WN: USS Enterprise joins two other U.S. carrier groups in Persian Gulf

[JustinM]

quote forrestkc: "I am not even sure what to make of all of this. The fact is, it takes far more courage to not resort to violence in the face of oppression and injustice than it does to pick a gun up. "

So, when you see someone about to gun down, say a nun, it takes more courage to stand by and let it happen, then to do something to try and prevent it? Or, it takes more courage to stand by and watch a student get run down by a tank, when there were thousands of people that could've stood with him?

On a personal level, yes it takes bravery to stand by your convictions and allow God's will be done.

On a national level, it's our government's responsibility to prevent that kind of oppression and injustice from ever occurring.

Those people that died unjustly, died because of a failure of their government to provide justice and protection for them.

[forrestkc]

I am sick and tired of some people on the left trying to paint Him as a pacifist, just because it fits their personal politics.

When did I say that Jesus is a pacifist? Do you not realize that there is a difference between choosing pacifism and preferring non-violence?

Pacifism is non-confrontation. Non-violence is confrontation without resorting to violence. The life of Jesus is not an example of pacifism, it is an example of non-violent confrontation.

Do the battles of Megiddo tell you anything about His thoughts on war? Blood will flow for hundreds of miles and be up to 4 feet deep, because of all the people He will slaughter in the final confrontation. What about all the people that get slaughtered before He returns, where it will take several years for them all to be buried and all their weapons will be used as fuel for a few years?

If you are in the minority of Christians that actually think Revelations depicts real and literal future events instead of being metaphorical, then you can argue that in the end times, God will be very violent. However, even then, it would be hard to argue that our current actions fit into that.

None of us are saying, let's attack this peaceful country and plunder them. Iran is anything but peaceful and developing weapons of massive death and desruction. It'd be different if say, Holland was developing WMD's they are a pretty peaceful nation, but Iran has made no attempt to hide their intentions of destroying Israel, a country that has a population of more than 7 million people. Preventing the annihilation of those people was justified twice last century and perhaps again this century. (The ends justify the means, though we didn't go to war for Israel's sake, if we hadn't there'd be no Jewish people left.)

If you don't concede that war is justifiable to prevent another holocaust, be it Isrealis or Europeans or Americans, then I've got nothing else to say to you on this topic. Maybe you like playing the odds and calculating that if terrorists were to get WMD's and use them against the US, the odds are likely in your favor that you could live through those attacks. What about the millions of others that may not?

That is the ultimate purpose of having 3 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. The US government knows a lot more about the danger we are in than we do, I think it's safe to say that if we didn't need those carriers there, they wouldn't be. It costs millions of dollars a day to operate just 1 carrier group. With the USS Enterprise carrier group joining the "tea party" we've got the strike capability to level Iran several times over.

I am not even arguing that we should not attack Iran. I am saying that I am sick of some people wanting to throw up Jesus as a banner for every military action. I do think that we have plenty of time before Iran is anywhere near being a nuclear power, and I do think that there is no reason to rush to war right now. Moreover, I do think that war is justifiable to prevent another holocaust. However, we are not at the point where we need to fear another holocaust just yet. Iran is still years from developing its first weapon. Not weeks, not months, years. So we have time.

[JustinM]

quote forrestkc: "If you are in the minority of Christians that actually think Revelations depicts real and literal future events instead of being metaphorical, then you can argue that in the end times, God will be very violent. However, even then, it would be hard to argue that our current actions fit into that."

If Revelation is allegory, then so is Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and the rest. If you believe the bible is allegory, then, Christ didn't really exist, it was a metaphor for how humans should live and He was a ficticious character in a Poetry book.

Maybe minority Christians in your church believe Revelation is allegory, but answer this, if Damascas were to disappear as a city in your lifetime, will you still believe that Revelation is allegory?

Because Isaiah makes such a prophecy and some of those prophecies fit in with John's Revelation.

Do you believe in the Prophecies that foretold the coming of Christ? If so, why would you believe the ones yet fulfilled are allegory? Wouldn't that be a contradiction of faith?

[forrestkc]

quote forrestkc: "If you are in the minority of Christians that actually think Revelations depicts real and literal future events instead of being metaphorical, then you can argue that in the end times, God will be very violent. However, even then, it would be hard to argue that our current actions fit into that."

If Revelation is allegory, then so is Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and the rest. If you believe the bible is allegory, then, Christ didn't really exist, it was a metaphor for how humans should live and He was a ficticious character in a Poetry book.

Maybe minority Christians in your church believe Revelation is allegory, but answer this, if Damascas were to disappear as a city in your lifetime, will you still believe that Revelation is allegory?

Because Isaiah makes such a prophecy and some of his prophecies fit in with John's Revelation.

I did not say that I believe the Bible is entirely allegorical. I stated that I believe that John's Revelation and other prophetical books like Daniel written in the apocalyptic style are largely allegorical. So yes, I do believe that Christ lived and walked on this earth, died for my sins, and was resurrected.

Of course, thats all entirely a different subject, so no point in going further with it.

As to issues of war and peace, I doubt we are that far apart when you really get down to it.

[JustinM]

We don't use Christ to justify every war we fight. When people argue that war is immoral, wrong and evil, that is when we bring Christ into the discussion. When we are told that we should stand by and do nothing to prevent the victimization, oppression and murder of innocent people, just cause Christ says to turn the other cheak, then we must bring up Christ and what He has said about fighting back.

You cannot use Christ as your tool to support your agenda, then criticize us for doing the same, by showing examples of why we believe you are wrong.

[forrestkc]

We don't use Christ to justify every war we fight. When people argue that war is immoral, wrong and evil, that is when we bring Christ into the discussion. When we are told that we should stand by and do nothing to prevent the victimization, oppression and murder of innocent people, just cause Christ says to turn the other cheak, then we must bring up Christ and what He has said about fighting back.

You cannot use Christ as your tool to support your agenda, then criticize us for doing the same, by showing examples of why we believe you are wrong.

I am not saying that no wars are just, I am just saying that every war is not just. Do you disagree with that?

In my opinion, this boils down the doctrine of Just War:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

* there must be serious prospects of success;

* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

[JustinM]

quote forrestkc: "If you are in the minority of Christians that actually think Revelations depicts real and literal future events instead of being metaphorical, then you can argue that in the end times, God will be very violent. However, even then, it would be hard to argue that our current actions fit into that."

If Revelation is allegory, then so is Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and the rest. If you believe the bible is allegory, then, Christ didn't really exist, it was a metaphor for how humans should live and He was a ficticious character in a Poetry book.

Maybe minority Christians in your church believe Revelation is allegory, but answer this, if Damascas were to disappear as a city in your lifetime, will you still believe that Revelation is allegory?

Because Isaiah makes such a prophecy and some of his prophecies fit in with John's Revelation.

I did not say that I believe the Bible is entirely allegorical. I stated that I believe that John's Revelation and other prophetical books like Daniel written in the apocalyptic style are largely allegorical. So yes, I do believe that Christ lived and walked on this earth, died for my sins, and was resurrected.

Of course, thats all entirely a different subject, so no point in going further with it.

As to issues of war and peace, I doubt we are that far apart when you really get down to it.

Will you answer my question?

Yes, I believe we have very similar views on war and peace. But, I think our triggers for self defense are different and yours may not be as sensitive as mine is.

How can you take apocalyptical prophecies as allegory if the same prophets are taken seriously/literally when it came to their other prophecies.

They have already proven their credibility with their fulfilled prophecies, so why do you doubt their unfulfilled prophecies?

[JustinM]

quote forrestkc: "* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;"

The loss of life and damage of a nuclear strike is severe enough to prevent that from happening. One warhead can cause enough death and destruction than all the combined deaths of all the wars prior to the Atomic age.

* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

Diplomacy is ineffective if the person you are talking with has proven to be untrustworthy and impractical if the penalties aren't severe enough to discourage "bad behavior."

* there must be serious prospects of success;

Define what a successful conclusion will be.

* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition."

Modern means of destruction, ie WMD, not terrorist incited civil wars.

[forrestkc]

quote forrestkc: "* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;"

The loss of life and damage of a nuclear strike is severe enough to prevent that from happening. One warhead can cause enough death and destruction than all the combined deaths of all the wars prior to the Atomic age.

* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

Diplomacy is ineffective if the person you are talking with has proven to be untrustworthy and impractical if the penalties aren't severe enough to discourage "bad behavior."

* there must be serious prospects of success;

Define what a successful conclusion will be.

* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition."

Modern means of destruction, ie WMD, not terrorist incited civil wars.

The question of the probability of success is the unanswered one in terms of dealing with Iran. I do know that the pentagon has put together several different scenarios on possible outcomes of an attack on Iran and none of them are positive.

[forrestkc]

quote forrestkc: "If you are in the minority of Christians that actually think Revelations depicts real and literal future events instead of being metaphorical, then you can argue that in the end times, God will be very violent. However, even then, it would be hard to argue that our current actions fit into that."

If Revelation is allegory, then so is Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and the rest. If you believe the bible is allegory, then, Christ didn't really exist, it was a metaphor for how humans should live and He was a ficticious character in a Poetry book.

Maybe minority Christians in your church believe Revelation is allegory, but answer this, if Damascas were to disappear as a city in your lifetime, will you still believe that Revelation is allegory?

Because Isaiah makes such a prophecy and some of his prophecies fit in with John's Revelation.

I did not say that I believe the Bible is entirely allegorical. I stated that I believe that John's Revelation and other prophetical books like Daniel written in the apocalyptic style are largely allegorical. So yes, I do believe that Christ lived and walked on this earth, died for my sins, and was resurrected.

Of course, thats all entirely a different subject, so no point in going further with it.

As to issues of war and peace, I doubt we are that far apart when you really get down to it.

Will you answer my question?

Yes, I believe we have very similar views on war and peace. But, I think our triggers for self defense are different and yours may not be as sensitive as mine is.

How can you take apocalyptical prophecies as allegory if the same prophets are taken seriously/literally when it came to their other prophecies.

They have already proven their credibility with their fulfilled prophecies, so why do you doubt their unfulfilled prophecies?

If Damascus is destroyed in my lifetime, then I will reevaluate then. However, as it is, the end times are just not something that I concern myself with that much.