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

[forrestkc]

No where did I say that the Bible teaches that we cannot defend ourselves.

You are missing the point. My point is that you cannot make some blanket statement about the Bible teaching nonviolence in the face of injustice. It simply does not teach that, and the fact that we are not prevented from violently defending ourselves in the face of injustice particularly when it comes in the form criminal activity, proves it. Basically I am stating your premise is wrong.

Now, you say that the Bible is addressing personal relationships, and that would be a good point, if we did not live in a democracy. Our government is of the people, therefore, if we are a peaceful people, who chooses peace whenever possible, then out foreign policy will reflect our values. In a Democracy, we cannot try to find a biblical loophole, and place a different set of values as to conduct on our government than what we are to place on ourselves.

Our government is not elected solely by Christians by those who hold to other ideologies as well. Liberals spend enough time trying to debunk the Christian foundations of the United States but then run to the Bible to carp and whine about how what we are doing in in Iraq is unbiblical. Your argument makes sense IF only Christians were electing people, AND and if the only people getting elected were Christians.

Yes, elective war is unbiblical. At least 90% of the world's christian leaders, theologians, and churches believed that preemptive military action in Iraq was unbiblical, and was not a just war. When one looks at the fruits of the war in Iraq so far, it seems they were right.

You have to go all the way back to the founders to find a president that was not Christian. The vast majority of our elected leaders are Christians. The vast majority of Americans are Christians. The vast majority of voters are Christians.

The Roman Empire was a land of injustice yet Paul told the Christians in Rome that if at all possible to live in peace with each other. Let me also point out that persecution is a form of injustice. I might add, and what is even far more telling, is for the first 300 years of the Church, Christians refused to even serve in the military under any government. If Christianity is not a religion of peace then why would that be the case?

Once again, I am not saying that we are not allowed to defend ourselves. I am only saying that we are supposed to pursue peace whenever possible, and see war as a very last resort. Would you honestly disagree with that? World War II, the war in Afghanistan = Just Wars. Vietnam, the war in Iraq, not so much..

[nebula]

I'm not asking for your philosophy of interpreting the Old Testament? I am asking you who do you say the God of the Old Testament is?

Nebula, how many times do I have to answer this question. I stated earlier, God is the same as he was before the universe was created as he is today. What more do you want?

The same God who commanded capitol punishment for what we now call moral sins?

Lev. 10:13 - If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

The same God who commanded the death of men, women and children?

1Sam. 15:3 - Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

The same God who sends one nation against another to punish it for their sins?

2 Kings 19:25-26

(To Sennacherib king of Assyria)

25 "'Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone. 26 Their people, drained of power, are dismayed and put to shame. They are like plants in the field, like tender green shoots, like grass sprouting on the roof, scorched before it grows up.

The wars of the Old Testament applied to Israel at that time. I might add that God was creating the nation of Israel and it was to be protected and sheltered because it would be the nation from which Christ would come and thus provide the elements which all the people of the world would be saved, the survival and protection of the nation was very important.

But the Lord used Assyria and Babylon against the nations - and not just Israel and Judah - to punish them for their wickedness, even when they themselves were wicked. go figure.

In contrast, the non-violence in the face of injustice both lived and taught in the Gospels and Epistles, were instructions for the conduct of man for all time.

Jesus gave instructions to individuals dealing with personal insults and persecutions. He wasn't giving judicial and legislative rules at the time.

Do you understand the difference?

The wars of the end times, are wars predicted at the apocalypse, not a guideline as to how we are to conduct ourselves from now until then.

My point was about Jesus going to war, period.

Thus, until Jesus returns and tells us differently, we are to prefer peace over war when resolving our conflicts, and strive for peace whenever possible.

Forrest, you are mixing two separate arguments into one question. I wasn't talking about Iraq in this line of questioning. I was talking about the Lord and how He uses war. Period.

Whether our current situation is of God or against God is a different matter. Please stay on topic with the question.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, elective war is unbiblical. At least 90% of the world's christian leaders, theologians, and churches believed that preemptive military action in Iraq was unbiblical, and was not a just war. When one looks at the fruits of the war in Iraq so far, it seems they were right.

Still missing the point. I am not debating about Iraq. I referring to the selective use/rejection of the Bible when it comes to dealing with modern issues. I could not care less what you think about Iraq.

You have to go all the way back to the founders to find a president that was not Christian. The vast majority of our elected leaders are Christians. The vast majority of Americans are Christians. The vast majority of voters are Christians.

Well, there are Christians and there are Christians. Just because someone assents to the Christian religion, it does make them a true Christian, which is biblically understood as a born again individual who asked Jesus into their heart. If you are talking about those who simply mentally assent to the Christian religion, then yes, a majority of Americans are Christians. If you are talking about true followers of Christ, then you cannot refer to the Christian "majority."

The Roman Empire was a land of injustice yet Paul told the Christians in Rome that if at all possible to live in peace with each other.

Paul was addressing personal relationships, if you examine Romans 12. He says to live peacebably with one another. He was not addressing foreign policy, nor did he have an avoidance of war in mind. Paul said to live peaceably in the face of personal offense by those within the Body of Christ, and allow God to take the vengence.

Let me also point out that persecution is a form of injustice.

Yet, even persecution can fall into criminal activity. What we are told not return in kind are personal insults such as what Jesus referred to as "slap" on the cheek which was challenge to one's honor in that region. Jesus was not referring to how to genuine physical violence.

I might add, and what is even far more telling, is for the first 300 years of the Church, Christians refused to even serve in the military under any government.

Completely irrelevant.

I am only saying that we are supposed to pursue peace whenever possible, and see war as a very last resort. Would you honestly disagree with that?

Again, I am not interested in what you think about what amounts to a just war. I am simply saying that the New Testament does not address the issue, and in fact, Jesus will go to war, and His Kingdom on earth which He will rule from Jerusalem will be an intolerant (rod of iron) reign. Jesus will reinstitute a theocracy and Isaiah 66:23-24 tells us that we will be able go out gaze on the carcasses of those who trangress against Him in that day. Doesn't sound too peaceful.

[sweetycakes]

USS Enterprise??

I think that Captain Kirk would have something to say about this........being deployed in the persian gulf when he has spent the last thirty years traversing the galaxy.

[senerhu]

This thread has become a very interesting theological discussion and I have to admit it has made me think my own position out...

Rom 13:1

[forrestkc]

This thread has become a very interesting theological discussion and I have to admit it has made me think my own position out...

Rom 13:1

[forrestkc]

..........

Whether our current situation is of God or against God is a different matter. Please stay on topic with the question.

I am on topic, we have a different theological position as to Christianity and war. Mine is the majority opinion in Christianity, yours represents a minority opinion in Christianity. Obviously we are not going to change each others minds, so there is no point in continuing to go in circles on this.

[senerhu]

This thread has become a very interesting theological discussion and I have to admit it has made me think my own position out...

Rom 13:1

[forrestkc]

The question that has arisen here concerns the idea that Paul has apparently taken no account of unjust authorities.96 Many commentators see the problem97 and Cranfield surfaces three possible explanations. First, says Cranfield, there is the possibility that Paul is speaking out of his good experiences with the Roman government and has forgotten or neglected the fact that Rome could do and had done evil. That this is the explanation is severely weakened by the fact that Paul had been treated unjustly by the Roman authorities (Acts 16:22, 37; 2 Cor 11:25) and it was ultimately those authorities that he understood to be the ones who crucified Christ (1 Cor 2:8). Second, Paul, though fully conscious of the possibility that the government might commit evil, is here only speaking of its true and natural duty as a magistrate under God and appointed by him. Third, Paul is saying that consciously or unconsciously, in one way or another, the government will praise the good work and punish the evil. Cranfield argues for the third possibility based in large measure on the "absoluteness" of the promise. He says,

This gets down to the question of what is Just War from a Christian Perspective. Now, lets look at what Christians opposed military action in Iraq.

On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology. [15]

The Vatican also came out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a "preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable." [16]

Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his successor, Rowan Williams, spoke out against war with Iraq.

The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, an organization representing churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries,[17] issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter." [18]

Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine has argued that, among both evangelical Christians and Catholics, "most major church bodies around the world" opposed the war.[14]

Total them up, and you have about 90% of the world's 2 billion Christians.

A just war according to the majority of the world's Christian Churches meets these qualifications:

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.

[senerhu]

The question that has arisen here concerns the idea that Paul has apparently taken no account of unjust authorities.96 Many commentators see the problem97 and Cranfield surfaces three possible explanations. First, says Cranfield, there is the possibility that Paul is speaking out of his good experiences with the Roman government and has forgotten or neglected the fact that Rome could do and had done evil. That this is the explanation is severely weakened by the fact that Paul had been treated unjustly by the Roman authorities (Acts 16:22, 37; 2 Cor 11:25) and it was ultimately those authorities that he understood to be the ones who crucified Christ (1 Cor 2:8). Second, Paul, though fully conscious of the possibility that the government might commit evil, is here only speaking of its true and natural duty as a magistrate under God and appointed by him. Third, Paul is saying that consciously or unconsciously, in one way or another, the government will praise the good work and punish the evil. Cranfield argues for the third possibility based in large measure on the "absoluteness" of the promise. He says,

This gets down to the question of what is Just War from a Christian Perspective. Now, lets look at what Christians opposed military action in Iraq.

On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology. [15]

The Vatican also came out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a "preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable." [16]

Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his successor, Rowan Williams, spoke out against war with Iraq.

The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, an organization representing churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries,[17] issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter." [18]

Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine has argued that, among both evangelical Christians and Catholics, "most major church bodies around the world" opposed the war.[14]

Total them up, and you have about 90% of the world's 2 billion Christians.

A just war according to the majority of the world's Christian Churches meets these qualifications:

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.

the reason why I discount what you are saying is becasue those US Christians that make up what you are offering, voted for a president who supported military action in Iraq. If the constituents of those references you listed were on the same page as their leaders, Bush would have not been elected...