Posted on 09/10/2010 9:34:15 AM PDT by mbarker12474
One God of Love and Peace: Muslim/Christian Event on Saturday, September 11 Submitted by sdaughtry on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:49am.
St. Thomas Episcopal Church invites you to gather on Saturday, September 11 at 2pm to celebrate and give thanks for our common humanity as brothers and sisters created by one God.
Dr. Imad Damaj of the Virginia Muslim Coalition and the Rev. Susan N. Eaves will read passages from the Koran and the Christian Scriptures that speak of our shared understanding of the God who calls us into community, love of God, and love of neighbor.
Please join us for this occasion at St. Thomas' Episcopal Church, 3602 Hawthorne Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23222.
Let me guess. It was either on a Prius, a Volvo, or a Subaru.
>>Does this mean that our religious institutions are becoming PC?<<
I would suggest that it’s very difficult to find a religious institution today that has clung to truly Biblical truth.
Uh, the Church of England began in 1534 under Henry VIII. Crusades One through Nine occurred between 1095 and 1292. So, there wasn’t an Anglican Church in existence to be on the frontlines then. So you are correct that this Protestant denomination wasn’t there. It is certainly arguable that following the 1700’s the British Empire interacted quite a bit with the muzzie world, and in a very confused fashion. That is, when they weren’t trying to regain the American Colonies through subterfuge and small wars. Instead, with the fall of the Empire post WWII the Brits handed off all of their political world failures to the US, with their built in disasters. And the US continues to reap the harvest of British imperialism. The “special relationship” so often touted is one only the Anglophiles in New England who retain their Tory politics, and it has cost the US quite a bit in human lives. It is time for a new Crusade
1 Kings 18 is an awesome story.
Re post 28
I’m with you 100%. The mushy PC Christians of today are way off Biblical truth.
One other thing. That this “event” is happening in Richmond is particularly distressing to this Southerner. If it was New Jersey it would fit. The Episcopal Church of Virginia must retain some elements of Tory politics in it. It would be interesting to know if this church is part of the diocese in VA that stayed with the Church of England, as regards homos, homo priests, etc. With a woman minister mentioned, I could guess. Remember that every “give” to muzzies is a “take” for them which they retain. There is no quo to any quid given.
These are the NUTJOBS AND KOOKS!
And he was a Christian, was he?
>>And he was a Christian, was he?<<
God Himself, sir, told Joshua not to leave a person alive save for the prostitute who helped them.
You have certainly taken my comment much farther than it explicitly went or, were I asked to clarify, would ever go. I am entirely for military response where such is called for and make no scruple about the fact. I am not saying pacifism is anything but a form of secular suicide, sometimes indulged in by the religious on the premise that they could always say they were martyred.
As to striking pre-emptively in defense of the innocent: it is not moral for Christians to assume an enemy is about to strike and use this as a pretext for striking.
The core instructions are in the Decalogue: thou shalt commit no murder. That does not mean that, if provoked or threatened, you may not kill. It means you may not initiate assault nor may you respond with force far in excess of what was applied to you. The question also does not bring what response those you respond to apply back at you. If they counter-attack, you may counter-attack, and this can continue until someone stops being the first to strike. If you were always second, then you are always assured of having acted morally in a morally gray area.
Of course, if the USA is no longer a Christian nation, then none of this applies and any standard for waging war that appears to suit the fancy of the ruling class would be in order. Is that preferable to you?
Does this help?
So, every generation can use this as a pretext for striking out at any enemy, real or imagined, on the premise that ‘God told me to do that’?
I suspect not. It was after consulting the Umim and Thummim that Joshua knew what his instructions were and he faithfully carried them out. Unless you’ve found that oracle, we have no basis of any kind for being assured that God has spoken on this or any other issue.
Had our Lord and Savior given such instructions (the most He said was that the disciples should go out and buy swords), then the case would be different. He gave no such instruction, so Christians in particular have no ground to assume they can decide who needs to be attacked and how hard. To be morally upright in war, we must wait until we are put in actual danger of being attacked. Even the possibility that putative enemies are gathering weapons is not sufficient cause. They must use them against us for us to have an iron-clad morally upright stance.
Now, given that the USA is not explicitly a Christian nation, for which the Bible is therefore a founding document, these rules are stricter than the US needs to observe, to the extent that the actions can be made to stick. You may make your own choice about how straitly we should hold our nation to Christian moral principles in a pluriform and contentious world that hardly observes any moral order, much less the great Christian one.
You’re my hero.
Perhaps a volvo minivan...
I don’t recall.
God love you.
I’m sure the muslims will find the Christians quite tasty.
There are strict conditions for the legitimate use of military force, including these:
(A good and more detailed summary can be found here (LINK)
Here's where we differ. You said:
"...we may respond, proportionately (which means if a terror bomb is set off in a US city, we could set off an equivalent explosion in a city of the attacking nation, not turn their capital to glass)."
Actually, if an enemy set off a terror bomb in a city, intentionally targeting non-combatants, that would be murder; it would not justify our targeting noncombatants in return, because that would still be murder.
Here's the legitimate response: annihilate their fighters together with all their military assets: wipe put their equipment and supplies, their training centers, their command structure, their communication/transportation networks; crush their ability to carry out aggression.
As for innocents killed collaterally while we are targeting military assets: that's foreseeable and one of the truly ghastly costs of war, but it is not the same as murder.
It is murder, however,if they were killed in a deliberate or an indiscriminate way. "Proportionality" does not mean "planning and carrying out the killing of an equivalent number of innocent persons."
If the enemy tells you blatantly up front "I am going to attack you and kill every last one of you. My religion does not allow me to do anything else. I will rape and kill your children and your wives and I will behead you and any who stand against my religion" Then it's no longer an assumption that he will kill innocents, it's a fact. The only question is "when will he kill".
The only way to protect the innocents is to make him incapable of harming them. That's why we have prisons for people and war for cultures.
The core instructions are in the Decalogue: thou shalt commit no murder. That does not mean that, if provoked or threatened, you may not kill.
Exactly. And we as a people (that is, all non-moslems) are under dire and deadly threat from these satanists called moslems. They will either kill us or enslave us. Their religion leaves them no other options. We must act in self defense and in defense of the innocents.
It means you may not initiate assault nor may you respond with force far in excess of what was applied to you.
Again, I do not find that in the bible. God commanded the children of Israel to utterly destroy His enemies. Why? So that in the future the survivors of those enemies could not corrupt and destroy His people.
Is it moral to eradicate a culture that attacks you and swears to continue attacking you as long as you or they are alive? Yes it is. In fact, it is immoral not to eradicate them.
The question also does not bring what response those you respond to apply back at you. If they counter-attack, you may counter-attack, and this can continue until someone stops being the first to strike. If you were always second, then you are always assured of having acted morally in a morally gray area.
The way to stop the response is to eradicate the problem initially. We know from a simple reading of the koran that the moslem must always war against any non-moslem. They are commanded to fight until we are enslaved or dead. So how many non-moslems must die (and in the case of non-Christians be sent to hell) before we can defend the world against this cult?
Defense of the innocent is never morally gray
Of course, if the USA is no longer a Christian nation, then none of this applies and any standard for waging war that appears to suit the fancy of the ruling class would be in order. Is that preferable to you?
If the USA was no longer a Christian nation then we wouldn't care. If you are satanist anyway you may as well be moslem. Perhaps that explains why the liberals are so pro-moslem. They will side with anything that is anti-Christ
>>So, every generation can use this as a pretext for striking out at any enemy, real or imagined, on the premise that ‘God told me to do that’?<<
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. The position was stated that Christians should be all about love and non combativeness. My position is that it’s not necessarily so. There are times when we need to be assertive.
Allowing Pagans to invade the US and cowering is not Biblical.
*blush*
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.