Methinks Jesus might have a beef with us if we let the Taliban keep oppressing, raping, and murdering its people, including its women.
Second, although I don't pretend to hear from God on this issue, one CANNOT dismiss the fact that Christian leaders (including the Pope) can receive instructions similar to those given the Children of Israel. I don't think Pope Urban DID, but prophecy and Word of Knowledge/Wisdom are ongoing, and cannot be either dismissed or discounted as a possibility.
Third, the author uses Romans correctly, then INCORRECTLY strips it of its meaning with Old Testament references. The fact is that the "state does not bear the sword for naught," and part of bearing that sword may INDEED be foreign intervention that secures one's borders. Jesus did NOT chastize Peter for slicing off the attacker's ear as a "pre-emptive strike." He corrected him for the TIMING.
Fourth, if protecting the unborn, because they are "innocent" is a commandment, it is just as necessary to protect the adult innocent from foreign attacks. Therefore, if you know through INTEL an enemy is going to strike, you are perfectly justified in striking first to prevent deaths.
Fifth, the Old Testament principles the author DOES cite justify killing ALL of one's enemies in order to prevent revenge attacks. Do you, Ada, support this?
This is just another attempt by the communist left, masquerading as "Libertarians," to hate America. And, as usual, it fails.
I apologize for the lengthly post, it was an e-mail I received yesterday, and I did not feel there was any justice done by editing it.
My point of my post above is this: It is DANGEROUS to apply specific commands given to the NATION of Israel to OUR nation. WE have NO such promise; Israel STILL DOES.
Revelation 19:11: And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He [Christ] who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war."
Romans 13:1-7: (1) "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. . . . (4) . . . But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. . . ."
Psalm 89:14: "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Thy throne."
Proverbs 28:5: "Evil men do not understand justice."
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Decuteronomy 17:2-13: "If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the Lord your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the lord your God . . .(7) you shall purge the evil from your midst. . . . (11) According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they delcare to you, to the right or the left. . . . (12) . . . you shall purge the evil. . . ."
The God of the Jews and Christians is a just God, not a pacifist. He requires justice be done, brought by Himself or through humans. We are engaged in a "just-war" against the terrorists. Not only does God expect those who have done wrong be brought to justice, but those who harbor the wrongdoers share in the terrorists' guilt. The Taliban, in Afghan, have not purged the evil from their midst. Rather, they have given aid, shelter, protection. Therefore, they have condemned themselves. They are just as guilty as having committed the evil acts. God says we cannot serve two masters. Either we are followers of God or we are not. If we follow Him, we obey him. If we obey him, then we, within our bodies and minds, are to purge evil from within our own selves. Carrying this over from self to country, in God's eyes, if a country harbors evil, it is to purge that evil from its midst or it shares in the guilt, and the just punishment, of the evil doers it protects.
Afghanistan has been ruled by the Taliban which has given aid and protection to evil, rather than purging the evil. It now suffers the consequences of comforting evil doers.
If a Christian government has no hope of defending against attack, it should surrender, knowing that Christianity will survive. 11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one.
Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?
The Taliban gained power through victory in a civil war. This is the same way that the current federal system in the United States was established.
God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule.
Does this mean the Taliibabies had the same backing from God as the USA?
Okay, Atheist appeaser, justify these inconsistencies. And also stop beating around the bush, and state uncategorically that we should do absolutely nothing to retaliate for the attacks perpetrated against us, and simply hope the terrorists will stop trying to kill as many Christians and Jews as they possibly can.
The U.S. War In Afghanistan and Just War Theory
The article isn't terribly long and may be worth a read. From this and another article I read there, I sensed that they reluctantly came to the conclusion that this is not a just war, but would prefer to have reached a different conclusion, but I may be reading too much into what they say.
The author has taken a promise given to the NATION of Israel and applied it to a 'Chistian Nation'. I am trying to figure out where the author has decided for himself that there even EXISTS such an nation, much less trying to apply specific promises given to Israel to US? If we are a 'christian nation' does that mean Timothy McVey is a christian? Al Sharpton? The REv. Jackson? OJ Simpson? You cannot apply a term 'christian nation'...it doesn't work. NEITHER can one apply that ALL Jews are Spiritual Israel. And furthermore you cannot take a promise given to NATIONAL Isael and apply it to US. The author is not being honest with the text given (Isaiah 31:1-3).
I find it fascinating that LewRockwell would actually endorse this article by posting in his website. There is so much here that contradicts the principles Lew advocates. But, I guess, when one is desperate to defend his positions, any argument will do. That said, let's examine some of the claims this minister alleges to be found in the bible. This is critical since his concluding paragraphs that this war in Afghanistan cannot be supported by Christians is supposedly based upon these scriptures.
I'll accept McKenzie's position that pacificism is not a Christian option.
McKenzie claims there are principles that control the civil government in it's exercise of the right to defense. Let's examine his points and the bibilical basis claimed by him.
McKenzie's first point is that: "War is only justified for defense." and he bases it upon Romans 13: 1-8 Before we accept that, we should examine the scriptures.
(1)."Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
(5) "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."
There's nothing there about defensive war. It says do what government officials tell you to do. BTW, I only quoted 1 and 5, but feel free to consult your own bible to see if there is anything relevent there. At this point one must wonder if Lew really supports such uncompromising obedience to government authority or if he accepts that government, being ordained by God, can do no wrong? If you apply this scripture, Christians have no choice but to support the war.
McKensie then claims in "2.The idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures." And: "We should not use war to win people for the gospel. (We should be honest and admit that the crusades were a mistake, however well-intentioned the crusaders may have been)."
I know of no one who would object to his argument that God granting the land of Canaan to the Jews is a special case not relevent to Afghanistan, but I can't help but point out that if one accepts this, then the only thing one can condemn Israel for is not driving out all who do not accept the Jewish God. Does LewR really think the Israelis should kill all Palestinians? And, just who is claiming we are in Afghanistan to win the people there to the Gospels? Are we dropping Bibles there?
His next point is "3.A Christian nation must not have a large "standing army". But Deut 17:16 says nothing of the sort. It says: "The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." This is an admonition not to return to Egypt. Even if you accept the claim that a king should not have large numbers of horses, it says nothing about the size of the rest of the Army. Last I checked, we've pretty much given up on horse cavalry and chariots anyway. Now 1 Kings 10:26-29: only describes the number of King Soloman's chariots and horses. Check it out yourself, there is not the slightest thing that can be taken that God was dissatisfied with Soloman's 1400 chariots and 20,000 horses. Guess those aren't large numbers.
Then: "4.The defence force should take the form of a part-time local militia." Deut 20:5 says: "The officers shall say to the army: "Has anyone built a new house and not dedicated it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may dedicate it." How can anyone claim this is God's instruction that the army should be a part-time militia is a stretch.
McKenzie's next point is: "5.The militia should be up made of volunteers." and that certain men should be excused from battle. If your read the scripture cited(Deut 20:5-9), it doesn't say that everyone should be a volunteer only that those who have pressing obligations that would limit their effectiveness should be excused. The nature of these obligations is limited. If you think this means that only anyone has a right to opt out, refer to Romans 13 (above) about obeying government authority.
Then McKenzie claims: "6.The army of a Christian nation will not have offensive weapons (Deut 17:16)." But, we've already examined that scripture and it says nothing about acquiring offensive weapons.
Then McKenzie claims: "7.Only the civil government has authority to declare war. Individuals or companies do not have the authority to commit a nation to war. Any declaration of war must be in accordance with correct legal processes (Deut 20:10)." But this scripture says: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace." Where are declarations of war or legal processes mentioned? BTW, wasn't it LewR that advocated settling things with Afghanistan by Letters Of Marque, contracting with private companies, and bounty hunters?
Then McKenzie claims: "8.War should always be the last resort. Before declaring war, the civil government should try every means possible to obtain peace (Deut 20:10)." We've already examined this verse and there is nothing about "every means possible to obtain peace", is there?
Then McKenzie says: "A Christian nation should always seek God's will before declaring war." I know of no Christian who would walk across the street, let alone declare war, without seeking God's Will. But these scriptures are not about "presumption" but about disobeying God specific instructions and it's consequences.
Then McKenzie claims: "A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance to win." citing Luke 14: 31-32. True, Jesus said these things, but he also mentioned the futility of starting to build a tower without first figuring the cost. Jesus concluded by saying: 33. "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." Clearly, this is an admonition that one cannot go halfway in following Jesus and has little to do with whether a Christian nation should declare war in any circumstance.
I'll skip over McKenzie's arguments in favor of pacificism since he says that isn't Christian. However, one wonders how such statements as this: "If a nation is unable to defend itself, all is not lost; God will have his way in the end." is not pacifism.
Then McKenzie makes this claim: "11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one. A good example of this is Gideon, who defeated a large Midianite army with 300 unarmed men (Judges 7). However, this promise should not be used as a justification for foolish wars." I don't disagree that it is better to be with God than against HIM, I would point out that if one really believes a small army can be justified this way, then there is no need for an army of any size, or a police department, or a fire department. After all, if your nation is conquered, if you are murdered, or if your house burns down, it's only God's will. And, I guess no one should plant a field either since God will provide the food if it is HIS will.
Then McKenzie claims that: "12.Total war, as it has been practised in this last century, is prohibited by the Bible. Those engaged in war are prohibited from attacking and damaging the land (Deut 20). The same protection would apply to women and children. Non-combatants should also be protected." If you read Deut 20 you'll find that after offering peace to a city, if the city surrender, then they inhabitants became slaves. If the city did not surrender, then the men were to be killed and the women and children were to become "plunder". If one applies this to Afghanistan, then we would be right in killing every man there and taking the women and children and livestock as plunder.
Then in "13.This prohibition makes nuclear war unacceptable. Nuclear weapons would harm the land and non-combatants. The same principle would rule out many modern weapons. Only weapons which can be targeted at combatants or other weapons can be used by a Christian nation." Of course, if one applies McKenzie's citation of Deut 20, then the combatants can be killed and their women taken as plunder. How does this limit weaponry? Oh, I get it, if we use nukes then there's no women to plunder.
Point "14.Military alliances are common in the modern world. However these are forbidden over and over again in the Bible. A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3). Therefore, defence alliances are not an option for a Christian nation." Is ours a Christian nation, living in accordance with a covenent with God? I tell you what, I'll give up the alliances if everyone else is willing to live in covenent. And, I want some plunder too. Takers?
"15.God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. (Acts 17:26). No nation has the authority to invade another nation to change its government (even if it is evil)." See 11 above.
Also in 15. "Most attempts by great powers to establish "better" government by force in other nations have failed, because the spiritual forces that control the nation have not been defeated (Dan 10:13)." This passage in Daniel describes a supernatural conflict between an angel messenger of God and an evil spirit. It does not apply to nations.
Now his conclusions (I've corrected what I think is a typo.) "The current war in Afghanistan does (not) fit with these principles." and "The methods of warfare being used in Afghanistan cannot be justified either. Bombs that destroy the land and can kill and maim civilians are forbidden by Deuteronomy 20." and "The alliance with the ungodly men of the Northern Alliance is also contrary to the Scriptures."
His principles have been shown not to be consistent with the scriptures he quotes, Deut 20 contains no such prohibitions, and I'll give up the alliance in exchange for a covenential nation (and some woment to plunder).
Romans 13:1-8
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
13:5 Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
How did you arrive at your summation?
Where would they get the horses? Egypt. This probably more a command to aviod contact with them, as perhaps He did not want other things coming back----such as the usual worship of other gods, etc.
See previous post.
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, [that] all the people [that is] found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, [even] all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities [which are] very far off from thee, which [are] not of the cities of these nations.
First off, 20:10:
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it
This clearly describes an attack against a foreign city; not the defense of one.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it
Again, you won't find too many defenders besieging a city; this is clearly offensive in nature.
20:15--Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities [which are] very far off from thee, which [are] not of the cities of these nations.
.....far off from thee-----definitely implies an attack on a city on foreign soil.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
3:1To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;
3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
3:6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Herein always lies the hard part.
14:31 ,font color=red>Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
This is a statement given more as a parable, if one reads the surrounding verses.
You had better be prepared to give up everything; that is what is being spoken of here.