-
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!
Israel
- Thread starter Gina B
- Start date
- Status
Really . Quite an indictment.
Now , if you will just tell us exactly what the "American church" is you might have something.
:thumbsup:....smart man. You've made some good valid points but too many here that worship this Golden Calf, it's impossible for them to even begin to be objective about it.
I'm amazed that you haven't been smeared with that 'awful name' to get you to shut up.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
So, the obvious question for you and KRN is, aside from any dispensational or amillennial theology, what should Israel do right now regarding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Gaza Strip's government letting both groups use their territory as safe haven to launch their attacks?
This is, after all, the News/Current Events forum, not any one of the theology forums.
As history since Hiroshima shows, the best, perhaps the only, way to curb war is to deter it with such overwhelming force as to turn it from a struggle into suicide. -Martin Van Creveld
Considering Japan's treatment of the populations of territories that it conquered and the projected cost in American casualties of the planned invasion of the home island (Operation Downfall), it seems proportional.
Ask a veteran of WWII who served in the Pacific Theatre his opinion.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Jesus was responding the Peter standing in the way of God's will, not war or self-protection. The quarrel was not Peter's, in other words, and his action was strictly for revenge, not justice. If you're going to take a pacifistic viewpoint, you'd best understand the Scripture upon which you claim to stand, because it actually does not support your stance.
I would ask you -- and KRN also -- again:
RLBosley, if I understand correct, you say our expectation for Israel should be they act/react in a non-Christian manner. This is permissible and even ideal, given their situation and that they, as a whole, are not full believers.
Is this correct?
If it is not, will you please correct me?
If it is correct. will you please explain why there would be a different "okay" for unbelievers? Is there not only one right, and even that right becomes wrong when done apart from HIM?
Is this correct?
If it is not, will you please correct me?
If it is correct. will you please explain why there would be a different "okay" for unbelievers? Is there not only one right, and even that right becomes wrong when done apart from HIM?
That's ridiculous. It's ok for Israel to defend herself, but Christians shouldn't encourage it.
Makes absolutely zero sense.
No one is blood thristy for crying out loud. If people cannot control their emotions better than that maybe they need to step away from the computer for a while and grow up.
Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence begets violence, etc., etc., etc. ..............................................................
Fair warning to all, I am replying to several people below:
The thread isn't closed yet...
I've answered that repeatedly. They have the right to defend themselves as a secular nation. It would be preferable to find a peaceful resolution, but that isn't on the horizon. What I am against in this instance is the large percentage of civilian casualties, then the faux surprise when more people become terrorists.
If that's what you think, then you make mincemeat of what Jesus said. If the issue was only "standing in the way of God's will" (as if man is capable of doing that anyway) then Jesus' words make absolutely ZERO sense, at all.
Jesus didn't say, "Hey Peter, I know I let you have that sword to defend yourself, but I meant later not right now," he said, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." (Matt 26:52 NASB)
Yes I understand the fulfillment of prophecy was also an aspect in verses 53 and 54, but you cannot ignore the rest of Jesus rebuke.
I give you the same admonition you gave me; you'd best understand the Scripture upon which you claim to stand, because it actually does not support your stance.
I am aware of those facts. Still I can't see the annihilation of two cities being appropriate. And this isn't just from a non-violence perspective, even if you hold to the Just War Theory you can't say that those attacks were right.
Permissible? Yes. Ideal? No. Ideal would be peace.
The core issue here is that the state is given the authority to bear the sword. Romans 13 acknowledges this fact even though I would say it doesn't actually condone it. It's a simple statement that yes the state can, and will, use force. However, we never see any permission given for Christians to participate. Some who believe in nonviolence believe that even nations should disarm, and while obviously that would be nice, no more war would be great, it's unbiblical to say so. I acknowledge, as do most who accept the doctrine of nonviolence, that the state is given the authority to use force to enforce laws and have a military. What I reject is that Christians can be involved in the killing of others. That is why I have said that Israel can defend itself with force but the Christian response would be to follow Matthew 5 and Romans 12.
Please, see my explanation to Gina above.
The thread isn't closed yet...
I've answered that repeatedly. They have the right to defend themselves as a secular nation. It would be preferable to find a peaceful resolution, but that isn't on the horizon. What I am against in this instance is the large percentage of civilian casualties, then the faux surprise when more people become terrorists.
If that's what you think, then you make mincemeat of what Jesus said. If the issue was only "standing in the way of God's will" (as if man is capable of doing that anyway) then Jesus' words make absolutely ZERO sense, at all.
Jesus didn't say, "Hey Peter, I know I let you have that sword to defend yourself, but I meant later not right now," he said, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." (Matt 26:52 NASB)
Yes I understand the fulfillment of prophecy was also an aspect in verses 53 and 54, but you cannot ignore the rest of Jesus rebuke.
I give you the same admonition you gave me; you'd best understand the Scripture upon which you claim to stand, because it actually does not support your stance.
I am aware of those facts. Still I can't see the annihilation of two cities being appropriate. And this isn't just from a non-violence perspective, even if you hold to the Just War Theory you can't say that those attacks were right.
Permissible? Yes. Ideal? No. Ideal would be peace.
The core issue here is that the state is given the authority to bear the sword. Romans 13 acknowledges this fact even though I would say it doesn't actually condone it. It's a simple statement that yes the state can, and will, use force. However, we never see any permission given for Christians to participate. Some who believe in nonviolence believe that even nations should disarm, and while obviously that would be nice, no more war would be great, it's unbiblical to say so. I acknowledge, as do most who accept the doctrine of nonviolence, that the state is given the authority to use force to enforce laws and have a military. What I reject is that Christians can be involved in the killing of others. That is why I have said that Israel can defend itself with force but the Christian response would be to follow Matthew 5 and Romans 12.
Please, see my explanation to Gina above.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Faulty thinking. You obviously don't understand the mindset of the jihadists. It is a spiritual experience to train to die for Islam, and whether the Israeli government responds or not, the number of jihadists will increase daily. They do not respond to action taken by Israel. They respond to the "higher calling" of jihad.
If you don't think man can mess up God's intent, you haven't read the Bible very thoroughly. Of course God just uses someone else to do what He intends anyway, but if man could not resist God's will, there wouldn't be sin, war, death and destruction in the world in the first place.
Again, faulty thinking, and incomplete exegesis. Christ said this, first, to rock Peter back on his heels for acting so foolishly. Consider they were standing in the midst of the Temple guards, the Hebrew soldiers who provided security and law enforcement for both the Temple, and in the city. Jesus' words also were aimed at softening the outrage of the guard, so they would not respond to Peter's attack. Obviously, if you are one man with a sword acting rashly in the midst of a platoon, you're going to die. That is what Jesus speaks of, not that all who wield the sword would die by it. If your interpretation were correct, every soldier taking up arms for his nation would never return home, as your interpretation makes no leeway for righteous action.
Jesus' words may not have been sufficient on their own to quell the rage of the cohort, but certainly the healing of Malchus was. Had it not been for these words and act of Jesus, in all probability Peter, and the rest of the apostles, would have all died on the spot. Talk about thwarting God's will! That's exactly what Jesus was talking about.
I would suggest that I have done so, and that you need to examine your own stance more carefully.
Last edited by a moderator:
How can it be "faux surprise" that they turn into terrorists, when the terrorists admit freely that Israel is acting within international law, while they themselves are performing illegal acts?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182837#.U8Pu2fldWSo
If someone knows what they are doing is wrong, but does it anyway....
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182837#.U8Pu2fldWSo
If someone knows what they are doing is wrong, but does it anyway....
:thumbsup:
The Palestinians were not the original aggressors. Period. Have you ever bothered to look into the origins of this conflict and the outright murderous horrendous atrocities of genocide that was perpetuated upon the Palestinians? Americans may turn a blind eye to it but I assure you the Arab world has not.
Actually DNA findings from the Human Genome Project does not fully support that, some, but not exclusively. What it DOES show is the very close genetic relationship between the Jews and the Palestinians, i.e., the Palestinians being the true 'left behind' from the expulsions of 70 and 132 AD who converted to Islam.
40 Then shall two man be in the field; one is taken, and one is left:
41 two women shall be grinding at the mill; one is taken, and one is left. Mt 24
But of course the Haggeeites insist that the Palestinians have no claim to 'the land'.
Pinoy nailed it, it's Hagee-ism; in their eyes Israel can never do any wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
And you didn't have a hand in that at all, right?
And you didn't have a hand in that at all, right?
No, he did not. Christ and the apostles made it very plain to where the blood guiltiness was to be placed. The Jews themselves made that very plain.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Sorry. Wrong. We nailed Him to the tree as effectively as they did. If anyone thinks he is not guilty of the sin that drove Jesus to the cross, then he/she is deluding him/herself. The Romans may have driven in the nails after being manipulated by the Jews, but every man, woman and child throughout history helped put Him there.
- Status