West Point grad finds Jesus, can no longer fight in Iraq
posted at 5:09 pm on July 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
I’d love to critique his reasoning for you but, as we’ve hashed out in the the religious threads many times before, I don’t quite grasp how he’s wrong. Feel free to do the job this American won’t do in the comments below, though.
“Jesus taught that I should bless those who curse me and not fight back against evil with force,” Brown wrote in court papers filed last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“So instead of paying back others with force, I am supposed to love everyone; killing others is not loving them,” he wrote…
According to court papers, Brown’s anti-war sentiment surfaced between 2004 and 2006, while he was stationed at Fort Benning, Ga., and Fort Drum, N.Y. But it wasn’t until training in April 2006, at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., that a religious aversion to force was cemented.
“Although it was only blank ammunition, I experienced what it would be like to kill another person,” Brown wrote, according to court papers. “It appalled me. And I found that it hurt my performance as an infantry officer. I realized that I could not protect my men.”
Since the Army’s initial rejection, Brown, a native of Spring, Texas, has been accepted to a seminary in St. Louis and plans to attend if the Army grants him an honorable discharge, Karpatkin said.
The mujahedeen, of course, use a different playbook.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
No, BKennedy made absolutely no point, as I explained… Further background can be found in another of my comments at
My position on the Catholic “Church” has been bolstered by that recent survey, proving what many real Christians have suspected about it’s members for a long time (again, as explained in earlier comments), so it’s not “bigoted”, it’s based on the evidence before our eyes. BKennedy’s “point” was nonexistent, because that “gay priest”, etc. stuff has no bearing on the vast majority of real Christians… BK’s problem is, he doesn’t understand what personally coming to Christ and reading the Bible and deciding for yourself is all about… He assumes that believers are just like members of “The Church”, and that we’re all just parts of different organizations. This is very obvious from his comments about this imaginary “protestantism”.
RightWinged on July 17, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Niccolo Machiavelli’s political critique of Christianity includes such points as that we Christians excel at pious cruelty and cruel pity, and that Christianity turns men into women. The circumstance that we seem unable to ever get finished trying to refute Machiavelli’s points seems itself to be a point in favor of his critique. However, again politically, one of the best points in favor of American Christianity seems to be that the post-Christian Left are completely pussified. If this seems to be damning with faint praise, then it’s up to us Christians to show we merit better praise.
Kralizec on July 17, 2007 at 10:26 PM
I’m sure he was from 4th regiment
USMA 89
back when it was tough…
tlynch001 on July 17, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Here’s the best op-ed I’ve read about Christians, real men and turning the other cheek. It’s pretty funny also.
The bottom line:
baldilocks on July 17, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Somebody give this kid a copy of “Sgt. York”.
Nethicus on July 17, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Yeap explains it all. Cooper did a great job in that movie.
unseen on July 17, 2007 at 11:00 PM
The Catholic church is the only unifying thing ‘protestants’ have going for them. They all believe something different, except ‘We’re not like the Catholics!’
tlynch001 on July 17, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Be thankful that he’s honest, and won’t be subverting or otherwise damaging the military from within. However, there should be some sort of non-violent program in place for people like him, who have managed to get a free education out of the government yet avoid their own part of the bargain. We do want to get our money’s worth, right?
Big S on July 17, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Just give him the dishonorable discharge and make him pay for his training. End of story.
Doesn’t matter what his reasons are. He don’t have what it takes.
nottakingsides on July 17, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Beat me to it Baldilocks. I was going to say that even as a Jew I know that Jesus didn’t luuuv the money-changers out of the Temple. He set abou’ them.
smellthecoffee on July 18, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Perfect.
baldilocks on July 18, 2007 at 12:20 AM
It was a law, not just a custom from Abraham. Leviticus 12:3. My understanding is that Paul was definitely drawing a line in the sand–after all it’s not exactly something one can be ambiguous about. (Not even John Kerry could equivocate about that–”I was circumcised before I was not circumcised.”) It also would have made it a LOT easier for Roman gentiles to convert to Christianity, because they’d no longer have to become Jews in order to do so. I’m not saying that’s why Paul did it (way beyond my area of expertise), just saying that that would be an effect of the change.
smellthecoffee on July 18, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Realy RightWinged, I love your blog and everything, but for some reason you get your panties in a pretzel whenever you hear about those damned papists and their leader, the Pope.
Why don’t you just relax and chill out. The Lady doth Protestant too much.
You lay off whatever weird misconceptions you have about Catholisism (LAWL at worshipping the Pope), and I won’t bring up the fact that Protestantism has a couple hundred different sects, all of which believe they have the truth over any other sect, and whenever someone in one of these sects disagrees, they form a new sect. Catholicism, for whatever flaws it might possess, tends not to schism off into another faction every couple of years or so.
After all, there is no religion called Protestant.
Dictionary.reference.com has:
Prot·es·tant /ˈprɒtəstənt or, for 4, 6, prəˈtɛstənt/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[prot-uh-stuhnt or, for 4, 6, pruh-tes-tuhnt] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
You’ve got Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Calvinists, Southern Baptists, and Lutherans. That’s just the short list off the top of my head. All of them claim to be Christian. All of them claim to be right, and many of them scism like rabbits when an area of dissagreement shows up and divide into two churches. Both of which claim to be right.
So lighten up on the Catholic bashing Rightwinged, you sound like Christopher Hitchens after he’s had too much caffiene after waking up on the wrong side of the bed and stubbing his toe on his hardcover copy of “God is Not Great.”
BKennedy on July 18, 2007 at 3:00 AM
I think you’re entirely missing my point BKennedy… I not a member of any of those “sects” and I agree there is no “religion” called “protestant”, and I find the use of the term “protestant” annoying all together (I addressed this to an extent earlier). So by the very fact that you agree that these are all different groups, undermines your initial sarcastic response to my dig at the Pope. These groups don’t associate themselves with each other, they are lumped together by society to make it Catholic or Protestant, when that “either or” is completely imaginary. But none of that changes my criticism of Catholicism and the Pope, which again was bolstered by that recent survey confirming what we’ve long said about Catholics. Complaining about gay baptist priests has nothing to do with any true believer who happens to take issue with Catholicism. Again, it is you who lump them together under the term “Protestantism” which is really just something imaginary.
But even of most of those groups (which I don’t agree with, because the labels imply a specific “religion”) don’t, as Catholicism does, put a ton of stock in “The Church”. Yeah, they like to have their congregations and have people generation after generation, but it’s not all about “The Church” and that term is rarely (if ever) used by them. It’s odd that Catholics (even in comments at HA) don’t recognize how revealing it is when in defense of their position don’t choose to argue over what the Bible says, etc. Instead they get mad at people “attacking The Church”. The Church? Shouldn’t their concern be about attacks on Jesus and God? Not their fancy organization of buildings with stain glassed windows and guys in super cool robes, and little boxes where you go in and kneel and tell another human what you’ve done wrong so that you can clear your conscience?
RightWinged on July 18, 2007 at 3:14 AM
BTW BK, thanks for the comment about my blog… but you’re not able to see it right now are you? I stopped using it a long time ago after a bunch of hosting issues, and sometime about a week ago, it just stopped showing up and has some weird error.. I haven’t contacted hosting yet, because again I haven’t used it in months. Anyway, I was just curious what you meant
RightWinged on July 18, 2007 at 3:20 AM
There is an excellent Christian charity I contribute to who has a Naval Academy grad as a board member. She was a jet-jockey and quit the navy when she became Born Again. My daughter is also a grad from USNA.
I doubt he’s done this to get out of the war because he’s a wuss. I believe him and wish him well.
If by some chance he’s not being truthful, he’ll have Him to answer to.
notthisgirl on July 18, 2007 at 3:25 AM
See, the thing is when people talk about “The Church” we’re not talking about a bunch of superficial buildings with stained glass windows. I can’t count how many sermons my pastor has given where he has directly stated any reference to “The Church” is a reference to the actual congregation of Catholics themselves. Wherever two or more are gathered in his name is considered “The Church.”
Catholics have a Creed we say at every mass, The Nicene Creed. Among other things such as an affirmation of each member of the trinity, there is “We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church, we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we look for the ressurection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” The Catholic Church’s very foundation is that there is only one universal church and one universal truth. That oneness with all other Catholics is essential to the belief of the church.
There are various areas of Catholic theology which address the sacrament of confession. The Priest has been given the power to forgive sins through his position after a physical process of humbling oneself and admitting we are susceptible to sin. I don’t know what Protestants practice for the forgiveness of sins, but somehow just telling God you’re sorry to yourself in the privacy of your own room does not seem to me a very good way to ask the Lord for foriveness. For while God sees what you do in secret and knows what is in your heart in secret, the Catholic priest provides a medium of absolution and a counsel for faith.
I hardly claim to be a theological wizard Rightwinged, but you’re no different from Hitchens if you go about lambasting the state of other people’s relationships with God, relationships which you cannot possibly know. People who you do not know who you generate judgements about by listening to polls from organizations who usually serve interests which hate Christianity in all its forms and especially the devout.
My attempt was to make the point that broad (and incorrect on even a basic level of scrutiny) generalizations about people’s faith in their leaders or lack thereof are misguided. I tried to do it in a fairly witty way.
Nobody worships the Pope unless you’re using the definition “give worth to.” By that definition, every Christian worships the Bible.
The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and formed a very solid, comprehensive, and coherent theology, all things considered.
BKennedy on July 18, 2007 at 3:54 AM
Cashier his ass with a LTH Discharge, recind his BS from the Point, bill him for the 4 years of room and board.
DoctorDentons on July 18, 2007 at 6:13 AM
Proving my point.
Again, I don’t agree with the term “Protestant”, but setting that aside… Again, if you believe your priests have some special power that you don’t possess, I can’t stop you.
As for broad generalizations, I may not have said it in this thread, but I have in others.. there are exceptions to the rule. I’m talking about the general population of “The Church”. It’s just like when everyone says “Muslims are mostly peaceful”… that’s simply because they aren’t strictly following the tenets in their own texts, and are secularized westerners more than they are “Muslims”. You may be one of the few devoted to Christ, I don’t know, but I grew up in and live in Catholic country and the vast majority are “show up to Church on Christmas and Easter” types. Now, I don’t think “Church” really matters in determining what kind of Christian you are… but this is about the extent of what most Catholics do. Many others go every Sunday, because that’s what their family has done for generations, but if you weren’t a relative or member of that specific church, you’d probably never know in all likelyhood. But again, as that survey showed, it’s more about ritual and not personal choice and belief.
I know the bias in polls, but this was a survey among those claiming to be Christians, and if anyone gets a worse rap in the media it’s evangelicals, not Catholics. Catholicism is very mainstream and often Democrat leaning. Instead of dealing with tough issues (i.e. creation, etc.) they just ignore the questions and stick to ritual. It’s not about having discussions and analyzing the Bible. It’s about “The Church has decided this is how it is”. Come on, in the media (outside of priest molestation scandals) the Catholic church is treated as a very mainstream thing, from Sitcoms to movies, where as evangelicals are treated as extreme right lunatics. The fact that the very specific survey confirms many of the things we have long said about Catholics should not be dismissed.
I’m so tired I don’t even know what I’m writing right now so I’m going to wrap this up…
I don’t claim to be a wizard in theology either, and I don’t actually think I claimed anyone “worships” the Pope, though I understand where you got that from, based on my initial sarcastic comment. I believe the Catholic Church DOES place the Pope on a level above normal humans, the same way they do with the whole Holy Water, Blessing, and confession things. They may not “worship” him, but it’s pretty damn close. (which by the way, can prove my point about how other Christian don’t get a fair shake in the media, but Catholics do… the media covers Pope stories like it’s the biggest thing going on on the planet, but do they ever wait for days for a puff of smoke to come out of any other Christian church? Do they wait for the non-Pope mobiles? etc. etc. etc.)
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to repeat phrases I’ve been trained to repeat after my local Catholic priest says certain other phrases. It doesn’t matter that I see nothing in the Bible about it, it matters that I grew up being told “When the priest says this, you say…….”.
RightWinged on July 18, 2007 at 6:47 AM
Now if I could be serious for a moment…
No, we also have the five Solas going for us. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Gratia and Solo Christo. Sola Scriptura means only scripture, in other words we reject that the church can be authoritative outside of interpreting scripture. If it’s not in scripture it’s not of God.
Sola Fide means only faith, or Justification by Faith Alone. The idea here is that no amount of merit can award you justification in the sight of God, only faith in him. Meaning we are made righteous by our faith, not by our works.
Soli Deo Gloria means for the glory of God alone, in other words everything we do should be for the Glory of God. We can’t split ourselves into monastic and secular.
Sola Gratia means only Grace. We are only saved through God’s Grace. Eucharist won’t save you, going to confession won’t save you, only God has the power to save. I believe Catholics would agree here, but would say that eucharist and confession provide “special graces.”
And finally Solo Christo, which means that Jesus saves, not the Blessed Virgin Mary, not the Church, Jesus. It is his action alone. There is no coredemptrix.
So we at least have those five things in common in “protestantism.” We are not merely united on some rebellion against the Catholic Church. And to assume that the Catholic Church doesn’t disagree on important matters within itself is stupid. There are many factions within the Catholic church, just like there are many factions within any other denomination. Ask Mel Gibson’s excommunicated priest what he thinks about the church not being split. Why do you think the Pope just allowed the Tridentine Mass? It was to bring back the people who left.
Compare the people who will only go to Mass if it has an organ opposed to people who go if there’s a guitar Mass or a Polka Mass (yes, up here we have polka masses). Or the people who made drastic changes “in the spirit of Vatican II.” Look at Hans Kung! The Church has internal disagreements, and it splits. It has as many internal disagreements as any protestant group.
The only thing that keeps the Roman Catholic Church together is the belief in apostolic sucession.
Catholic is another term for Universal. Do you think that Eastern Orthodox priests substitute Orthodox in there? (No, they just take out the Filioque clause) Protestant churches also say the Nicine creed in services and keep the catholic portion intact with the understanding it does not mean the RCC, but rather the whole body of Christ to which we all belong. The Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Orthodox, and the Catholics.
Keljeck on July 18, 2007 at 7:21 AM
You are joking aren’t you. I think the Luther’s reformation pretty much put a stop to that thinking…about a few hundred years ago.
The Catholic church has been moving towards what Luther had stated those many hundred years ago.
Here is just a couple of ideas that Luther was ex-communicated for and that the Catholic church is now embracing.
The Pope is not infallible, he is with sin like any other man.
You are saved by grace alone. That one is still be debated in the Catholic church, but the mainstream is mostly accepting the scripture.
A priest is not needed to have a personal relationship with Christ
The bible and scripture was meant to be in the hands of man, not only in the hands of the church leaders.
Scripture trumps doctrine
So I would say that the reformation churches are what is holding the Catholic church together. Without the reformation you would have an infallible Pope, masses still in Latin, priests dictating who is saved and not, no bible on your table at home, and probably even more violation of priests and little boys…seeing as the priests could do no wrong and were only subject to other priests and their bishops and cardinals (does Boston and L.A. ring a bell?).
right2bright on July 18, 2007 at 7:36 AM
The Pope’s position was actually strengthened theologically in Vatican I. While in Luther’s age he was powerful politically, Papal Infalibility was not yet defined. In Vatican I they decided that the Pope is indeed Infalible when he speaks infalibly. Or Ex Cathedra.
He has only done this twice. And it’s very difficult to do because there’s more rules than the United States Tax Code. But so far scholars have decided he’s done it twice. Once to announce that Mary was assumed into heaven, and the second time to announce that Mary was born without sin. These doctrines were so important, that a council could not have been convened.
So in short the Pope is STILL infalible.
As for your second statement Masses can be said in Latin again, though most will probably be in the Vernacular. Which ironically latin was when it was introduced. And I love how now there are some Catholics who complain that there are guitar masses, when the Organ and a Church Choir used to be controversial, but now guitars can’t be as sacred?
And a Priest has the power to bind and losen, they still dictate who is saved somewhat. They have the power to excommunicate and leave them in sin. In my town the Priest is treated with enormous respect.
Keljeck on July 18, 2007 at 7:50 AM
Well, he could love them to death….
On a serious note, everyone quoting sedition/treason laws, regulations, and whatever needs to just back off. The regs covering this situation are clear and specific. He would not be up for any jail time, any loss of his degree, nor anything but an administrative discharge. He will be required to reimburse the government for the cost of his degree and his commission, less any credit for time served on a pro-rated basis, based on his active duty service commitment of five years from the date of his graduation.
As a ‘ring knocker’ myself, this made me chuckle. Despite persistent opinions to the contrary, the ‘good old boy network’ hasn’t existed for a long time, at least in the Air Force, and my USMA Grad friends haven’t said otherwise about the Army. For whatever reason, non-Grads keep the legend alive without ever seeing any evidence of it.
Besides, the thought of using influence to get out of combat is alien to most Grads…with almost no exceptions, we don’t go through four years of Academy life with the thought that combat is something to be avoided. More likely, his change of heart is genuine…though incredibly confused.
James on July 18, 2007 at 7:56 AM
Enrique,
Ghandi was not a “peacemaker”. No pacifist is. They are “peacewishers”. A ‘maker’ is a pro-active adjective, it supposes motion, not inaction. A peacemaker uses necessary force to accomplish peace. His opponent will call him a warmonger.
And you’re wrong. I see people love their enemies all the time. I see people wronged who step up and forgive those who wronged them, even if the evildoer doesn’t want forgiveness. But you know what? It takes having God’s love within you before you can manage it. So if all you know is godlessness, you’re right, a human on his own finds such actions virtually impossible. But a human with God’s love can do it with ease. I hope someday you can understand that, but you have to move your own pride out of the way for just an instant before it can be so.
Brown also got it all wrong. The Bible concepts cited in AP’s blockquote at the top included. Blessing those who curse you, and refusing to repay evil with evil, are commandments to the individual regarding wrongs done to the individual, and have no bearing on national military behavior.
- Romans 13:3-5
Sounds like an endorsement of governmental military authority to me.
Less than two months after I surrendered my soul to the Savior, I chose to enter the military. Some Christian friends who mistakenly equate Christianity with pacifism tried desperately to talk me out of it, thinking I was joining an ignoble, mindless killing machine. Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. military, in Rush Limbaugh’s words, kills people and breaks things, but to the best of our abilities only those people and things who wish harm to our people and things, and with noble purpose to destroy destroyers.
I don’t loathe someone who believes they should not be involved in violence. It is far better to never be involved in violence. But taking up four years of academy training toward a military career, and oh yeah, that degree that comes included, then claiming post-graduation that God doesn’t want you to hurt other living things, that’s fraudulent. Conscientious objectors do not jump through the hoops to get an academy appointment, and then successfully complete the four VERY HARD years of military/collegiate training.
I’m with DoctorDentons, except that I would seek a Dishonorable discharge rather than a Less Than Honorable. But strip the degree and bill for room/board expenses, absolutely. Forgive him for his misbehavior? Sure. Absolve him of consequences? Not a chance. We might not need Nathan Jessup on that wall, but we need someone on that wall.
Freelancer on July 18, 2007 at 8:02 AM
According to the Book of Matthew, when a Roman centurion went to Jesus to ask that Jesus heal the centurion’s sick servant and said to Jesus that if He (Jesus) would just say the word, the servant would be healed, Jesus did not turn the Roman centurion away with condemnation that the centurion was a soldier. Far to the contrary, Jesus said that He had not seen such faith throughout Israel and healed the servant as requested by the centurion.
According to the Book of Acts, one of the early Christians under Paul’s tutelage was another Roman centurion.
The notion that Christianity and being a soldier are in conflict is just wrong. To the contrary, God calls upon our soldiers to be the instruments of His will.
Anyone who knows the military knows that evangelical Christianity is alive and strong among those serving in harm’s way for this nation. Lincoln called America the last best hope of Earth. The only way we can be that is if we recognize and pray that our military does its missions well.
Phil Byler on July 18, 2007 at 8:12 AM
Let’s see…..
Four years of government-provided education at West Point: Okay with being a soldier.
Two years of follow-on training in New York and Georgia: Okay with being a soldier though with “reservations.”
Faced with going operational and deploying to combat: Time to play the Jesus card.
I’m not in a position to say how genuine Brown is in this change of heart BUT it really doesn’t matter- especially having spent four years at USMA. He knew that defending this nation in combat was (possibly) part of the deal.
My solution: Dishonorable discharge. He can still go to seminary after being labeled a coward. Hell! Most mainline denominations would applaud him for his “principled stand.”
highhopes on July 18, 2007 at 8:36 AM
As he should be, but God help you if you think your priest has the power to determine your salvation.
All good points, my general statement is that the reformation is what is holding the Catholic church together, not the other way around.
The Pope was in essence infalible. His dictums were not challenged, he could murder and jail at will and he decided (based primarily on how much money or “works” one gave to the church) was to got to heaven. That was the primary substance of the 95 Theses.
Was one of 95, most involving the payment for indugence letters. And for the popes mis use of scripture and his postiton of power, granted by man, not by God.
My point about the Latin masses, was not that none can be done, many still are. In Mexico most Churches have one mass in Latin. But more that the Catholic church has changed to reflect what the needs of the people, not the needs of the church as much.
As I stated, grace is still being discussed, but the reformation has moved the Catholic away from the belief that the Priests and Pope has complete authority as to who is saved and who is not. Here is the quote from Luther in 1521 at the Council of Worms, where they tried to get him to deny his 95 Theses.
500 years ago, he understood that the faithful is captive to the Word of God, it has taken that long for the Catholic church to catch on. They are still fighting it, but the Scripture is stronger than the word of man.
He was fortunate not to be hunted down and killed. The Pope, at that time, would have enjoyed killing such a heritic. Thank God, for the Catholic Church, that Luther came along and showed them a better path.
right2bright on July 18, 2007 at 8:43 AM
Another interesting thing is that the Catholic Church still has indulgences, even though they are no longer being used as means for church building. For example a year or two ago on the Feast Day of the Assumption the Pope announced that anyone who prayed before a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary would recieve a plenary indulgence.
To paraphrase what I heard on catholic radio “the Church is never wrong, it’s the people in the Church who err.” The changes in Catholicism over the past 500 years have been mainly stylistic. The Council of Trent still stands, and I am not aware that Vatican II nulified any portion of it.
Keljeck on July 18, 2007 at 8:55 AM
That is probably why the pews of so many churches are full of ex-Catholics. Once they get over the guilt, and begin getting involved in the church they are the most faithful of our congregation. They (ex-Catholics) are certainly taught not to miss sunday church. And I am absolutly amazed at how many of them had never really studied the bible, listen to the priest quote passages, yes, but not dissect the bible.
Unbelievable, with all of the scripture at hand, they still get people to buy into this…unbelievable
Doesn’t anyone sit there and say “where is this in the bible?”
right2bright on July 18, 2007 at 9:18 AM
From what I understand this is their reasoning, I can’t give direct scripture quotes because I don’t have the Catechism of the Catholic Church with me. But from what I was told when we are justified by faith our sin is forgiven, but not our temporal sin. Like when you throw a rock into a pond the ripples are still there long after the actual action. So we must work to rid ourselves of this temporal sin so that we spend less time in purgatory. After all, God expects us clean when we enter heaven.
Various actions act as indulgences. You can pray the rosary, pray the angelus, cross yourself,or read the Bible (I believe penance counts as an indulgence as well, but I may be wrong). The Pope has the ability to grant a plenary (or complete) indulgence for whatever reason (other than financial). He has this power because of a treasury of merit.
You see the saints are so good and have such merit that they simply can’t use it all, so it goes into a treasury from which the Pope can grant the merit to other people, absolving them of their temporal sin.
As far as I can tell, and being a Methodist without a catechism with me I can’t tell much, there is no scriptural support for this doctrine. There is only a belief in purgatory (which they will argue is scriptural) and a snowball of logic far beyond scripture.
Keljeck on July 18, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Wrong! How could help counsel and comfort soldiers over having to kill! He might end up making many more pacifists!
SSG Fuzzy on July 18, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I don’t agree with his stance, but respect it more than Watada’s! If this is truly what he believes he would be ineffective as a soldier and leader and even be a danger!
Agree that he should also repay the cost of his education!
SSG Fuzzy on July 18, 2007 at 11:24 AM
The only problem I see with this is that we are in a different type of conflict, you never know where combat may find you! As long as they are willing to defend themselves and their fellow soldiers when necessary I don’t see a conflict.
SSG Fuzzy on July 18, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I’m wondering how this thread got turned into a Protestant-Catholic cage match. In his post, AP states that he can’t figure out how Capt. Brown is wrong and asks us to fill in the blanks. That’s got nothing to do with Mary, Indulgences, the Nicene Creed or the Solas.
As to the suggestion of keeping him in the service as a chaplain, no. If his “epiphany” is real, then he is far too religious to be a military chaplain, DoD prefers them nice and wishy-washy, with no propensity for actually improving peoples’ faith (there are exceptions but they are often ostracized). If, as I suspect, he is fraudulent, would you want him serving as spiritual guidance for ANYONE?
Freelancer on July 18, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Had to step out for a few hours, thanks hope you get this.
I just don’t think God expects us to be sin free when we die, repentent maybe, but not sin free…even temporal.
We were the only ones blogging, so we though we would have a little discussion. Keljeck was educating me, and I appreciated it.
It wasn’t a hijack, just a little side discussion.
right2bright on July 18, 2007 at 3:20 PM
If the guy is sincere, who are we to question him? If we can give safe haven to a Dearbornistan full of Hezbollah cheerleaders on the basis of Freedom of Religion, I am happy to see this Christian get a discharge and go to seminary in St. Louis. My guess is he may come back in the Army later as a chaplain. Our armed forces have a long tradition of giving noncombatant duties to those whose beliefs require it. As this guy is an Infantry officer, he is clearly in the wrong MOS. During VietNam, many of the objectors took positions in the Army as medics, etc, to avoid having to kill people. Nothing wrong with that: We need medics and chaplains, too.
sanantonian on July 19, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2