|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 26, 2006 14:13:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Apr 26, 2006 14:51:38 GMT -5
VEry sad to see those pics. Brings tears to your eyes. I hate the fact that kids are being hurt in this way. That is in no way a good thing.
Would JEsus bomb? I dunno, I'm not Jesus
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 26, 2006 15:23:22 GMT -5
VEry sad to see those pics. Brings tears to your eyes. I hate the fact that kids are being hurt in this way. That is in no way a good thing. Would JEsus bomb? I dunno, I'm not Jesus Sort of like asking "would Jesus rape?" I am confident enough to say no. But even worse than those kids getting labled as "collataral damage" by Rumsfield and Bush, is that 100,000 plus Iraqi men and women who have died. THe countless men and women held in secret prisons and tortured for no other reason than them being brown skinned Iraqi's. How many people were just released after years of being in Guitanamo bay? With NO CHARGES, and now declared to be "no threat?" And those are the lucky ones, that they survived the beatings over the past 2 years and are still alive, and were released. Many innocent men and women are still being tortured in secret prisons with NO CHARGES against them, with no hope of anyone even knowing they are there. This aint Jesus stuff for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Apr 26, 2006 16:17:23 GMT -5
The question u asked is "Who Would Jesus bomb" Not would Jesus torture. Clearly that is wrong. How do u explain God ordering "women and children to be killed"?
Jesus ordered men of God to go and kill many in the OT. So in principle, God is not against war.
The question is is THIS war good. That is the debate. However, to ask "who would Jesus bomb" is a question I don't think we can answer. Or maybe we can, at this point I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 26, 2006 17:18:39 GMT -5
The question u asked is "Who Would Jesus bomb" Not would Jesus torture. Clearly that is wrong. How do u explain God ordering "women and children to be killed"? Jesus ordered men of God to go and kill many in the OT. So in principle, God is not against war. The question is is THIS war good. That is the debate. However, to ask "who would Jesus bomb" is a question I don't think we can answer. Or maybe we can, at this point I'm not sure. Well you and I have talked about the conquest in the past. And however one might take it, it is harmful to think that the non violence stance of Jesus should be discredited in the NT age in favor of appealing to the conquest to justify wars today. God is against war, and Isaiah and Micah, etc demonstrate that God's will is that "swords be changed into plowshares", and that "never again will people learn war." But as for the video slide, I see it as very clear that Bush minipulated the name and cause of Christ to persue destruction and death for his own benefiet, and the Church's support of him and his actions are atrocious and is and will face the judgment and wrath of God (but I'm sure we'll just blame it on the gays...). |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Apr 26, 2006 17:53:29 GMT -5
Well you and I have talked about the conquest in the past. And however one might take it, it is harmful to think that the non violence stance of Jesus should be discredited in the NT age in favor of appealing to the conquest to justify wars today.
Yeah, we have talked on that in the past. I don't think Jesus advocated "non violence in every circumstance" I think war at times is justified.
God is against war, and Isaiah and Micah, etc demonstrate that God's will is that "swords be changed into plowshares", and that "never again will people learn war."
God could have just dealt with people in his power without using men to go and fight. But he didn't do that. Again, war in principal in the past has been commanded. Now of course God doesn't take delight in it. But sometimes it is needed.
I know u are not a pacifist, but i think it is a harmful view to take. What should we have done with Hitler? To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups, it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). I don't think we want to just "pray he stop murduring Jews" We should stop people who are just practicing wickedness in the world.
And again, there is no place I have seen where God says war is sin, or that war is NEVER justified.
Don't get me wrong I HATE war. I pray nearly everyday that it would cease. I do not get a kick out of it. I hate hearing about soldiers dying. My mind goes to their fam, wife, kids, parents. War is tragic. If it can, it should be avoided. However, I don't take the view that it's never needed.
What about turning the other cheek? Well, If someone says a mean word, it is far more effective to respond with kindness than with another mean word in return. If someone tries wrongly to cut u off on the freeway, it is usually best just to let them do it. If we would learn these principles, our lives would be much more peaceful and, ironically, we would be vindicated more often.
And here ( matt 5) Jesus is speaking to individuals, not governments.
But as for the video slide, I see it as very clear that Bush minipulated the name and cause of Christ to persue destruction and death for his own benefiet, and the Church's support of him and his actions are atrocious and is and will face the judgment and wrath of God (but I'm sure we'll just blame it on the gays...).
This is the debate that has been raging since 2003 when we first went into Iraq. I don't think he's using the name of God to pursue this "agenda" I'm not even sure what people t hink his agenda is. I can understand your frustration. I'm not happy with a lot of things in this administration, but i also know I'm a civilian and I don't know everything there is to know about what is going on in our world. I try to stray from this 'IRAQ" debate as much as possible cuz I think sometimes it's used more as a Bush bashing backdrop rather then the issue of people dying our millitary as well as others who live in Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Apr 26, 2006 18:01:07 GMT -5
"will face the judgment and wrath of God"
and how is this 'judgment' and 'wrath' usually played out through Scripture?....war.
The Lord is a man of war.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 26, 2006 18:18:25 GMT -5
"will face the judgment and wrath of God" and how is this 'judgment' and 'wrath' usually played out through Scripture?....war. The Lord is a man of war. Right, that which they prepared fell upon their own head. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Live by greed, die by greed, etc. God hates it all. USA looked the other way with Hitler till late in the game, and now we use that excuse time and time again to justify each and every war we have initiated since (and why has it always been brown people?). We gave weapons to Saddam, trained OBL and his homies in their war against Afghanistan, we looked the other way when Saddam Gassed the Kurds, and now we use these guys and actions as justification again to kill people? God's wrath is our own arrogance and blood thirsty greed swallowing us up. He will not protect us forever. And as I said, I am confident that Christians will still refuse to acknowledge our sin in all of this and instead chose to blame it all on gays. |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Apr 26, 2006 18:52:14 GMT -5
USA looked the other way with Hitler till late in the game, and now we use that excuse time and time again to justify each and every war we have initiated since
It's a valid justification.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 26, 2006 19:19:19 GMT -5
USA looked the other way with Hitler till late in the game, and now we use that excuse time and time again to justify each and every war we have initiated sinceIt's a valid justification. Really? HOw many times has our leaders rolled that one out? Would it be valid for Canadians to pull that one out the hat to justify their attack on America? People generaly are selfish, and are inclined to support war if it will make their lives better. |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Apr 27, 2006 0:49:16 GMT -5
I'm saying the IDEA that if hitler is running wild unopposed, that using force is justified. I don't really care about what this country has done at this point. I'm more interested in the principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 27, 2006 10:37:01 GMT -5
I'm saying the IDEA that if hitler is running wild unopposed, that using force is justified. I don't really care about what this country has done at this point. I'm more interested in the principle. 1) A person only has that capacity if others are complicit in their activity. 2) Has there ever been any military action be it in Panama, El Salvador, Iraq where the "Hitler" justification wasn't used? 3) Military action is not the only viable way to defeat a tyrant. There have been enough non violent revolutions that have been successful to let us know that the default action of warfare isn't the only viable option, let alone the best one. It is just the simpliest, and generaly serves the economic purpose of the invaders. Especialy in this global atmosphere that we live in today, we have non violent meassures at our fingertips more than any other time in history, yet we default to warfare so easily? God wasn't happy with Hitler. He wasn't happy with Saddam, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, etc. All of these wartime cats. When we chose to kill people we are crossing the lines of responsible dominion of this earth, and are participating in the destruction of the very thing we have been called to live up to. |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Apr 27, 2006 18:29:10 GMT -5
1) A person only has that capacity if others are complicit in their activity.
YEs. Absolutly!!
2) Has there ever been any military action be it in Panama, El Salvador, Iraq where the "Hitler" justification wasn't used?
I dunno. I not a history buff. But even if it was used, IF it's true, then it's justified,
3) Military action is not the only viable way to defeat a tyrant. There have been enough non violent revolutions that have been successful to let us know that the default action of warfare isn't the only viable option, let alone the best one. It is just the simpliest, and generaly serves the economic purpose of the invaders. Especialy in this global atmosphere that we live in today, we have non violent meassures at our fingertips more than any other time in history, yet we default to warfare so easily?
I agree. but sometimes force is the most effective. And that's all I'm really arguing here. That "war" is sometimes the right response.
God wasn't happy with Hitler. He wasn't happy with Saddam, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, etc. All of these wartime cats. When we chose to kill people we are crossing the lines of responsible dominion of this earth, and are participating in the destruction of the very thing we have been called to live up to.
Well that's a blanket statement that many people would disagree with u on.
What I'm saying is that sometimes the government has to kill others in order to stop a greater evil from taking place. Of course, people in the past have gone to war for selfish reasons. That isn't really a mystery. However, I'm not willing to rule out that sometimes we must use force.
And to kind of tie it back into that video slide show, sometimes civilians are killed. That is the nature of war, and one reason I feel it should be avoided at all costs.
|
|
