Well, you know I have to disagree with you on this.  Defense of our country is a rational, perfectly legitimate response to any kind of blatant attack.  I don't see any difference in this and personal self-defense (which I believe you probably would say is valid).  I don't believe in killing but in an impertect world there are people who do.  And why would you want to let them do horrible things to this country, including men, women and children?  There are bad people in this world and I don't believe you can always turn the other cheek.  And, just because 'no where in the New Testament is a nation equated with the kingdom of God' is a poor reason to think that way.  I think that is stretching it a bit (actually a lot).  You can read the Bible and make arguments for anything you want to make arguments for.  And it is just your interpretation and could be wrong.  Sometimes people look too hard for meaning in the Bible.  I think it should be read for the joy and comfort it can give you; I do not think it should be analyzed to the nth degree.  And you can come away with a lot of misconceptions. 

So then you would agree that Iraqis and Afghanis killing American soldiers was a rational, perfectly legitimate response to our invasion and killing of women and children? I know this doesn't directly address Christophers statement but was just curious.

Well, first of all we are not fighting the Afghanis.  We are fighting the Taliban and Al Queda.  We did not invade Afghan to attack Afghanis.   And the Afghans have not asked us to leave.  The Iraqi war is probably something that should not have happened.    The question is:  if your country is invaded should you respond with violence or just let it happen.  Christopher did not support his argument with anything from the bible.  He based his idea on the fact that the Bible does not equate nations with the kingdom of God therefore it should not be defended by violence.  Does that mean the kingdom of God should be defended with violence?  I am just looking for some substance to that argument.    

Well, first of all we are not fighting the Afghanis.....No, but we are killing them. We are fighting the Taliban and Al Queda.....Al Queda is in Pakistan, oh and we are sending drones into that country also. Now tell me why are we fighting the Taliban. We supported the and supplied them with arms when they were fighting the Russians.(not that long ago) By the way we did the same for Saddam Hussain when he was fighting the Iranians. The Iraqi war is probably something that should not have happened...Probably??

As far as Christopher's argument

, I have to come down on your side. If we are attacked by another country I believe we should defend ourselves. Having said that, I don’t think we should be intervening militarily in other countries. Occupying other nations and murdering their citizenry does nothing to promote our national security. So yes we should defend ourselves. Unfortunately this is not what our trillion dollar military is being used for or arguably ever has.

I agree mostly with what you are saying which is a topic for another time.  Staying on point, I see we agree on defending our country if need be.  And I don't see an argument for otherwise based on the initial post.

Judy, my intention in posting was not to prove a point, but to share the SDA position, and voice my approval of it.  Frankly, I was surprised (but pleased) that the SDA church published this position.

I think you and I have fairly different view on the purpose of the Bible.  I think that there is a great deal of wisdom to be gleaned from it, and that we should apply our best efforts to get it out.

I have not always taken a pacificist position, but I have come to believe this to be correct because of the admonition of Christ to return good for evil.  The position is rooted in an anti-aggression position: if  one aggressive government forces out another aggressive government, I find no moral ground for violently assisting or resisting one or the other sides.  My position is not passive position however.  I believe in non-violent resistance. (e.g. civil disobedience)  Without the cooperation of the masses, little  aggression could be perpetrated by the government.

Your above 'intention' is very well stated.  But I looked up your reference to the original post and I believe your quote was taken out of context.  I believe the paragraph is talking more about using force and violence to force others to convert.   I can see that what you say is good and I am not bantering this around just to be bantering.  Maybe I have misunderstood the intentions of the paragraph but I did not get the idea that it related in any way to military defense of one's country.  Here is the paragraph:

Throughout history some people have understood the battle that

Christians have to fight in overcoming the world as some kind of literal

military conflict. Yet, that is wrong. Nowhere in Scripture are Christians

called to set out as crusaders and force others to convert. Nowhere in the

New Testament is a nation equated with the kingdom of God and, as

such, to be defended or expanded by violence. The battle that Christians

have to fight is a spiritual battle. In the Johannine literature, the way to

overcome is not by the use of violence and physical force. The way to

overcome is by faith, and faith is exhibited by the kind of life one lives.

Point taken.  I can see how this could be viewed as you suggest.

Was there anything in this paragraph about national defense?

I took the phrase, "as such, to be defended or expanded by violence" to be referring to nations, whereas you took it to be referring to the kingdom of God.  My position is that neither nations nor the kingdom of God are to be expanded or defended by violence.

It looks like you took this paragraph to mean what you wanted it to mean and you added that it was the Seventh Day Adventist Church coming out with that same meaning and taking a stance.  And I think that was very misleading.  Find something that actuallys says the church does not condone defense when attacked.  You make some very good points but you lose credibility when your sources are not what you say they are.  I did not see anything in this paragraph to confirm what you said was a Seventh Day Adventist stand on national defense.  This paragraph was all about spreading religion and converting folks.  I agree that no force should be used to do that.  But that is not the point you were making.  Would someone else please comment on this.  Have I totally misread the above quoted paragraph?  Or is Christopher really reaching to use it to bolster his statement about national defense?

Judy:

The parsing of the sentence itself votes in favor of my interpretation.  The subject of the sentence is cleary "nation."  Nowhere in the New Testament is a nation equated with the kingdom of God and, as such, to be defended or expanded by violence.

Based on the context of the paragraph, I can see that the writer may have intended the subject of his sentence to be "the Kingdom of God" -- but this is assuming the writter miswrote.

Here's a quote from an article, Clear Thinking About Military Service, by Jan Paulsen, the current president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:

The historic position of our church regarding service in the armed forces was clearly expressed some 150 years ago—very early on in our history, against the background of the American Civil War. The consensus, expressed in articles and documents of the time, as well as an 1867 General Conference resolution, was unequivocal. “…[T]he bearing of arms, or engaging in war, is a direct violation of the teachings of our Savior and the spirit and letter of the law of God” (1867, Fifth Annual General Conference Session). This has, in broad terms, been our guiding principle: When you carry arms you imply that you are prepared to use them to take another’s life, and taking the life of one of God’s children, even that of our “enemy,” is inconsistent with what we hold to be sacred and right.

Read the whole article here.

In context of the SDA position, I don't think "misleading" is a fair characterization of my initial post.

P.S. I was raised fully aware of the SDA position on war.  I was surprised to find the quote because the official position has been largely ignored in recent years.

That whole lesson which you initially referenced had nothing to do with the question of military defense.  I still say that was not a good example to use for the point you wanted to make.   It was a discussion on christianity and the battles faced trying to spread it or convert people.  Even the bible verse referenced at the beginning of the lesson has nothing to do wtih national defense or bearing arms.  The topic to me is simply not what you are using it for.  I am not saying that what you say is wrong about what the church says.  I am just saying that the lesson/paragraph you used to make the point did not back your statement about violence being used for national defense.

Judy:

It seems that the statement in the lesson wasn't stated as intended.  I wrote to the publisher for clarification.  Here is their response:

Dear Christopher:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I asked Elder Goldstein about your question and he said that we are not making any statement about bearing arms with what you have quoted below from page 102 of the Teachers Edition.

Hope this helps.

God bless,

Lea

This is laid to rest.