It is equally vital to avoid eating root crops lest you ingest an innocent, unsuspecting bug of some kind and eat him.
Remember Amalek By M. Gellman
"In Deut. 25:17-19 we read: "Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."
What made Amalek so dastardly was that unlike any other enemy who attacked the Israelites fleeing slavery in Egypt from the front, Amalek attacked the rear. This meant that his soldiers could kill women and children, the elderly and the infirm and in so doing avoid engagement with the soldiers at the front. In this way he could produce maximum carnage and maximum terror. The moral problem the Bible addresses is that this is not warfare, it is the slaughter of innocents--it is terrorism.
Why, I wondered, would God command us to remember the terrorist Amalek? There are other villains in the Bible, but there is no biblical command to remember Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar, or Cyrus. We are commanded only to remember Amalek. I believe this is because the planned and plotted slaughter of innocents even during wartime cannot be condoned and must be remembered as a bright moral line which can never be crossed. Indeed our remembrance of Amalek is combined with a chilling pledge from God that is also unique in the Bible: "The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation "(Exod. 17:16).
Our enemies are just our enemies except if our enemy is Amalek. In that case our enemy is also the enemy of God. Amalek thus becomes the symbol of terrorism in every generation. He is the symbol not of evil but of radical evil.
In our generation Amalek is alive and well and killing the weak ones at the rear of the march. Amalek has attacked the rear of our line of march in Madrid and Bombay, in Jakarta and London, in Haifa and Tel Aviv, in New York and Washington, in a quiet field in Pennsylvania and in a hundred other homes and families”leaving them covered with blood and tears." Yes, one can disagree and debate how Amalek must be fought, but not that Amalek must be fought. One must report and mourn the innocents who are inadvertently killed by our soldiers in our battle against Amalek, but that remembrance must always make the spiritual moral and political distinction that our victims were killed by mistake and Amalek's victims were killed by design."
When you read Hebrews 7, you'll find that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. If Abraham had done anything wrong, right then would have been the time for God to correct him and say, "You shouldn't have done that as a Christian. You shouldn't have taken up arms." But notice what Melchizedek did. Verses 19 and 20 say, "And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all." God was not displeased.
You're assuming that families who are killed in wars do have a promising future.
Case in point: Before we invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban, did young girls and women there have as promising a future as they do now? Were they able to go to school just like the boys? Were they able to learn how to read, to write, to show their face in public?
In addition, prior to March 2003, did children in Iraq have as promising a future under Saddam, Uday and Qussay as they do now or will in the not-too-distant future?
This is why you have to pick and choose wars carefully (if you're even granted the privilege of choice).
Sometimes (many times) the grand benefits of going to war don't reveal themselves until years later. That's just the way it is.
If you can’t differentiate between protecting society from a murdering child rapist and taking an innocent life for the sake of convenience, then you should push for disarming the police.
I’m fine with your position on the war (although you should reconsider applying it to ALL wars).
But you’re forgetting the rights of the unborn. Science tells us that abortion takes a human life. And, contrary to what you say, they are already in this world, too.
This perception is based on an utterly false (and most likely intellectually dishonest) notion of what the "pro-life" position entails.
Do you honestly see no difference between a mature mind capable of making rational decisions and one formed only in the womb?
Though maybe I've been naive.
Your question is flawed as you preface the noun "human" differently. You posted this vanity in the religion forum, so if you want to discuss the religious issues involved in being "pro-life" yet supporting the war where innocent people sometimes are killed, then just say so. Don't beat around the bush. You state in your vanity you are "pro-life" and are "pro-God". Do you believe the Scriptures? If so, then my post #4 above answers your question. If you wish to argue that the unborn is a "potential human", then say so. Don't beat around the bush.
"Someone please tell me how a potential human in early development, not yet manifested in this world is more important than a human being, with a history, a family, a promising future who is killed in war."
The simple answer to your question is that neither one is more important than the other. They both have value and should be protected. The difference between the "potential human" and "the human being" is when one initiates violence against another. When you initiate violence, you lose your rights. The unborn cannot initiate violence and therefore cannot lose their rights... including the right to life.
If you wish to discuss "how can you be 'pro-life' and 'pro-capital punishment'... just let me know. I can show you the Scripture that supports that, too.
I hope this helps answer your question,
FRegards,
DocRock
Jesus was pro-gun, too... check my tagline
what the heck is a potential human life? a sperm...an egg?
Now what point is this? Can science tell us?
Biblically I would agree with you that potential humans in early development are just as valuable as a person killed in a war.
I believe too that Christians should not participate in combat roles in war because wars among men are a result of sin:
Jas 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
Jas 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
Now days there is no such thing as a "Godly" war because the kingdoms of this world are not yet the Lord's. They are, by God's authority, today ruled by Satan.
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
Jesus himself said his kingdom is not of this world...yet:
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
But the good news is that Christ will return and physically rule:
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.
So I think you have a legitimate question if asked from a Christian standpoint. If you're asking from any other standpoint then ultimately the answer is that nobody will recognize that life has value because you've removed God from the equation.
I am a consistent pro-life advocate. I am against abortion, against euthanasia, against the death penalty and against war. I was against the Iraq war when it was in the threat stage, not a very popular position on FR.
However, I would argue that pulling out of Iraq would lead to the killing of millions of Iraqis in the ensuing chaos. When we pulled out of Viet Nam due to its declining support in the US, the result was the slaughter of many times more innocents than would have been killed had we stayed. Advocating pulling out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences is a defacto judgement that several thousand American lives are more important than millions of innocent Iraqi lives. I think we should stay in Iraq until the country is stable enough to prevent chaos on our departure.
The founders of this great Republic gave us the phrase
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"The sequence implies that "life" is more important than one's liberty
and that life is more important than one's pursuit of happiness.
It is not pro-life to ALLOW someone to murder you. That is anti-life.
Therefore, it is pro-life to protect your OWN life from murderers.
Therefore, it is pro-life to wage a war on terror against those who killed 3000 on 9/11.
My ideas on the life of the unborn vs the life of those already born speaks to your first statement of how we really don’t understand the will of God, no matter how hard we try. We are not God, and therefore we are incapable of understanding his perspective on the matter.
The difference doesn’t need to apply to only the victims of war, but all those who die. Their deaths are sad, because they are our friends, family or aquaintances. Their death leaves an absence or a void in the lives of many, and in our worldly perspective, that life seems to have more value than that of an unborn child.
However, scripture tells us that God creates all of us in his likeness. He knows each of us intimately, down to the number of hairs on our heads. Thus, from conception on....this unborn child is known to God, and therefore is as important to him as those of us that have been born. As a follower of God, we are called to love and care for all of God’s children, including those that we may not know yet, but that God has created.
I try to see how limited my perspective must be, in comparison to God’s. I feel that all lives, including those at risk in war zones, or those who are poor, or that may practice other faiths, or those who have made poor choices in their lives are equally valuable to God, and should always be protected and cared for. He has created us all, and loves us all. He offers us all salvation through his son, whether we are criminals or priests, child molesters and terrorists included.
Abortion and war are two separate issues and it is possible to oppose abortion while supporting a war and vice versa. Abortion is always wrong because it is always wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life. An unborn child is an innocent, defenseless human being, and nothing can justify killing such an innocent.
However, wars can either be just or unjust; and it is perfectly moral to support a just war. Many of those who are killed in wars are not innocent. You may be of the opinion that the war in Iraq is unjust and that, therefore, you must oppose it, but someone who believes that it is just may in good conscience support it and still be considered pro-life.