Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I would hope we would abstain from nation building in the future. It's none of our business how nations approach self-determination. We should only go to war when our national interests are threatened, and even then it should be thoroughly debated in Congress. The President should only have the authority to make defensive military decisions without congressional approval. Invading other nations as pre-emptive strikes should only be decided by Congress. I realize that there may be times when the President must act quickly, but since it takes time to ramp up for war anyway, there is time for Congress to do its job.
Iraq will eventually fall into Iran's sphere of influence if it hasn't already. We will lose Syria as well (not that we ever had it to begin with). We have already lost Egypt. The Middle East is disintegrating into radical Islamism. If Saudi Arabia ever fell to the Muslim Brotherhood along with Jordan, a nightmare scenario will occur. I don't think anything can stop that now.
My own account
There is no need for you to delete your account. Just take a break from the forum for awhile. You are a valued member here and we wouldn't want you to leave. You are welcome to post at Christian Legacies if you want.
That is one interesting way of considering which of the World Wars was more successful.
World War II was a continuation of World War I. There was just a lull between the action.
I know what Scout is saying about Jesus and God's laws not always being absolutes. Think about the Sabbath laws where Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath. In other words, the law isn't so absolute that it is the end all be all in God's salvation plan. Anyway back to the debate…..
I understand that JWT is more concerned with the reason fro war than the waging of it. I don't reject it entirely, I think JWT is a useful guide. I just think that ultimately the arbiter of why nations go to war and how they wage said war is perceived rational self-interest and not abstract metaphysics.While I admire pacifists for their adherence to their principles. I call them targets. I also think that pacifists are the most despicable of people as they will gladly enjoy the fruits provided by others defending them yet high-mindedly refuse to participate in that defense themselves. I am not talking about what God commands or does not command I am talking about what reality and the circumstances of life require. If all Christians are pacifists then our enemies will quickly overrun us and God's word can no longer be spread. Sorry, I just don't think God wants us to passively submit to violence done against us. If you think about it in some ways the Christian pacifists are just as bad as the Pharisees who condemned Christ because they are so dogmatic. Much as Jesus told us that God's laws are not absolutes and that Gentiles can also be christian and the Pharisees condemned him for that. Why would he want his commandment to love our neighbor to be absolute to the point that we even allow our neighbor to d us harm? It makes no sense and if there is one thing I am convinced of it is that Jesus had common sense.
So are you saying God can't spread His word if Christians don't go to war? How does that work? I know it works for the Muslims, but I don't think Christianity works in quite the same way.
Don't you guys know that you must write from the summit of an Ivory Tower in order to be cited by other scholars? I mean like duh….
I think ideally Fit2BThaied is correct. Realistically, though, he is not. If a man chooses to be a pacifist, he is morally and spiritually correct to do so, but if he decides to fight to save the lives of others, he will not be condemned by God for doing so. It is a personal choice. Killing to save others is not a sin and I know God would understand the circumstances. However, we're talking about individual situations and not full scale war. Perhaps the two have different criteria?
