Salamander
New Member
I'll have to ask you to define "friend"?Sopranette said:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
And The Pulpits Are Silent
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Sopranette
New Member
What has that got to do with anything? I'm not being a good friend by refusing to sacrifice soldiers for the sake of sorting out other countries problems, problems that have nothing to do with me or my country? Explain to the parents or spouses of the fallen soldiers how you were just helping out a friend in need. A good friend, in this case, stays out of other people's business.
love,
Sopranette
love,
Sopranette
Last edited by a moderator:
For what ever reason it seems that that's just what Iran wants us to do. North Korea as well. I'm not convinced that we should. I think that as long as these nations rattle their sabers within their own boarders we will not attack. However there is the chance that Israel will pop the cork. We will be in the "neighborhood" and will be left to handle any Iranian retaliation.ajg1959 said:
I do share your feelings and convictions Sopranette. However, after WWII that conviction has taken on a different meaning.Sopranette said:
WWI taught the nations of the world one major lesson. You do not leave a defeated enemy to waller in it's wounds and self pity. After he is defeated you must establish order and restore self respect or the basest of his society will rise to power. Therefor you must commit a long term presence for rebuilding and nourishing them back to self governance. WWII showed the victorious nations that bloody lesson. Unfortunately one of the victors was the USSR. They had their own version of nation building, absolute slavery.
WWII taught us many more lessons. One of which are, you cannot restrict developing nations their share of oil. Japan had no oil reserves of it's own and was at the mercy of the US and Great Brittan for supplies and reserves. Hoping to cripple the US fleet at Pearl Harbor they attacked. They had no plans to take the mainland, their true conquest was Indonesia which had/has plenty of oil. The UK had it's hands tied with the Germans and was busy protecting their homeland and left their Empire to defend for itself. The French too were busy with the Germans and could not defend its holdings in Southeast China. So for Japan, the oil was there for the taking after Dec. 7, 1941. Though Japan was soundly defeated in 1945, the US promised Japan perpetual supplies of oil. To this day we are Japan's leading supplier of oil.
Now China is on the scene and it is thirsty for oil. Iraq, for all of it's WMDs, was a threat to take over the worlds flow of oil. Just imagine a madman as Saddam in control of the faucet of the worlds oil. China, North Korea, India, Japan, Australia, all of Europe and North America would very soon be very thirsty for oil. A fuse for the powder keg of WWIII. Hussein showed his hand when he attacked Iran back in the late '70s. We did not take action against him then because he was attacking an enemy. Yet Saddam was showing just who he was. He could careless who his friends were he had aims to gain control of the worlds oil. Kuwait was next and this time the world would not put up with his madness. He would be put in a box.
September 11, 2001 the Pearl Harbor of our generation. Just as in 1941 America was at war. While Pearl Harbor was a military installation, the World Trade Center was an civilian target. The attackers were not an army of a single nation but a wholly different entity. An entity that could be harbored in any friendly nation that would open it's doors. Afghanistan and the Taliban gave harbor to alQueda and we went after them. Saddam was still a high risk. He had and used WMDs in the past and if he still had them alQueda with its sophistication for implanting cells within nations could and would be ideal for Hussein to use for WMD distribution, if he had WMDs at the present. To chance that he didn't posses WMDs would be negligence to the highest order and unthinkable if he did. The only way to be sure is to go in and make sure.
After having gone in, mistakes were made but to up and leave an enemy wounded and in self pity would invite another situation much like Germany of the 1920s and 1930s. This time the world's oil supply would be at stake. Lessons learned are mistakes avoided.
The Vietnam war for America was another lesson learned. We pulled out and millions lost their lives in Southeast Asia. The same would happen in Iraq. Lessons Learned.
ajg1959 said:
I would never condemn anyone for believing the war was the best thing to do. It is a tough question, and each side is reasonably entitled to its opinion.
But to say God thinks it was (or wasn't) the best thing to do is completely ridiculous. There is no way to know what God would do when it is a question of sacrificing tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in order to prevent or avenge roughly the same number of deaths by other means. Whether God thinks the sacrifices justified is something pastors (and anyone) should keep silent about... b/c there is just no way to know.
Believe it or not, there are some questions to which we don't know for sure what "morally right" or "morally wrong" answer God would give. What if you have to kill one person in order to save the life of another? Should you or shouldn't you? What if you have to kill one to save the lives of two? Two to save the life of one? What if one is young and one is old. Etc., Etc. Reasonable Christians can disagree about these things with neither knowing what God thinks (and neither should claim to know).
Did God come in a vision and tell you the war was okay? Did he do so to Bush (whom you say was guided into the war by God)? Give me a break...
The only example from Scripture (if you can call it that) that you have given is that we should protect the innocent (the way you put it is that we should help if we see someone being robbed or abused). But your analogy failed to mention that in order to help the innocent we had to sacrifice very large and perhaps even equally large numbers of innocent people through collateral damage and the lawlessness that comes in times of war.
P.S. - As far as your comment, "Iraq invaded Kuwait,,,why has everyone forgotten that?" no one has forgotten that. Nor have we forgotten that Bush 1 resolved that problem and kicked Saddam back out of Kuwait, and then decided invading Iraq could end up making the situation worse there instead of better.
What verse of Scripture do you rely on to presume that if a country invades another the U.S. needs to not only help the invaded become free again, but also go into the instigating country and impose military rule? Or did God come to you in a vision and tell you that as well?
Last edited by a moderator:
What if I had to throw myself in front of a gunman firing at children at a school?jsn9333 said:
Would I hear God say, "Get in front of that man's line of fire so the children might have a chance to escape"? No, it would be an instant gut reaction to the situation. If I take a bullet then it was God's will that the children got out safe. Some times it is just left up to us to do the right thing. The right choice is never the easiest choice to make. IFO, am glad that I am not GWB or anyone that has to make a decision for any nation to go to war or not go to war.
jsn9333, I do like the points that you have made in this post. Thank you.
Crabtownboy said:
It tells us more about the people who are pew sitters rather than making disciples.
I know a man who grew a church from about 75 to almost 600 and he was asked to leave because there were too many new people coming in the door and becoming Christians. The old folks did not like it that new people became Christians and changed the church.
ajg1959 said:
AJ,
I have thought about your analogy. On the surface there is some logic, but upon reflecting on it I believe it will not hold. Why?
1. When I defend the old lady I do not do so by killing a number of my innocent neighbors. In the war in Iraq thousands upon thousands of innocent people have been killed. I do not believe that pleases God.
2. In defending the old lady I do not burn down many of the houses in my own neighborhood. In this war we have mortgated much of the future of our own children and grandchildren. I do not feel this is right.
3. When we go into help a situation we must look and try to determine will the outcome make the situation better or worse. I say before we invaded that invading would make the situation worse ... and it has. How?
A. It freed the Kurds, Shites and Sunni to begin their tribal fueds again and begin killing each other. This will not stop if and when we pull out. We took the lid off and opened this Pandora's Box.
B. By invading we destabilized the area and this has led to Iran's growth in influence.
C. We have weakened our own military on the wrong target. This has emboldened Iran, China, Sudan, etc.
4. This has led to the death of approximately, at this date, 4,000 young American men and women and has mained and destroyed the lives of approximately 40,000 young American men and women. The best statistics say that 10 are wounded for ever one killed.
5. We have lost credibility and thus influence all over the world.
6. Bush went after the wrong enemy. I will not go into why I think why ... there are a number of reasons.
So instead of making the situation and world better, we have succeeded in making it worse.
Theologically there is no way to justify this war using the "just war" ideas that are agreed to by most Christians around the world.
So, to me your analogy does not hold. It looks at the problem from too simple an outlook.
:BangHead:
Palatka51 said:
If you sacrificed your own life for the life of another, as you described, God certainly makes clear His praises such actions. The Scriptures say there is no greater love then to give your life for others.
The problem with AJ is that he is talking about killing hundreds of thousands of *other* people (not himself) through collateral damage and the lawlessness of war in order to save lives by getting rid of a dictator. There is no clear biblical answer as to whether or not that is the right thing to do, whether or not the sacrifice of innocent lives is justified. Learned, Spirit-filled Christians can disagree.
Killing yourself to save another's life? Biblical
Killing one person to save another person's life? Not clear. So neither Pastors nor Presidents nor anyone should say God has told them the clear answer unless that person is a prophet.
Therefore, to say God guided the president into this war is ignorant, immature, or both. God may think the war is the best thing to do given the circumstances... but He may not! God guides through the Word of God. If George Bush or AJ are hearing the voice of God tell them the war is justified, then they should go see a psychotherapist.... especially if other faithful, Spirit-filled Christians don't recognize the same "guidance" from the Lord. Either AJ and GWB are crazy, immature and self-deceived, or they are both modern prophets of God. I seriously doubt the latter.
Plus, instead of going to Iraq himself to maim and kill and be killed for peace's sake AJ is saying others should go. That is the complete opposite of the "no greater love" the Scriptures talk about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yet this is just what many that have volunteered for armed service feel that they are doing.jsn9333 said:
As for President Bush his duty is clear, "To protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic." Personally I do not want his job, as he has millions of people that question every move he makes and they have a right to question his moves. Having to disseminate every document that comes across his desk every moment of his day and night that relates to threats to that wonderful document, would indeed be problematic at the least. Having to choose which document is truth and which is deceptive is again a huge chore. It is easy for us to point and say he is wrong but is he? His duty is to protect and defend and for the last 7 years he has done a very fine job.
Firtst of all, I am a veteran, and if I was young enough I would be glad to go to Iraq.jsn9333 said:
My son just graduated college....(grrrrr, at age 26, but he did graduate), and now he is in OCS, (OCS is the 90 day officer training school, for you non-military, but run still your mouth types) and will soon (probably) be sent to Iraq. I hope I dont lose him, but I do support his decision to serve (and even fight) for our country.
I resent your comment about me wanting to send others while I stay home...you are so wrong. If they would let me, I would go now, even at my age.
Part of me is going, in the person of my son. I wish you would support him and the others instead of condemning them for doing something that you dont have the guts to do.
I served four years defending your right to [rude remark removed]...have you ever served?
AJ
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that the servicemen and women are giving up their lives for others. However, in the process of the invasion our forces have killed thousands through "collateral damage" of bombings. Additionally our forces have caused the kidnappings, tortures, and deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were brutalized in the lawlessness that resulted for years after our invasion and failure to keep the peace.
I would not want to be GWB either. But the fact is, the multinational teams (including Americans) tasked with finding out if Saddam posed a threat to us via WMD's told him Saddam was no threat. Bush went ahead with the invasion under the guise that Saddam did in fact have WMD's. Saddam didn't have a single one. In the process, hundreds of thousands have died. Bush made a huge mistake. I wouldn't want to be him, don't get me wrong... but nonetheless he made a huge mistake that has caused immeasurable suffering.
I would not want to be GWB either. But the fact is, the multinational teams (including Americans) tasked with finding out if Saddam posed a threat to us via WMD's told him Saddam was no threat. Bush went ahead with the invasion under the guise that Saddam did in fact have WMD's. Saddam didn't have a single one. In the process, hundreds of thousands have died. Bush made a huge mistake. I wouldn't want to be him, don't get me wrong... but nonetheless he made a huge mistake that has caused immeasurable suffering.
Palatka51 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, I'm not criticizing your view that the war is the right thing. You are entitled to that opinion because reasonable Christians can disagree about it. What I am saying is that it is either ignorant or crazy to say *God* agrees with you. There is just no way for you to know that. Why even say that? What guidance have you specifically received from God telling you it was okay to cause the death of tens and even likely hundreds of thousands of innocents in order to get rid of Saddam? Even if Saddam had killed as many people, you are still saying God thinks it is best to kill innocent people in order to save the lives or avenge the lives of equal numbers of innocent people. Where does God say that is the right thing to do?
And no, Hussein was not "killing hundreds of thousands" before we invaded. He had probably caused the death of tens of thousands of his own citizens (especially Kurdish rebels in the north). And the war with Iran certainly cost hundreds of thousands of lives from both sides (both Iran and Iraq caused those deaths). But no, by the time we invaded he was not killing many people at all. We had air superiority. He couldn't touch the Kurds in the North. The U.N. teams had determined he almost certainly had no WMD's. He couldn't do much of anything. We had stopped him from being able to do much damage to large numbers of people. His strict rule actually made life in Iraq fairly safe, stable, and secure for people who did not oppose him (which was nearly all of the population). Sure people were poor, but the place was not the lawless, brutal, extremely dangerous country it became in the aftermath of the invasion.
Not only did our bombs cause thousands of deaths from collateral damage, but lawlessness ruled most of the country for years after the invasion (and still does in some areas). And when I say lawlessness I mean cold blooded murders in the streets all the time, rapes, torture, the works. Nothing near such lawlessness was occurring under Saddam's rule at the time of the invasion. Tens of thousands more and eve hundreds of thousands, by some estimates, have been killed, kidnapped/tortured/murdered in the lawlessness our invasion caused. None of that would've happened if the U.S. had not invaded.
That is why I say it is a hard question (whether or not we should've invaded). Sure, we removed a brutal killer of tens of thousands. But we did so by paying with tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives... *killed, maimed, and tortured*. It is not an easy question. I respect your opinion on it, but you have absolutely no basis to say God agrees with you (nor do I have any basis to say He agrees with me). God has not spoken on this question, period. Rossie O'donnel is an ignorant loon who thinks the U.S. was behind the 9/11 attacks. I've not espoused views anywhere near her views. I'm just saying the Bible is not clear that we should sacrifice an innocent life (unless it is our own) in order to protect another innocent life. That is just a fact.
As far as my military service, I'm not the one saying others should go to Iraq and kill enemies and innocents (through collateral damage) and be killed or maimed themselves. So whether or not I have served is not relevant. The second I say our forces should go fight, that is when it becomes relevant if I'm a serviceman.
And as far as you being to old for military service, where in the Bible does it say you have to be in the U.S. army to grab a gun and go work to assist people who are being victimized in brutal countries? You've said you would support sending U.S. troops to anywhere in the world where people are being brutalized. So then go to Sudan yourself and help fight the Muslim forces who are brutalizing Christians. I'm sure they'll take all the help they can get! You're free to go there. My point is, if you care so deeply about it you should go do the job yourself before suggesting others give up their lives to go do it.
And no, Hussein was not "killing hundreds of thousands" before we invaded. He had probably caused the death of tens of thousands of his own citizens (especially Kurdish rebels in the north). And the war with Iran certainly cost hundreds of thousands of lives from both sides (both Iran and Iraq caused those deaths). But no, by the time we invaded he was not killing many people at all. We had air superiority. He couldn't touch the Kurds in the North. The U.N. teams had determined he almost certainly had no WMD's. He couldn't do much of anything. We had stopped him from being able to do much damage to large numbers of people. His strict rule actually made life in Iraq fairly safe, stable, and secure for people who did not oppose him (which was nearly all of the population). Sure people were poor, but the place was not the lawless, brutal, extremely dangerous country it became in the aftermath of the invasion.
Not only did our bombs cause thousands of deaths from collateral damage, but lawlessness ruled most of the country for years after the invasion (and still does in some areas). And when I say lawlessness I mean cold blooded murders in the streets all the time, rapes, torture, the works. Nothing near such lawlessness was occurring under Saddam's rule at the time of the invasion. Tens of thousands more and eve hundreds of thousands, by some estimates, have been killed, kidnapped/tortured/murdered in the lawlessness our invasion caused. None of that would've happened if the U.S. had not invaded.
That is why I say it is a hard question (whether or not we should've invaded). Sure, we removed a brutal killer of tens of thousands. But we did so by paying with tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives... *killed, maimed, and tortured*. It is not an easy question. I respect your opinion on it, but you have absolutely no basis to say God agrees with you (nor do I have any basis to say He agrees with me). God has not spoken on this question, period. Rossie O'donnel is an ignorant loon who thinks the U.S. was behind the 9/11 attacks. I've not espoused views anywhere near her views. I'm just saying the Bible is not clear that we should sacrifice an innocent life (unless it is our own) in order to protect another innocent life. That is just a fact.
As far as my military service, I'm not the one saying others should go to Iraq and kill enemies and innocents (through collateral damage) and be killed or maimed themselves. So whether or not I have served is not relevant. The second I say our forces should go fight, that is when it becomes relevant if I'm a serviceman.
And as far as you being to old for military service, where in the Bible does it say you have to be in the U.S. army to grab a gun and go work to assist people who are being victimized in brutal countries? You've said you would support sending U.S. troops to anywhere in the world where people are being brutalized. So then go to Sudan yourself and help fight the Muslim forces who are brutalizing Christians. I'm sure they'll take all the help they can get! You're free to go there. My point is, if you care so deeply about it you should go do the job yourself before suggesting others give up their lives to go do it.
ajg1959 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Unjustified War
There is no way the war in Iraq can be justified or even to think that God approves it.
Where did Jesus say, "Kill your enemy?":tonofbricks: :BangHead:
There is no way the war in Iraq can be justified or even to think that God approves it.
Where did Jesus say, "Kill your enemy?":tonofbricks: :BangHead:
Crabtownboy said:
For the same reasons I disagree with the statement AJ made that God agrees with him the war was the right thing to do, I also disagree with the statement that God does not think the war is the right thing. There is no way to know what God thinks about this war. Reasonable Christians can disagree with it. On the plus side, we removed a dictator that killed tens and even hundreds of thousands. However, while doing that we have caused the deaths of tens and even hundreds of thousands. It is a hard question.
The Bible does include the concept of the "just war." God himself ordered his people into war many times, and Christ instructed his disciples to bring a sword with them in their travels (presumably for self-defense). The context of the command to "Love your enemy" is in giving them your coat if they ask for it, or turning the other cheek if they offend you with a slap to the cheek. Sometimes, though, the best way to love your enemy is to kill or capture them (if they are killing innocent people and there is no other way to stop them). Hitler and every evil Nazi to be should be grateful the Allies stopped their atrocities, for they were doing nothing but storing up judgment for themselves. If you look at it that way, WWII was an act of love not only to free the Jews and most of Europe, but was even an act of love toward the Nazis. Similarly, if I swung my fist at my brother but my dad caught it before I did serious damage... that would be an act of love toward both my brother and I (by stopping me from doing something I would be judged more harshly for). WWII is an example of a just war, without a doubt.
Is the Iraq war just? I don't think so. But then again, some Christians could think so. The point is, it is a question without a clear Biblical answer... none of us knows what *God* thinks about it. And like some have pointed out, it is easy to look in hindsight and say it is not a just war. If there had not been so much lawlessness and violence and Saddam was easily removed and a new, peaceful, democratic country easily installed we would likely view it differently.
Have you ever done anything knowing in your heart that you were doing God's will? You cant prove it, you just know it in your heart. I believe that that GWB was following the will of God, else God would not have allowed it.
Also, its not a matter of my thinking that "God agrees with AJ", it doesnt matter if God agrees with me or not, the war wasnt my decision, but I do believe that God was behind GWB's decision to go to war.
However, I do strongly agree with you in your last paragraph.....I am not happy with the way GWB has let this war drag out, coupling under political preasure, and if he had done this quickly and smoothly, like he said he would, then many who oppose the war would defend it.
Again, I defend the president's decision to go, but I question his leadership in the process.
AJ
Also, its not a matter of my thinking that "God agrees with AJ", it doesnt matter if God agrees with me or not, the war wasnt my decision, but I do believe that God was behind GWB's decision to go to war.
However, I do strongly agree with you in your last paragraph.....I am not happy with the way GWB has let this war drag out, coupling under political preasure, and if he had done this quickly and smoothly, like he said he would, then many who oppose the war would defend it.
Again, I defend the president's decision to go, but I question his leadership in the process.
AJ
I know I'm doing God's will when I do something the Bible instructs me to do. However, there are things the Bible does not instruct me on. In that case, I have to do what I think is best. Period. That doesn't mean I've done something wrong, it means I've done what *I* think is best.
GWB might feel "peace" with God about the war. Then say you have or he has "peace" about the decision, but don't say God is responsible for it. If you're going to say *God* guided you to do an action, you'd better have a very clear and specific verse for support or "burning bush" prophetic experience (no pun intended).
God did not guide Bush. That is not a bad thing, it just is what it is... Bush had to make the call. He may have done right by God, he may not have. We do not know. We *cannot* know until the ever-after. Bush guided Bush, and you are defending his actions by saying God is responsible for them. That, my friend, is not a smart thing to do. God has not spoken clearly on the issue of sacrificing innocents to save or avenge equal numbers of innocents. If God does not think the hundreds of thousands of innocent people horribly tortured and killed in Iraq is justified by the need to get rid of Saddam, then He is probably offended at your statements that He is the one behind the decision to invade.
Just be careful.
GWB might feel "peace" with God about the war. Then say you have or he has "peace" about the decision, but don't say God is responsible for it. If you're going to say *God* guided you to do an action, you'd better have a very clear and specific verse for support or "burning bush" prophetic experience (no pun intended).
God did not guide Bush. That is not a bad thing, it just is what it is... Bush had to make the call. He may have done right by God, he may not have. We do not know. We *cannot* know until the ever-after. Bush guided Bush, and you are defending his actions by saying God is responsible for them. That, my friend, is not a smart thing to do. God has not spoken clearly on the issue of sacrificing innocents to save or avenge equal numbers of innocents. If God does not think the hundreds of thousands of innocent people horribly tortured and killed in Iraq is justified by the need to get rid of Saddam, then He is probably offended at your statements that He is the one behind the decision to invade.
Just be careful.
ajg1959 said:
saturneptune
New Member
The above statement may or may not be true, but your reasoning is flawed. For the Christian, the Holy Spirit guides us in ALL things, and for those situations the Bible does not specifically address, there is the Guide, plus common sense, plus fellow believers, plus circumstances, the the will of God, plus there are usually verses that relate to it. The closer one walks in the Spirit, the clearer the decision. Sometimes the answer is wait, or no.jsn9333 said:
If Bush guided Bush, it was because the Holy Spirit did not, and you can draw your own conclusions.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune said:
If you cannot produce a single Scripture that says the Holy Spirit will give us guidance on every single decision we ever make, then why should I believe you? I only believe the Bible. The bible says He will guide us into all Truth, but some decisions are not about "Truth".
For instance, the Holy Spirit did not guide me in whether I was to have the Caesar Salad or the House Salad with my meal last night. That was *my* choice. I may have felt "peace" about my decision, but that does not mean I can blame God for guiding me in one direction or another.
You should not attribute opinions to God unless He has made it clear what his opinion on the matter is. And God has not made clear that it is right to sacrifice thousands of innocent Iraqi lives in order to avenge or protect thousands of other innocent Iraqi lives. He has not made that any more clear then He has made clear what salad I should choose. There are questions that occur in life in which *we* must choose the answer... prayerfully asking for wisdom, but deciding for ourselves nonetheless in the end.
God has only one opinion on the Iraq war... and He has not told us what it is. Neither Christians who feel it is right nor Christians who feel it is wrong can say what *God's* opinion is. No one knows but God, unless we have a prophet amongst us. And no pastor, or baptistboard poster should pretend to be a prophet... people used to get killed in the Old Testament for that kind of thing.
Last edited by a moderator: