Absolutely. This never happened.
Posted on 05/25/2005 7:43:18 AM PDT by Revenge of Sith
ok, the verses you are referring to are where God has sanctioned war, using his army as an extension of his arm, to deal out his wrath and justice on the wicked. these are people that can be saved.
the verses i refer to, are for when dealing with people that have such a deep seeded hatred of the children of God, as part of their religion, that there is nothing for them.
ah, the beatitudes. the beatitudes are personal. HOWEVER, there are different rules as set down for a government. Romans 13 deals with the government. that a government should be the hand that deals out justice (goes to war) on a national or international level. i don't recall seeing any rules of engagement anywhere in the new testament, so i assume that the OT rules of engagement are still law.
at least that's how i interpret it. please feel free to send me any verses that would dispute my interpretation. i know only what i have been taught, but am always looking for new teachers.
Your interpretation of the verses you noted makes a huge assumption that your enemy's children are incapable of anything but hatred of you and therefore must be slain. I think you are mistaken. The chapter is discussing the practice of dealing with one's enemies during war. Destroy your enemy by killing the men and abolishing their practices. Claim for yourself the women, children, cattle, and all your enemy's treasure.
IMHO that's how the libs see their "reality"....by relating fantasy to fact. To them fantasy is their reality. They don't allow facts and reasoning to cloud their feelings.
then it seems that the only point of contention we are left with is whether or not the children can be saved.
my guess is that we will find out in years to come. because we both know that bush won't wipe out a nation, so we'll see what happens when the children grow up.
Yes. I think it is a gross error to unconditionally assume that your enemy's children cannot be saved and therefore must be killed.
my guess is that we will find out in years to come. because we both know that bush won't wipe out a nation, so we'll see what happens when the children grow up.
I think there is enough evidence in past conflicts to put forth examples of potential outcomes that are both positive and negative.
I've enjoyed your input and look forward to more. For now, however, I'm off to do a little work. Have a good day.
Is Paul Craig Roberts really Maureen Dowd?
I've never seen them in the same room.
Absolutely. This never happened.
Given a Christian's duty to rightly appointed authority as laid out in Romans 13, how is a Christian to conduct himself in a war between two or more Christian governments-acknowledging that the reasoning behind it might be open to doubt, and thus, honestly supportable under the obligation to authority as gleaned from Romans 13?
please feel free to send me any verses that would dispute my interpretation.
I'll reason from the verses at hand alone (specifically Romans 13). Answer the above question, and we can proceed logically from there to the right way for a Christian to conduct war. But the question above must be answered, before we can move to any theoretical war between Christians and Pagans.
i don't know if i've answered your question or if i've just become repititious...
the way i've read it was, romans 13 tells us that we are to follow our leader where he directs us. our leader is supposed to pray first (Deut 20:1-4, 1 Sam 30:8, Psalm 108:12-13, and if you know the story of jehosophat(sp?) he fasted and prayed and LISTENED when the lord spoke, and his armies turned on themselves) and do what he is told. hopefully Bush prays and listens.
as far as rules of engagement, as i interpret it, Deut 20:12-13 is in reference to other christian nations and nations not religiously bent on conquor and convert. its the national equivalent of punishing an unruly child who won't listen. a little swat to get their attention, then make them listen.
when its a nation where the children are raised hating us (as a couple of articles regarding the schools over there depict) there is little hope for them. they will continue their hatred and keep coming back as they grow and constantly be bringing us war.
if ti makes a difference, i'm not condoning the wholesale slaughter of women and children by the army sweeping and gunning them down, i am, however an advocate of dropping a nuke.
He is more like Luke Skywalker, the reluctant hero who sets everything straight. ;-)
if ti makes a difference, i'm not condoning the wholesale slaughter of women and children by the army sweeping and gunning them down, i am, however an advocate of dropping a nuke.
Yes, nuclear weapons make things so much less personal don't they. I suppose then that your advocacy would collapse if we did not have such weapons.
if the city surrenders as in verse 11 then we accept surrender and try to teach them what is right. but we both know that the islamic nation won't, for they think that their god has sent them to kill all of us.
nuclear weaponry makes this kind of genocide much easier on our (collective) conscience, but without this technology there would have to be a much tighter discipline of soldiers to commit themselves with this kind of resolve. i do not know if this kind of warfare would even be possible in this society.
i wish i had been able to ask german soldiers 60 years ago -or any soldier that has be ordered to commit genocide- how they were able to send people into their deaths. does it come to those soldiers merely following orders, were they fanatics that truly believed that this was right, or were they of the (atrocious-imo) mind set that enjoyed the killing?
i believe that we've given them plenty of chances. we have take war to their homes and they have run. we have followed them and they have run again. all the time committing more atrocities in the name of their God. perhaps its not been an organized fight, but it has all been done with the same justification. imo our wars have become too humane. if you punish a child with a rod they will learn, if you punish with a feather they will forget the punishment and continue to do wrong.
Are you kidding? Seriously, you don't think genocidal warfare is possible in this day and age? How can you even say that and then mention the Nazis in the next sentence, are you that much of a moral relativist?
imo our wars have become too humane.
Warfare has become too clean and easy, nothing to do with humane. The guillotine is a relatively clean and easy way to kill someone, and many viewed it as a human way to kill serous defaulters. But, can it be argued that the Terror of the French Revolution was, in any way shape or form, humane? Other than the technical developments of warfare the only major difference between the ways modern secular states fight war, and the way Christian counties used to, is that ever since the introduction of conscription by democracies, warfare has become an affair of society in toto. The stander surrender condition offered is the ridiculous unconditional type. Modern warfare is the most clean from a technical point of view, and the most barbaric from a philosophical one, as it is tribal in nature.
By your logic attacking the civilization of the enemy through the killing of none combatants means that the terrorist are theoretically justified in their actions. After all, a terrorist is just a thoroughly democratized fighter.
I say let the Jews and Pagans fight they way they will, but Christians are called to a greater honor. The ideal (though lamentably not always the practice) of the Christian warrior is succor to none combatants, and gentlemanly respect to his enemies.
"... The stander standard surrender condition offered is the ridiculous unconditional type..."
"...Christian warrior is succor to none non combatants..."
There are others I for sure. I apologize.
when i said i didn't know if we could do it, i meant "could our soldiers do it up close and personal?" as you said, its easy to say "drop a nuke".
the reason i brought up the nazis, is because they knowingly commited genocide, and they would have stood there and watched. i am curious to know how *anyone* can do that. my point on that was wondering if there was a specific type of soldier (ultimate fanatic, extreme predjudice, some sort of mentally twisted type, or just an order follower) unless it was the last type, its easy to see how they justified it to themselves, its the last one that i would like to hear from, the ordinary guy.
and when i say humane, its the idea that the bomber goes thru drops a bomb, blows some stuff up, then his buddy comes behind in a bomber dropping food and medicine, that a significant amount ends up in the aggressors hands anyway.
The answer to your question is simple. They were human, and as such capable of committing evil, and compounding it with a perversion of the intellect which allowed them to rationalize it.
It is easy to say "drop a nuke" and that is what makes it all the more terrible. If you think genocide is an appropriate response to Muslim terrorism I say you should be the one who has to do it. Further, if you want it done, you should be forced to do it with as much honesty as possible. I don't care if you would prefer to simply nuke them, if you are unwilling to put a bullet in each and every Muslim child's head yourself, then you're not only obscene but a hypocrite on top. If you support such a policy you're no better then the terrorists, indeed you'd be quite a bit worse.
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.