Posted on 10/10/2001 6:27:30 PM PDT by L,TOWM
Truth, we do have a greater respect for God, but when the leaders of the nation that are leading us in the war speak to the people of spending time in prayer to God at the nearest mosque, synagogue, or church there is a problem. I don't think a little idol of Allah is going to help this country in a war. Whether we as Americans care to admit it, this nation was founded(as pointed out by the article) by mainly Protestants. The first Amendment protecting the right of free speech is not there to allow the worship of anything from a tree to a crystal ball. It was there to establish that the federal government could not institute an exact way that we must worship the one and only true God. Remember at the time, Christianity was the religion of choice. Do you honestly believe that the Founders when writing the Constitution were allowing for the worship of bags of crystals or to Satan. 50 of the 55 Founders were devoutly religious and involved in their respective churches(Founding Fathers, M.E. Bradford). Also the regular media and entertainment arena has had their little catharsis and it's back to business as usual.
If Christ came not to change the law, but to fulfill the law as he stated, then the original precepts within the Old Testament still hold true. If we seek favor in battle, as we should, we should return to some semblance of the faith of our fathers. Just because we have had for the past month a feel good session and maybe a few people return or enter the church, does not mean it should be back to business as usual morally. But apparently that has happened and that is what I fear the most
We still live in a nation that officially condones the muder of not 6,000, but 20,000 Americans per week, in the sanctity of their own mothers' wombs. And for those who make it out alive and go to public school, watch TV, see movies, listen to radio, walk past the magazine racks, well....
It's frightening indeed, to consider the warning/curse that Jesus pronounced for those who choose to offend the little children who would come to Him.
I was hasty in my reaction to this writer's first line. I'm sure he has better sentences further on. :-`
By the same logic, I can support a "just war" in that the opponent is so wicked that fewer people will die if we defeat him than if we allow him to continue.
There is even more argument if you take an Old Testment approach: the old covenant was given to an unconverted people. They were permitted to war, although God made it plain that wasn't necessary, if they trusted Him. Our nation is somewhat like OT Israel in that it is largely non-Christian. If we're not going to trust God to defend us, (we don't) then we certainly need to have the best military forces and be willing to use them.
The counter argument is that the whole argument assumes God will not intervene to defend a nation. This is a false assumption, proven in the Old Testement, and in the 20th century by the various miracles that enabled victory in WW I and WW II. If even 10 people in Sodom had been converted, God would have spared it. I wonder what percentage of people praying for God's protection would have stopped the WTC attack.
Jesus' admonition is to "love your enemy as yourself. Do good to those who hate you, and despitefully use you." The Christian missionaries in Afghanistan epitomize this. The goal of a Christian is the conversion of others, not the preservation of our own lives! This seems to me to be the best approach for Christians. Machivelli's argument that such an approach makes good slaves ignores the possiblility of the conversion of masters and other slaves. This is what happened to the Roman Empire. They persecuted Christians steadily for 300 years, but in the end, without fighting, Christianity became the official religion of the empire.
So I can see both sides of the argument, and I'd rather trust in God to defend me than myself.
There was a fascinating discussion on KKLA a week ago of the Augustine "Jus Bellum". The part that concerns me for our brothers and sisters is the personal "jus im bello" principle of individual conduct in warfare. This issue may apply to our top leaders, including President Bush, and Connie Rice. These people need our prayer.
And there it is. One thing I like about you SO, is that you do have an ethical compass that points true. Our church could use a few more people like you. ;-)
Molon Labe to all opponents, brother.
That is on us. Our hearts need to be set on the harvest; not screaming at the tares.
when the leaders of the nation that are leading us in the war speak to the people of spending time in prayer to God at the nearest mosque, synagogue, or church there is a problem.
The problem here is that the national leaders are leaders to ALL the people. See my comment above. I love my Savior more than anything, but it would still make me nervous for for W to preach the gospel from the Oval Office. Now when he goes back into private life...
I have tried to make it a point at my church to talk to people that identify themselves as visitors. Hopefully, some "lost coins" will be redeemed (Luke 15).
This so true--the churches greatest glory was taking over the mightiest empire the world had seen at that time by feeding widows, caring for the sick, and raising orphans as their own.
Having said that, I still thank G-d for "mighty men of war" like Charles Martel, Prince Vlad of Wallachia, the sailors at Lepanto, and the soldiers at Vienna which crushed the Moslem incursions into Europe.
Have you considered that G-d's Hedge of Protection might sometimes involve armed men (elect and unsaved alike), with the training and will to use those arms?
The case in this passage is the proper response to an insult, or very minor injury (a slap on the face). Not to a threat on one's life, family, or country.
or following the interpretation "thou shalt not kill"
This is correctly translated, "Thou shalt not murder" as has been stated above.
then in the end this may be precisely why your God allows one to sin, but then ask forgiveness.
Shall we then sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.
We are, after all, only human, my friend. Only one, by your lights, has been perfect. And he forgives. Godspeed.
Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.
Forgiviness is no license to sin.
Yes, hence my reference to the old testement. This behavior abounded there, both to the good (miraculous victories, like Gideon's), the mediocre, (the self slaughter of Israel trying to punish the tribe of Benjamin in Judges), and the bad, (Ahab's demonic inspired desire to fight a war, which killed him.) Holding up this behavior to the perfect behavior of Christ, I cannot see myself being a soldier in good conscience. I see the use of armies a choice of imperfect man, not that of God. I hold out for you the examples I used when I applied for conscientious objector status in 1975: 1) God's victory with Jehosaphat--Israel did not march out and army, but singings to praise God's victory. 2) God's promise in Deuteronomy, that Israel would not have to fight the Canaanites, but that God would drive them out little by little using hornets. The fact they didn't do this indicates their lack of faith, not God's failure. 3) God's defeat of Assyria at the gates of Jerusalem--185,000 were killed in the night. (Isaiah 36) God has not grown weaker since then. I see His use of human arms and armies an accomodation of His to our lack of faith, not the goal to which we should aspire.
And, my brother, that I can respect. It is good indeed that our Laws allow for this choice to be made by you; instead of having a system that did not recognize your duty to G-d and force you into hard dilemma in light of Romans 13, and IPeter 2. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.