Then you promise us perpetual war because what you advocate is total extermination. Now, if the plan is to defeat the rogue states that are Muslim and which adhere to the Koranic injunction to destroy or convert, then we have an agreement: I agree that such states are a permanent threat to security, even within the Islamic world. But even there, the project of conquering every active Muslim state is a huge one. And besides, it will not be possible to eliminate every Muslim. Even the Black Plague only killed a third of humanity and that is probably the record for human death from a single cause.
Beleg: But we still don’t strike first.
John O: So you continue to advocate sacrificing innocent lives and souls to hell. Their blood is on your hands.
That is irresponsible. I do not suggest simply lying down and dying, which is what your post implies. I argue that we are not to simply launch a crusade on the premise that nits breed lice (a quote from an American general while fighting the American Indians, if memory serves). Once attacked, we respond with vigor and full intention to conquer the attacker and reduce the attacker's ability to attack again, if not convert that attacker from 14th Century Islam to 21st Century Christianity. That is always a good choice for anyone (it's just not an easy one intellectually). Does this mean that there will be initial casualties? Probably, but that means that we all stand up and prepare, so that we do not permit the enemy another chance to attack us on the sly. Beyond that, we play God to say we are unilaterally in the right and may dispose of others as we deem fit.
Just not biblical. Thomas Aquinas may have had some very good writings. But they are not scripture.
By this I am beginning to infer that you mean "not Old Testament" when you say "not biblical". You are free to suggest NT quotes which support your position. I'm coming up empty on that. As I have said, the closest I can find is Luke 22:35,38-39. If we agree that Jesus is the Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father of the same substance and fully sharing the full Godhead with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then we ought to be ready to take His word for what policy we should pursue as Christians, yes? And His prime dictum was that in the Kingdom of God which He proclaimed, the First Commandment is that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. He said the Second was like unto it: we shall love our neighbors as ourselves. I take that to mean that we begin our contact with the presumption of good intention.
It does not mean we hold that presumption regardless of how others treat us, because as I pointed out in my first post in this conversation, we know our neighbor because he shows us mercy. Not much mercy being handed out by Muslims, so they are forfeiting their status as neighbors we presume to be of good will. Hence, we prepare for war against them. When they strike, and I believe they intend to strike soon, we strike back, as hard as can be justified.
Of course, as I've pointed out, the USA is founded on Christian principles, it is not ruled by Christian theocrats nor governed directly by Biblical principles. If the decision is made that an enemy poses a clear and present danger and that attack is imminent, then the US is probably free to attack. The stance will not be impeccably moral but only from a Christian perspective. Liberals use our Christian principles against us all the time. I'm sure they'd be very happy to use them against the US, though it would be only marginally appropriate.
And these founders fought against the british, firing the first shot in the revolutionary war.
It is my recollection that the British landed soldiers in the colonies, established barracks in private homes, spied on the inhabitants, passed laws particularly onerous to colonials which did not apply to anyone else, forcibly contracted trade deals which intentionally impoverished colonial traders and generally looted the landscape and the populace. I am aware that colonials then began plotting and some amassed weaponry, which they tried to secrete. The British found out about this and decided to confiscate the weapons. A certain Paul Revere and his companions found out and warned the colonials, who then massed to defend the armory. The British arrived and tried the confiscation. Somebody fired on somebody at that point. Is this what you mean by the "founders...firing the first shot"? If so, it looks a lot more like my principle of playing your enemy into firing first (by breaking their own law about possession of personal firearms in order to confiscate weapons they decided were a threat to their rule). I'd say that was shaky ground to base a policy decision on if granting that firing the first shot usually makes one the culpable one.
Beleg->Then you promise us perpetual war because what you advocate is total extermination.
Welcome to reality. We are in a religious war that will only end when the last moslem dies. Why? Because we want it that way? Of course not. But because their scriptures COMMAND it to be that way.
It will either be extermination of them or extermination of us. Islam is not compatible with any other belief system. They cannot coexist. Their scriptures do not allow it.
Now, if the plan is to defeat the rogue states
This is not a war of country against country. It is a war of culture (Western civilization as formed by Judeo-Christian thought) and islam. It doesn't matter if the islamic states wage war on us at all. In fact, none of them have. What matters is that the islamics are waging war on us.
And besides, it will not be possible to eliminate every Muslim.
How many Ra worshippers do you know? How many who are alive worship Zeus? Molech? the gods of ancient babylon? Not many are there? These cultures (religions) have been exterminated thus proving that it can be done.
Beleg: But we still don’t strike first.
John O: So you continue to advocate sacrificing innocent lives and souls to hell. Their blood is on your hands.
b->That is irresponsible. I do not suggest simply lying down and dying, which is what your post implies.
No. You are suggesting letting our countrymen lay down and die while we do nothing to save them even though we have the power to do so. We can either strike first and eliminate the problem or we can let our people die. I'd rather we defend ourselves and prevent the needless deaths
Once attacked, we respond with vigor and full intention to conquer the attacker and reduce the attacker's ability to attack again, if not convert that attacker from 14th Century Islam to 21st Century Christianity. That is always a good choice for anyone (it's just not an easy one intellectually).
Other than waiting for our people to die you are on the right track. Eliminate the moslem and you end the war. Ann Coulter had it right "Conquer their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". It's the only way to win.
Beyond that, we play God to say we are unilaterally in the right and may dispose of others as we deem fit.
If you do not believe that Christianity is right then I suggest you read your bible more often. Christians are the ONLY ones who are right. (By the grace of God)
john o->Just not biblical. Thomas Aquinas may have had some very good writings. But they are not scripture.
By this I am beginning to infer that you mean "not Old Testament" when you say "not biblical".
I know of no book in the old testament or in the new testament authored by Thomas Aquinas. Therefore his writings are not biblical. They are not scripture
If we agree that Jesus is the Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father of the same substance and fully sharing the full Godhead with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then we ought to be ready to take His word for what policy we should pursue as Christians, yes? And His prime dictum was that in the Kingdom of God which He proclaimed, the First Commandment is that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. He said the Second was like unto it: we shall love our neighbors as ourselves. I take that to mean that we begin our contact with the presumption of good intention.
What kind of love are you demonstrating to your neighbor if you have the power to prevent them from being ruthlessly murdered by satanists and you choose not to do it. "Sorry neighbor, but you'll just have to die at the hand of these anti-christians who have promised to kill or enslave us all because I refuse to get my hands dirty and keep you safe". I call that hatred of your neighbor, there is no love in it.
If your neighbor is threatened, you are to step in and defend them.
we know our neighbor because he shows us mercy.
No. We know our neighbor when WE show mercy to them. The good Samaritan was a neighbor to the mugged man because the SAMARITAN showed mercy to him. The scripture NEVER states that the mugged man was a neighbor to the Samaritan.
If we refuse to show mercy to those around us who are threatened with death and enslavement then we are refusing to be their neighbor.
When they strike, and I believe they intend to strike soon, we strike back, as hard as can be justified.
So even though you believe they are going to kill the people around us (Who we should be neighbors to) you sit on your hands and let the innocents die rather than defend them.
Liberals use our Christian principles against us all the time.
Like by saying we cannot preemptively defend ourselves. We've lost an awful lot of good people that way. A huge number just to the moslems. We put our men in harms way and say they cannot fire until fired upon. We have sentenced our fighting men to be targets rather than soldiers.
I'd say that was shaky ground to base a policy decision on if granting that firing the first shot usually makes one the culpable one.
I do not grant that firing the first shot makes one culpable. Firing the first shot in most situations makes one wise. Especially in cases of self defense such as we find ourselves in need of from the moslems.