Comments on: The Gurkha and the Forty Thieves

By: The Granny and the Six Sledgehammer-Wielding Robbers » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:33:21 +0000

[...] you could probably discern from my recent post about the Gurkha and the forty thieves, I’m absolutely fascinated by examples of modern-day heroism. Such stories strike against the [...]

By: Sunil

Sunil — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:52:25 +0000

@shishir

Gurkhas are natives of nepal and they dont look like indians , after 1947 some part of nepal (east) were given to india so the ppl there do have indian citizen but truely they speak nepalese and follow there traditional nepalese culture and they say they are nepalese , nepal is a mix of races of tibeto burmese( mongoloid) and aryans ( indians ) but the one who fought in wold wars were of tibeto burmese and they were true gurkhas, when british came to take volunteers every villages of these races went straight to fight but the aryans of nepal hide and never went as u can see the pictures of gurkhas of world wars all were asian face , after 1947 britain took 4 battallion india took around 10 battalion , singapore took 1 battalion and brunei also keeps 1 battalion after 1960′s , In world war almost 2 million indians went i think only one got victoria cross but gurkhas were only 200,000 and they won 24 victoria cross and countless othere medals ,

By: Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:25:40 +0000

Let’s suppose that it was a Mennonite Pacifist’s daughter that was about to be imminently raped, and possibly killed, by the debauched criminals.

A non-Pacifist Christian saves the daughter from this imminent event by forceful and violent defense, a defense which resulted in the death(s) of her attackers.

Do the Mennonite Pacifist parents reject the use of violence to save their daughter?

By: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Rusty Nails (SCO v. 23)

Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Rusty Nails (SCO v. 23) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:03:06 +0000

[...] One soldier, with a knife, against 40 armed thieves Result: Thieves – 3 dead, 8 injured. Soldier – a serious wound on his hand. This is one reason why the notion that banning objects, such as 30 round magazines, with the intention of curbing acts of evil, is flawed. Humans have the uncanny ability to utilize available tools, combine them with courageous virtue – or evil desire – and act. [...]

By: Michael PS

Michael PS — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:04:53 +0000

We are taught that God retains the evil will of the devil within limits by violence: we are not given a picture of God permitting to the devil all that he is capable of. There is current a conception of Christianity as having revealed that the defeat of evil must always be by pure love without coercion; this at least is shown to be false by the foregoing consideration. And without the alleged revelation there could be no reason to believe such a thing.

By: Shishir

Shishir — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:19:15 +0000

“First, Gurkhas are Nepalese, not Indian, so the influx of Indians won’t get us any Gurkhas ”

Not true. The Gorkhas in the IA are comprised of both Gorkhas from India and Nepal. There is a significant Gorkha population in India as well. They are also part of the Indian army and serve in various regiments. Of course, we also recruit Gorkhas of Nepalese origin as well.

By: Himal

Himal — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:15:36 +0000

It is better to die then to be a coward…..Gurkha Prove

By: Otto N. Sure

Otto N. Sure — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:52:43 +0000

Fascinating discussion. Thank you all for your thoughts.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:45:39 +0000

Stuart,
tell me, were you agreeing or disagreeing with me. I couldn’t quite tell.
“Violence is never redemptive.” I agree wholeheartedly. But the trouble is that the belief in redemptive violence is the real faith of most of the world. Christ came to show us a better way.
Police, guards, soldiers in wars of national defense (or wars to defend nations with which we have treaty obligations), or, as in the story, civilians who step forward to save innocent life, all these are justifiable uses of defensive violence, and, yes, you have to be prepared to kill. But the problem is that defensive violence never breaks the cycle of violence. There has to be more.
A litmus test for this issue is found by asking how a theologian reads Romans 13. Many take it as a justification of violence, not merely to restrain evil persons, or to protect the innocent, but to purge the world of evil. The correct reading is to acknowledge the role of the sword to restrain violent people, but the better way is to “put on the armor of light” (Verse 13:12).

By: Tom R.

Tom R. — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:21:20 +0000

I believe that the fact that even two of the disciples of Jesus had swords is what is significant. Swords were not used to chop wood or cut bread, it was used for one thing, as weapons against predators, whether animal or human. If Jesus was alive today, it would be like two of his disciples carrying pistols. Jesus was, I believe a peaceful man, but not a pacifist. His acceptance of the swords carried by his disciples and his admonition in Luke, ch.22, verse 36, that when he was gone, if you did not have a sword, then sell your cloak to buy one one, says it all.