs example was one of pure loving self sacrifice. Motivated by a desire to give up his life for the benefit of mankind it was truly an act of loving self sacrifice, as is someone donating a major organ etc

However, If a bomber is shot down while trying to bomb a civilian population and the pilots die in the process is this also an act of loving self sacrifice?

However, If a bomber is shot down while trying to bomb a civilian population and the pilots die in the process is this also an act of loving self sacrifice?

I think your example would be a case of dying in the line of duty.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't necessarily think Jesus was excluding all other acts of apparent selfless self-sacrifice by any human being, including in war, but I do think he was being pointedly specific about what was going to happen to him and for who's sake it was going to happen.

The piece I find a little interesting is Jesus' use of "friends" rather than "bride". OK ...[text shortened]... Jesus uses those terms "no greater love has anyone who lays down their life for their friends".

What I'm getting at is that dying for one's friends could be seen as a greater sacrifice than dying for ones bride, and indeed Jesus uses those terms "no greater love has anyone who lays down their life for their friends".

Agreed, a bride would be on the level of self interest? If not a little? This love of laying down one's life for friends is even more selfless... very good point indeed!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
While that may be the case we still have the principle of no one has greater love than if they lay down their life for someone else. It is as far as i can discern, from reading the media that remembrance day is a day to remember the self sacrifice of those who died in war, please correct me if I am wrong. What I am questioning is whether such self ...[text shortened]... ulation and the pilots and crew die in the process is this also an act of loving self sacrifice?

It's a complex dynamic at the best of times but because you are fixated on your church's teaching on pacifism I think you will find it impossible to see through to any truth. I don't see why a person cannot lay down his life for his friends within the construct of war. You should perhaps consider the Hebrews in the OT.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary we are free to take Christian principles and apply them to real life scenario. Its what people who have learned to use their powers of discernment do.

And yet you so often refuse to discuss your "Christian principles and apply them to real life scenarios". One of your trademark dodges here is to refuse to discuss scenarios. The only "discernment" you seem to show is when to deflect, when to dodge, when to act the fool ~ and it seems to be whenever you are asked to discuss things properly. 😉

Originally posted by FMF
And yet you so often refuse to discuss your "Christian principles and apply them to real life scenarios". One of your trademark dodges here is to refuse to discuss scenarios. The only "discernment" you seem to show is when to deflect, when to dodge, when to act the fool ~ and it seems to be whenever you are asked to discuss things properly. 😉

Ignored for an attempts to make the issue personal. If you do it again you will be put on permanent ignore.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's a complex dynamic at the best of times but because you are fixated on your church's teaching on pacifism I think you will find it impossible to see through to any truth. I don't see why a person cannot lay down his life for his friends within the construct of war. You should perhaps consider the Hebrews in the OT.

what about suicide bombers? do they have this same spirit of self sacrificing love?

once again your attempts to make this issue personal ill be ignored. I issue the same warning to you as I have to FMF.

Major Charles L. Kelly was a medevac pilot in Vietnam and the Commanding Officer of the 57th Medical Detachment. He flew constant rescue missions from January to July 1964, even at night with low visibility. On July 1st, he was warned not to enter a "hot zone," but went anyway to pick up the wounded. When asked when he was going to return, he said, "When I have your wounded." Those words became the slogan for the medevac corps. Shortly afterward, he was shot through the open door and died when his helicopter crashed. He was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.

Corporal Thomas W. Bennett was assigned as a medical aid to the 2nd Platoon, Bravo Company, fighting in Plieku province in Vietnam. On February 9, 1969, Bennett braved enemy fire to pull at least five wounded men to shelter during a battle in the Chu Pa area. He repeatedly retrieved the wounded over the next two days, until he was shot and by a sniper while pulling another wounded soldier towards safety. Bennett died from the wound. Bennett received the Medal of Honor posthumously, presented to his parents by president Nixon in 1970. Bennett had enlisted in the army as a conscientious objector, since he opposed killing on religious grounds, but was willing to serve his country in another capacity -that of saving lives.

Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown was an 18-year-old medic serving the 82nd Airborne in Paktia province, Afghanistan, in 2007. A roadside bomb went off as her convoy was passing, wounding five soldiers and setting their Humvee on fire. Brown ran through gunfire and mortars to reach the solders, who managed to leave the burning vehicle, and shielded them with her body. Brown received a Silver Star for her bravery -and was also pulled out of Paktia because of regulations barring women from combat.

In 1945, then-Private First Class Desmond Doss became the first conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor. Doss was a devout Seventh-day Adventist who was willing to serve his country, but refused to kill. He prayed constantly and wouldn't work on Saturday, with the exception of tending to the wounded. His commander tried to expel him on a Section 8 charge, and the other soldiers resented him. But Doss refused to admit mental instability and proved his bravery as a medic on the field of battle in both Guam and Leyte. The Medal of Honor came for Doss' actions in Okinawa in May of 1945. Over three weeks of fighting, he retrieved approximately 75 casualties under artillery, mortar and machine gun fire. According to his Medal of Honor citation, on May 21st, Doss was wounded by a grenade while carrying out another retrieval mission. He dressed his own injuries while waiting five hours for someone to retrieve him. Meanwhile, Doss still attended other wounded soldiers on the field, even directing the litter bearers to aid other men first. A sniper then shot him in the arm, breaking the bone. Doss made a splint out of a rifle stock and crawled 300 yards to the aid station. Desmond Doss' actions were the subject of the 2004 documentary The Conscientious Objector.


Navy corpsman John Bradley was renowned as one of the six men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima and contributed to the most iconic image of World War II. But he shunned the fame that came from that event. He also shunned any recognition of the Navy Cross he earned for heroism on the battlefield, and his family only learned of the award after his death. Bradley enlisted in the Navy at age 19 and became a Pharmacist's mate. The Marines took him as a corpsman to the islands of the Pacific Theater. On Feb. 21, 1945, he rushed to the aid of a Marine wounded by machine gun fire on Iwo Jima. Under fire, he rigged up an immediate plasma transfusion and bound the Marine's bleeding wounds, while shielding the patient's body with his own. Only then did he drag the Marine thirty yards through an enemy barrage to shelter. A few days later, Bradley was on Mount Suribachi for the flag-raising, then was wounded by shrapnel and evacuated,

Sometimes one can risk their lives to save the lives of others without killing anyone. However, other times it becomes nececessary to kill the enemy to defend the lives of those you love.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Major Charles L. Kelly was a medevac pilot in Vietnam and the Commanding Officer of the 57th Medical Detachment. He flew constant rescue missions from January to July 1964, even at night with low visibility. On July 1st, he was warned not to enter a "hot zone," but went anyway to pick up the wounded. When asked when he was going to return, he said, "When I h ...[text shortened]... r times it becomes nececessary to kill the enemy to defend the lives of those you love. [/quote]

I dont think this can stand up, none of these persons was engaged in a combat mission to defend the lives of those they loved, in fact they were all engaged in an oversees mission to kill offensively enemy combatants/civilians either directly or indirectly. I reject the premise that dying while attempting to kill either directly or indirectly other people is to be considered a loving act. It may be an act of self sacrifice but then again so is a suicide bomber or a kamikaze pilot.

Were those Kamikaze pilots also engaged in an act of loving self sacrifice attempting to defend the Japanese homeland from American Invasion? You have not said?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont think this can stand up, none of these persons was engaged in a combat mission to defend the lives of those they loved, in fact they were all engaged in an oversees mission to kill offensively enemy combatants/civilians either directly or indirectly. I reject the premise that dying while attempting to kill either directly or indirectly other ...[text shortened]... sacrifice attempting to defend the Japanese homeland from American Invasion? You have not said?

The Japanese were the agressor who first attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor in case you did not know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

You are only speculating on the motives of the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. That is something you really do not know.

It is more clear that the U.S. came into World War II because of a defensive need for both ourselves against the attack from Japan and for Europe at the request of the British.

We put our people at risk not only to save loved ones, but to provide safety, liberty and freedom for all. We do not know the motive of each individual soldier, so that must be left to God to judge.

The majority of the Jews never accepted Jesus as their Messiah, because He did not save them by killing their oppressors as was predicted by the prophets. Jesus sacrificed His human body to save only the intangible spirit/soul of His people. So the Jews today are still awaiting a Messiah that will destroy their enemies and save their body, soul, and spirit and so are we Christians. The only difference is that we Christians believe the coming Messiah will be the return of Jesus in glory.

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Japanese were the agressor who first attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor in case you did not know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

You are only speculating on the motives of the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. That is something you really do not know.

It is more clear that the U.S. came into World War II because of a defensive need ...[text shortened]... ll. We do not know the motive of each individual soldier, so that must be left to God to judge.

yer bum Hinds, you were an occupying force in Vietnam, you were an occupying force in Iraq and you are an occupying force in Afghanistan. When was the last time the US mainland was invaded so that you needed to protect your loved ones? People have been using the same rhetoric for centuries, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. I reject entirely the premise that the US went to war to protect its loved ones.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yer bum Hinds, you were an occupying force in Vietnam, you were an occupying force in Iraq and you are an occupying force in Afghanistan. When was the last time the US mainland was invaded so that you needed to protect your loved ones? People have been using the same rhetoric for centuries, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. I reject entirely the premise that the US went to war to protect its loved ones.

1812, by us.