Rousing, emotional start for war protest

[Tubal-Cain]

I certainly did address those issues when I said "excepting for issues of idolotry"

So you should follow the government in everything except idolatry? If the government told you to kill someone unjustly you should do it?

Diet was not a legal matter so that is moot.

The diet was prescribed by the king (Dan 1:5). When Daniel first asked for a different diet the official was scared that he would lose his head if Daniel came out looking worse than the other men (Dan 1:8-10). Clearly, under a monarchy, the king's commands have the force of law.

Pharoahs were considered to be the sons of Ra...and therefore worshipped as "gods"

So Pharoah was a man claiming himself to be a god and accepting worship

Does that count as wicked yet?

The Pharaoh was simply wrong, not wicked. Joseph was never asked to worship Pharaoh and I don't believe he was ever morally compromised.

Your history is kinda messy there, bro. I don't really know you very well so I want to give you the benefit of doubt.

Do mind telling me how old you are?

I'm 25. If you think I've got something wrong regarding Esther or Nehemiah please correct me. I am particularly interested in situations where they were morally compromised and went with the government instead of God's commands.

None of the writers of the New Covenant were seditious. Romans 13 was written in Rome and precisely about Rome.

I'm not claiming that the early Christians were seditious, but they were not always considered perfectly law-abiding citizens by Roman (and Jewish) authorities. I don't believe anyone here is proposing sedition regarding the Iraq War either. We are just stating our opinions and claiming it is permissible to speak out against that which we view as wrong.

Answer me this:

Could Jesus have stopped His execution?

If you say "no" then He is a powerless liar who didn't "lay His life down" for the sin of mankind. If you say "yes" then you have admitted that He submitted to Roman authority because it was the Father's will

Obviously Jesus submitted to his own execution. But this is hardly an example of Jesus going along with the government in opposition to God's will.

Really? And what/where would that be in Paul's day?

In fact...where would that be in world history?

It exists wherever a ruler does not threaten those who do right (Rom 13:3) and punishes those who do wrong (Rom 13:4).

Edited March 20, 2007 by Tubal-Cain

[Tubal-Cain]

I agree, and Romans 14, Paul specifically addresses this issue as I have already stated, so I will not be redundant because you apparently disagree. Specifically, we are not to go against the governing authorities that God has ordained over us. Bible believing Christians have for centuries suffered persecution and death because of their faith in Jesus Christ for refusal to deny Him, from tyrants all over the world. That still does not change the fact that Romans 14 is still applicable to all Bible believing Christians, nor do we manipulate His Word to fit into our theology, or because we don't like what the governing authorities over us do. We pray and make our petitions known to God, and are obedient, and we become active by petitioning our government authorities to show our disapproval over things that vitally concern our Christian faith, such as abortion issues, persecution and discrimination against Christians, etc. We do not become rebellious because we do not like what our governing authorities over us do because of a war.

Let's not forget the Christians who opposed slavery, fought for civil rights, resisted the Nazis, etc. These people often purposely disobeyed the law to make the world a better place. Are you truly able to say that they were all wrong?

God uses who He will to bring about His divine purposes in the affairs of us humans on earth, whether it be Saddam Hussein, Olmert, President Bush, King Abdullah, Tony Blair, Solana, Assad, etc, etc....

So a Christian soldier under Hussein should have fought in the Iraq War against American forces while an American Christian soldier should have fought against the Iraqi army? How do you reconcile this contradiction?

How does God do this? In America, and free countries around the world we vote in elections.

Dan. 2:20 Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

How does he remove tyrants in the world??? Through free people, who take them out, when all else fails. Romans 14.

So any Christian living under a tyrannical regime basically has to wait for free nations to free him? What happens if there were no free people?

He still submitted to the Roman authority, and did not say a Word in His own defense against His accusers, but remained obedient to God, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Undoubtedly, put none of us have been sent to earth to die for mankind's sins. Are there any examples of Jesus submitting to the government and, at the same time, violating God's law? Likewise, for other NT figures?

[buckthesystem]

Unfortunately some people blindly trust the government just like a small child trusts his parents. So they slavishly support the government's political agenda without question.

No offense, buck, but God ordained the government to be over people. That is the way His plan is set up. And God, in his infinite wisdom, knew that war would be necessary and is justified through His Word, because we live in a fallen world, and at this point in time, we have a satanic religion called islam that is trying to dominate the world and force conversions to their death cult with persecution and death to the infidels all over the world. From previous discussions here, I am aware that you completely discard Romans 14 in the same manner that these apostate and Replacement Theology churches sponsoring this anti-war rally in the name of "Christian" throw out the OT and say it is no longer relevant.

"Let every power be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that are ordained of God."

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordances of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

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.

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afaid; 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.

Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."

******************************************************************************

We can either stay the course in Iraq and win this war, or we can fight it here in America, which is sure to come if we cut and run as the peace pacifists and commies from the left would have us do.

And every other nation will be fighting it in their homeland also on a larger scale if our troops leave Iraq before the mission is accomplished because islam will see it as a victory for their cause.

Now, if we did not have the evil of islam, the government of the USofA, with George W. Bush as our commander and chief and leader, and our allied governments would not have to execute wrath upon those evil islamics, now would we?

If you know of a quick fix to the evil of islam, feel free to share them with our President.

comments@whitehouse.gov

tmrfiles, completely aside from the fact that your theory about "government being ordained by God" is so utterly ludicrous that EVERY piece of rationale and logic points to the fact that it is a "load of rubbish", I must point out something that turns the whole theory into a giant contradiction.

If you believe that God has ordained GW Bush to fight a just and holy war, then by the same logic (i.e. Romans 13 doesn't say "only western democratic powers that be") God must have also ordained Saddam Hussein as the "authority" in Iraq. So, therefore, if any American soldiers "resist the power" and so "resist the ordinance of God" and do not fight the Iraqis and so receive "damnation", then so do any Iraqis who "resist the power" of Saddam Hussein.

I will always remember seeing a movie about the American Civil War of the 1860s. The scene was the night before a particular battle and some members of the Union Army were praying to God (who they were absolutely convinced was "on our side") that "we may have minimal losses and win this battle", then it switched to show members of the Confederate army saying and doing the exact same things. I thought God must be "rolling his eyes and throwing his hands up in the air".

If you really believe that "God has ordained governments" and Paul was talking about bureaucrats and politicians when he wrote that, then there is often a conflict of interest. Don't you think it is rather arrogant of man to claim that "God gave him power" under any circumstances?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I would rather the troops be safe and not be put into the situation they are in. If they have to fight, I hope that they are safe, and I hope that they can win their fights.

I would too, but that doesn't stop the necessity to go in. You nor I know the whole reason for us going in. We won't know for decades til its long been over. THats the nature of National security. The fact is that they were needed to do a job and they were sent. I am proud of them and fully support them in what they do, and the war they fight! I would rather though that our leaders would quit playing tiddly winks and just let the marines loose and let them clean house. 1 week of Marine house cleaning and there wouldn't be anymore terrorists to fight there.

What enemy? We took the country! We are protecting the people from insurgents, because that's all that is left! And again, terrorists? I would call them guerillas in this fight. Maybe some terrorists have come over to help defend against America, but Iraq isn't the terrorist hive here.

Incidentally, when the public doesn't know the reasoning for its governement doing things, that isn't necessarily a good thing, especially when it comes to the deaths of thousands of troops and civilians. If we don't know exactly why they are doing something, wouldn't it make sense for us to try and figure it out instead of sit back and agree? Or should we just put trust in our government to be doing good behind our backs?

But I do not support the war, as in the political conflict that involves our troops in the first place. They are seperable, I support one and don't support the other. I support the people being used by the war, but I don't support the reason we have them there.

Riding the fence here, you can't separate their job from them. THat is what they do! Their job is strictly to kill. So if you support them, you suppor their killing!

No, their job is to protect the interests of America. Sometimes that involves killing, sometimes that doesn't. Now, if they are caught in a fight, I hope they survive and win the fight. But I don't want them going into more fights. I don't know how much clearer I can make this fact; you don't have to hate the troops when you hate a war!! It's like love the sinner, hate the sin, love the homosexual, hate homosexuality. Those are parallels to the soldier/war scenario. Does that make sense?

War is 'amoral'?? Where did you get this idea? War is NEVER the best option. War and violence is the failure of diplomacy and politics. It is when human thinking breaks down from rationality and ends in brute force.

Where did i get it? Its just the very definition of war. Has no morality whatsoever. It just is. It is the last option. We went into iraq as the last option after 12 long unproductive years of diplomacy, and the raping of the iraqi people by the UN.

Personally the next ones we need to toss out of their hiding holes are the UN leaders. Number one being kofi and his sons who pocketed millions of dollars off the iraqis during that 12 years.

Ask any veteran of war whether what happens in war is good or evil. Even a just war is filled with evil deeds. War was not the last option in Iraq. We could have done much much more, our hands weren't tied behind our backs on this one. I find your phrasing funny though, the UN was raping the Iraqi people? Really, I never knew.

Now, there are times where war breaks out because one side cannot be reasoned with, and has poor intentions for others. There are extremists. There are things called "just wars". Just wars are NOT good, they are still bad. But they represent the last resort. I personally do not view this Iraq conflict as a "just war".

I am amazed with your idea of war being neither good nor bad. If I could pick violence or diplomacy, I would pick diplomacy every chance I could.

I don't know why your amazed, War is a tool just like diplomacy. Morality is just not a part of it.

War is just a sugar coated word that inspires heroism and valor to come to mind, when really all it is is justification for mass killing. I love how World War I was "the war to end all wars". People saw for the first time how much destruction man was capable of on a global scale. Unfortunatly, we just can't seem to keep our hands off of others with whom we have disagreements. War should never be used as diplomacy, it should only be used in active self defense and as a final, last, resort to any conflict. It shouldn't be a pick and choose diplomatic tactic.

[nebula]

Well, it seems the topic got veered off course . . . which does tend to happen a lot, but that's OK.

Anyway, i noticed my question never got answered, so I would like to ask it again:

Let me respond by throwing a question back at you - since the "Christian" protest began in the National Cathedral . . .

When was the last time the Gospel was actually preached at the National Cathedral? (I was sure pulling my hair out at the nationally televised services from there when the bishop or whatever he's called didn't even speak the name of Jesus in prayer!)

I am not familiar with the National Cathedral so I will not comment on it. Second, I doubt everyone attending for the anti-war protest was a member of the National Cathedral. I refuse to judge people who I know nothing about. My point is that I can't imagine there being much debate about whether the Iraq War met the definition of a just war that has been a part of Christianity for centuries. Regardless of whether the protesters fit your definition of a Christian their beliefs about the Iraq War seem consistent with just war theory.

The claim was made that these protesters were doing God's work.

So, let me ask you this way - what is God's work?

Second question . . . what denominations do you believe are being represented on this Board?

I'm sure there are many denominations who have posters on this board. However, most seem to be American which will result in quite a bias in this case.

<snip>

Are you aware of any denomination that was/is officially for the Iraq War? If not then it seems that there is little debate on the matter in Christendom.

It sounds to me like you have judged us as being un-Christian.

[Burning_Ember]

I'm having nightmare with quote tags. I'll finish my post later.

[Eliyahuw]

So here I am, your target now, type your nasty hateful replies and then tell me about how you are the true christian. May God bless you and bring you peace.

I am so glad you are in the same league as God. Your ability to determine the state of ones soul must come in handy.

[ted]

All,

I know there is great passion in this subject, but if possible, please keep the personal stuff out of the posts.

I know, I know, I'm guilty of the same things some times, but I try.

What works for me is to understand that there is a point to stop and consider your words before hitting the "submit" button. Also, there comes a point where you have done your best to state your points, and then things become stagnant.

Try to remember that the Love and work of Christ should trump all, and if there is anything that you want to type that may hinder that, it is perhaps better left unwritten.

Peace,

t.

[Axxman]

Irregardless, it is doubtful that the death toll will top the 2 million mark set by Saddam during his regime.

Hmm, and exactly where do you get that 2 million figure?

Saddam attacked Iran...approx. 1 million dead.

Anfal campaign against the Kurds...100,000 dead

1991 Shia/Kurdish uprising...30,000 to 60,000 dead

Genocide of Marsh Arabs...approx. 400,000 dead

Internal imprisonment...300,000 Iraqi citizens dead.

These are just the BIG numbers we know about. All figures are approximate of course.

[nebula]

Try to remember that the Love and work of Christ should trump all, and if there is anything that you want to type that may hinder that, it is perhaps better left unwritten.

As I was asking before -

What is the work of God?