Isn't God our protector? Isn't God on our side? We don't have to lower ourselves to the standards of thugs when we have the true and living God on our side. This post makes no sense...
-
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!
The DIFFERENCE Between USA and Radical Muslims in Torture
- Thread starter righteousdude2
- Start date
Isn't God our protector? Isn't God on our side? We don't have to lower ourselves to the standards of thugs when we have the true and living God on our side. This post makes no sense...
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Pastor Paul, after reading your comments concerning the kingdom of heaven, and kingdom on the earth, I see that I misunderstood what you were saying in the initial post. I apologize for saying you were seeking a kingdom of earth, rather than the kingdom of heaven. We are in agreement on that issue. :godisgood:
I want you to especially reconsider the idea that nobody, not even politicians, should know what the military is doing.
There were many civilians in Germany that lived near the concentration camps that "didn't know" the Jews were being murdered. They believed the propoganda from Hiltler, and were content to just not ask question and look the other way. I am not comparing our troops to Nazi's, so don't think that.
What I am saying is that our constitution provides for civilian oversite of the military so that abuses will not go unnoticed.
We should never allow ourselves to believe the "end justifies the means". That is, "do evil" (torture), so that good (keep my family safe) may come.
I'd hate it even more if I allowed the world to sway my faith and trust in God so as to do evil.
BTW, I did a 4 year stint in the Army, mostly with the 101ST Airborne...peace time service.
peace to you
raying:
We, as Christians, are called to be different from the world. As you well know, God hates it when innocent blood is shed. I mention this because you mentioned the massacre in Mai Lai. It doesn't matter who does it, and Christians cannot stick our heads in the sand and say, "As long as it happens over there, to someone else, and keeps me safe" then I will turn my head and look the other way.
I want you to especially reconsider the idea that nobody, not even politicians, should know what the military is doing.
There were many civilians in Germany that lived near the concentration camps that "didn't know" the Jews were being murdered. They believed the propoganda from Hiltler, and were content to just not ask question and look the other way. I am not comparing our troops to Nazi's, so don't think that.
What I am saying is that our constitution provides for civilian oversite of the military so that abuses will not go unnoticed.
We should never allow ourselves to believe the "end justifies the means". That is, "do evil" (torture), so that good (keep my family safe) may come.
I'd hate it even more if I allowed the world to sway my faith and trust in God so as to do evil.
I don't like the bad-mouthing either. Our soldiers deserve better, and Bush deserves credit for keeping us safe. However, that doesn't mean we should condone torture.
BTW, I did a 4 year stint in the Army, mostly with the 101ST Airborne...peace time service.
peace to you
raying:windcatcher
New Member
C:
I don't have permission to speak for JustChristian, but suspect he was responding to Pastor Paul, who said:
Quote:
For-crying-out-loud, we are at war. And "war is hell!" It is never going to be a day at the park when it comes to fighting a war. It means that you, the soldier on the front-line and in the foxhole, will do whatever is necessary to adapt and stay alive. And that "necessary" thing is often ugly, and very difficult to talk about in front of people who were not there. War, and the choices made to keep the soldier alive will more than likely cross the line, but it's either "kill-or-be-killed" and the rules-of-engagement are not always right or wrong, black-or-white.
C:
JustChristian referred to Pastor Paul, not all Christians.
WC: Yes, it is not only possible but most probable that I mistook JC's statement and generalized and personalized. JC was the first to associate war with Christianity and that with a poster on this board.
WC:Quote:
Are you a Christian........ and if you are as you say you are..... then where do you include yourself in this, your judgement and identification of Christians?
WC: If JC had responded with his own opinion or simply addressed the other poster's opinion, rather than trying to identify another poster's opinion with his faith, I would have been more understanding. It appeared to be a judgement against RD2 and any Christian who may be sympathetic to Paul's opinion (mind you, whether or not they fully share Paul's opinion). In essence then what he did, I also did...... which doesn't make it right: Two wrongs never do.
C:
It is against posting rules to question the salvation of another member.
WC: It was not my intention to actually question the salvation of another member...... but it was my intention to mirror back to him the impact of his statements, when we're discussing gray areas of life which concern carnal things, and try then to spiritualize them by associating diversities of opinion as though they are doctrines of faith by identifying these opinions as being "Christian" or not Christian. Some things are clearly defined in the Word. Some things are not. This particular area of discussion I place in the 'gray' area of uncertainity. I firmly believe that torture is not in God's perfect will or plan: Nevertheless, we live in an imperfect world made up of imperfect beings who govern themselves and have conflicts like war which is not governed on the basis of Christian beliefs or standards.... no matter which side one is on, or the consideration if an individual may be a Christian or not.
WC Quote:
The tortures, so called, as far as I'm given to know, appear to be inflictions of discomforts or fear:
WC: We have on this board varying opinions as to what constitutes torture and what does not. You think this is exceptional? Even many secular voices are not in agreement as to what constitutes torture and what does not. Why should it surprise you that I waver in my willingness to declare something is torture when all Ive seen so far is public opinions on both sides and polls which swing one way and then another like the soup of the day menu? I have not seen the memos: Regarding some of it.... I think it is hilarious.... A quoran in a toilet! Mental torture? No! Inflamatory and designed to inflict frustration in a person who feels powerless to do something about it? Yes! Definately! But as sacred as I consider the Word of God... what counts are the words which go into my heart. While the Book has meaning to me and I would not like to live without it, the material of printed matter is not an icon which I worship or keep as a talisman of protection. It only serves its purpose when I read and apply it. Whether I put it on a shelf or another takes it and desecrates it..... they have done nothing to me. Their sacrilege is between themselves and God who is capable of being the revenger. People can go into a type of sleep deprivation psychosis but what this actually means is that while appearing to be awake, the mind will go into a dreamlike state where it makes its mends inspite of attempts to keep the person awake, and as such are identified as hallucinations. Is this torture? It definately fits the area of discomfort but are dreams torture? The person is not permanently harmed..... or is he? I don't know. But people have been put through these as test subjects and the general consensus which I've read is that students and test subjects who have participated in such experiments, made a full recovery after being given opportunity for normal rest with no lingering affect. The exception might be with a person already with a latent psychiatric disorder or mind damaged due to drugs. Is it necessary for me to determine if this is torture or not? By what criteria? By news reporters and politically crafted opinion or public polls or by scientific fact? Until I do know, I'm willing to say I don't know and thats why my statement "torture, so called". Until I know, it is others who have called it torture.... and I want to make clear that my opiinion is based upon parroting their qualifier..... not my own.
C:
Waterboarding is more than discomfort or fear. Phyically striking someone is more than discomfort or fear.
WC: Definitely it sounds abusive to me, and it could be torture ....... but are either always torture or does one or both have conditions of degrees where it is torture in one instance, abuse in another, and possibly facilitative or instructional in another.
As a child I got my fanny struck a number of times.... sometimes with a hand, sometimes with a belt and sometimes with a switch. Other kids got the paddle at school by the teacher in front of the class. Was that torture? My dad slapped me once and once grabbed my arm and turned me around. It might have been abuse.... though he nor I interpreted it as such at that time... but torture? Is the difference between calling it abuse or torture based upon the relationship of trust between a child and a parent, a student and his teacher, two people living in the same household........ or the relationship between captor and captive? Eons ago... well that is an exaggeration.... but back before you were a gleam in your father's eye, some parents taught their children to swim by throwing them into a shallow and slow flowing creek, just far enough to fear drowning but near enough shore to be within reach of safety but to encourage the childs efforts to paddle and gain experience that movement encourages keeping afloat, and holding one's head up enables breathing air instead of water. This act might be repeated again and again until the child started gaining some success and confidence and the distance was gradually increased until both parent and child entered the water and further training ensued: From the very start, the watchful parent was teaching the child a healthy respect and fear of going near the water through the initial experiences of probably swallowing and choking before developing confidence in swiming and movement on the surface. So, in the relationship of trust, the child learned experientially a certain respect for water that it can choke him which is painful.... and obeys when his parents caution against 'don't go near the water' ...... well before the child develops the confidence that the parents proximity ensures that he will not drown while his own instincts cause him to make his own efforts to survive.... which eventually may lead to his confidence in self preservation and skill should he ever find himself in the water through accident and without assistance. When interrogators are certain of the limits and that they will not allow drowning but the captive terrorists don't know their captors have limits.... is it so much that water boarding is torture... or the lack of relationship and knowledge of one's captors and their limits, makes one fearful of the unknown and false belief that the captive will be intentionally drowned? I say that there is an area here where I do not feel adequate to judge. I do not agree with torture but one's perception of what constitutes torture and what does not plays a lot into the gray area where torture cannot be clearly defined when taking into account the possible range of normally acceptable experiences which have a degree of comparibility from a normal life. It is not my intention to defend torture... but to present some possible realistic and compariable experiences which might help some see how much some of this may not be as clean cut and defined as some would have it to appear. I respect your opinion in challenge to mine.... and while its acceptible to me that you feel certain in your own persuasion, I hold that I have reasons sufficiently enough for me to be indeterminate regarding whether what we've been told is torture.... is really torture or barely short of it enough for saber rattling by groups which are more concerned for human rights than victim rights.... or who judge all accused as being victims.
WC Quote:
....my judgement and opinion is based upon my own experiences in a stable and peaceful life, with very low treshholds of what constitutes abuse based upon my training and work as a psychiactric technician in a rehab hospital.....What I am trying to say is that in each of us are our own impressions and opinions based upon our own experiences in life and/or our perceptions when we try to imagine our selves in the roles of victim vs perp.:
Continued:
windcatcher
New Member
Continued:
WC:
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. No one knows more than the sum total of their experiences... and its these experiences which give rise to their opinions and perceptions when exposed to new information which lies outside of what they'd already possessed. The merging of this new knowledge with that which was already a unique part of the individual's experience is called 'intergration' from which new opinions are formed and decisions based. Some folks process things faster or more decisively than others. For many this works great. I happen to be made with a slower processor than most folks. I know torture is wrong. But here we have some people insisting that certain things are torture and yet there are others who stand by their assessment that these interogation techniques don't constitute torture. We had one President who says it was not and now a President who says it was and exposes it without delay with all the experience of his office and his advisors of about 3 months. The Congress has already had some hearings on this matter and some were left undecided. Well if they were..... then I may not be in the best of company but I am not alone in my indecision. I would surmise that some of these who have better knowledge are either lying or exaggerating for sensationalism, or else undecided as I am regarding what does and doesnot constitute torture and whether these techniques fit within coercion and manipulative techniques or are obvious examples of torture.
C:
Perhaps we shouldn't base our opinions on our own experiences, but on the Word of God.
WC: I've one nearly just as good..... Perhaps we should be careful about jumping to our own conclusions based upon the reports and opinions of others. The news does not always report the facts. When it reports some facts, it often leaves others out. When it reports opinions it is often with political or special interest bias. Seldom is the opinion of an expert found, who is determinedly objective and detached from or without prejudice related to a particular side who gets media's ear. I am against prejudging and against aligning my stand as a opinionated person with that of my conscience as a Christian until I think I can be certain of enough facts to feel secure in my judgement. As for the Bible, it is my mirror in which I see and am regularly humbled by the fact that I know not as God would have me to know..... and I encourage others who who will join their faith with that of human judgement to be aware of their own limitations as well.
WC Quote:
Islamic soldiers, as already noted in the OP, do not have the moral restraints that our own military or intelligence agencies are subjected to. They don't have moral restraints concerning their own people! Parents kill their children for disobediance! Soldiesr rape innocents, or women who are considered to be out of place or proper escort. A wounded enemy doesn't get medical treatment or comfort and life in a prison.
WC: Perhaps I should have been clearer and stated "Islamic terrorist" which even the OP implied.
C:
I can only say you are repeating propoganda that is common in any war. When our soldiers were captured by Iraqi soldiers, they were given medical treatment and the women soldiers were not raped. The radical terrorists, of course, are a different story. So, please don't paint with a very broad brush and say that "Islamic soldiers" are immoral and rapists and such.
WC: I concede. It was an error in my haste to post and get off to an all-day affair, which kept me until recently from reading this and posting a response. At risk of being repetitive, I meant islamic terrorist. We are continuing in a war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but clearly it is against or meant to be against the terrorist of their country and not the people there who are not involved. And, yes, terrorist do behead and rape and bomb houses, cars, civilians and soldiers and kill their own countrymen, and commit other attrocities without any semblance of moral compass though they cloak their own crimes in the name of their religion. I hope we don't follow their example: But neither am I sure that we have as some posting here have stated.
WC Quote:
JC, if your going to condem anyone, condem the enemy who is the enemy of Christians and your Christ, unless you be disposessed of his spirit..... in which case, by all means identify your true allegiance and cease from your attempts to stand with the Christian community while you vitolize those simply because you differ in your opinion.
WC:
How about: JC, if you're going to condem anyone, condem the enemy who is the enemy of Christians and your Christ. Now if one is dispossessed of his spirit, and I'm not saying that you are, he should by all means identify his true allegiance and cease from attempts to identify as a Christian while vitrolizing others who express their differing opinion. Not all opinions expressed are the outcome of our faith and doctrine. Perhaps we make too much haste to express our strong opinion, when, in fact, we are lacking in knowledge and preparation to do so. I admit to my indecisiveness. I wish you could admit to the excessively harsh judgement that you rush comparing America's action to those of wild beast and concluding with your hope "that we never cross that line again" which implies that we have or did cross that line. Our military and CIA interrogators might have withheld the rights of free men from those it caught and believed to be terrorist, and used coercive and manipulative techniques to encourage confessions of plans and plots and associates..... but before making a blanket condemnation of everything which was done.... lets wait until more facts are known. We can already rest inas much as we know that it has been stopped. Now lets see if any were maimed or harmed, or in any way broken so that permanant or irreparable damage was done.... or was the damage that to human pride and will, a real embarassment, caused by the failure to endure in endurable circumstances.
C:
This is the second time in your post that you questioned the salvation of JustChristian. It is against posting rules and you should be ashamed of yourself and reprimanded.
I encourage you to publicly apologize to JustChristian before someone reports you to the moderators.
WC:
Then let this be notice to you and this board and to JC, that it was not my intention to question his salvation nor Christianity. To those who read my response as such, I apologize and am sorry if I left any of you and JustChristian with that impression.
As for the mods: It's their board and peacekeeping and enforcement of rules is one of the most difficult jobs they have. I submit to their disciplinary action without prejudice. I'm very much human and intense in some of my opinions. I don't mean to offend nor inflame.... but no doubt I do.... and I can't promise that I wont do it again.... though I'll try to be more careful.
WC:
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. No one knows more than the sum total of their experiences... and its these experiences which give rise to their opinions and perceptions when exposed to new information which lies outside of what they'd already possessed. The merging of this new knowledge with that which was already a unique part of the individual's experience is called 'intergration' from which new opinions are formed and decisions based. Some folks process things faster or more decisively than others. For many this works great. I happen to be made with a slower processor than most folks. I know torture is wrong. But here we have some people insisting that certain things are torture and yet there are others who stand by their assessment that these interogation techniques don't constitute torture. We had one President who says it was not and now a President who says it was and exposes it without delay with all the experience of his office and his advisors of about 3 months. The Congress has already had some hearings on this matter and some were left undecided. Well if they were..... then I may not be in the best of company but I am not alone in my indecision. I would surmise that some of these who have better knowledge are either lying or exaggerating for sensationalism, or else undecided as I am regarding what does and doesnot constitute torture and whether these techniques fit within coercion and manipulative techniques or are obvious examples of torture.
C:
Perhaps we shouldn't base our opinions on our own experiences, but on the Word of God.
WC: I've one nearly just as good..... Perhaps we should be careful about jumping to our own conclusions based upon the reports and opinions of others. The news does not always report the facts. When it reports some facts, it often leaves others out. When it reports opinions it is often with political or special interest bias. Seldom is the opinion of an expert found, who is determinedly objective and detached from or without prejudice related to a particular side who gets media's ear. I am against prejudging and against aligning my stand as a opinionated person with that of my conscience as a Christian until I think I can be certain of enough facts to feel secure in my judgement. As for the Bible, it is my mirror in which I see and am regularly humbled by the fact that I know not as God would have me to know..... and I encourage others who who will join their faith with that of human judgement to be aware of their own limitations as well.
WC Quote:
Islamic soldiers, as already noted in the OP, do not have the moral restraints that our own military or intelligence agencies are subjected to. They don't have moral restraints concerning their own people! Parents kill their children for disobediance! Soldiesr rape innocents, or women who are considered to be out of place or proper escort. A wounded enemy doesn't get medical treatment or comfort and life in a prison.
WC: Perhaps I should have been clearer and stated "Islamic terrorist" which even the OP implied.
C:
I can only say you are repeating propoganda that is common in any war. When our soldiers were captured by Iraqi soldiers, they were given medical treatment and the women soldiers were not raped. The radical terrorists, of course, are a different story. So, please don't paint with a very broad brush and say that "Islamic soldiers" are immoral and rapists and such.
WC: I concede. It was an error in my haste to post and get off to an all-day affair, which kept me until recently from reading this and posting a response. At risk of being repetitive, I meant islamic terrorist. We are continuing in a war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but clearly it is against or meant to be against the terrorist of their country and not the people there who are not involved. And, yes, terrorist do behead and rape and bomb houses, cars, civilians and soldiers and kill their own countrymen, and commit other attrocities without any semblance of moral compass though they cloak their own crimes in the name of their religion. I hope we don't follow their example: But neither am I sure that we have as some posting here have stated.
WC Quote:
JC, if your going to condem anyone, condem the enemy who is the enemy of Christians and your Christ, unless you be disposessed of his spirit..... in which case, by all means identify your true allegiance and cease from your attempts to stand with the Christian community while you vitolize those simply because you differ in your opinion.
WC:
How about: JC, if you're going to condem anyone, condem the enemy who is the enemy of Christians and your Christ. Now if one is dispossessed of his spirit, and I'm not saying that you are, he should by all means identify his true allegiance and cease from attempts to identify as a Christian while vitrolizing others who express their differing opinion. Not all opinions expressed are the outcome of our faith and doctrine. Perhaps we make too much haste to express our strong opinion, when, in fact, we are lacking in knowledge and preparation to do so. I admit to my indecisiveness. I wish you could admit to the excessively harsh judgement that you rush comparing America's action to those of wild beast and concluding with your hope "that we never cross that line again" which implies that we have or did cross that line. Our military and CIA interrogators might have withheld the rights of free men from those it caught and believed to be terrorist, and used coercive and manipulative techniques to encourage confessions of plans and plots and associates..... but before making a blanket condemnation of everything which was done.... lets wait until more facts are known. We can already rest inas much as we know that it has been stopped. Now lets see if any were maimed or harmed, or in any way broken so that permanant or irreparable damage was done.... or was the damage that to human pride and will, a real embarassment, caused by the failure to endure in endurable circumstances.
C:
This is the second time in your post that you questioned the salvation of JustChristian. It is against posting rules and you should be ashamed of yourself and reprimanded.
I encourage you to publicly apologize to JustChristian before someone reports you to the moderators.
WC:
Then let this be notice to you and this board and to JC, that it was not my intention to question his salvation nor Christianity. To those who read my response as such, I apologize and am sorry if I left any of you and JustChristian with that impression.
As for the mods: It's their board and peacekeeping and enforcement of rules is one of the most difficult jobs they have. I submit to their disciplinary action without prejudice. I'm very much human and intense in some of my opinions. I don't mean to offend nor inflame.... but no doubt I do.... and I can't promise that I wont do it again.... though I'll try to be more careful.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You are gracious and humble; qualities befitting a man of God.
As do I.:thumbsup:
peace to you
raying:
May I Point Out That....
England fought their wars "honorably" and look where it got them.....if you are going to beat this new kind of enemy, you have to fight them on the same level that they fight you. If we fight in an honorable way, we will be defeated; and defeated soundly.
By the way, I believe Iraq had WMD's, but they had several months to relocate these weapons before American's invaded, and that is what they did. Had we went in immediately, we would have caught these guys with their pants down!. America can't keep warning the enemy that we are coming on such-and-such date, and do it right to the last second.
We are a world leader. You are very correct on this count. The problem is, we need to be less honorable where less honorable is needed, and since Obama has said that we are NOT a Christian nation, than we have nothing to lose. Rome was great because they were ruthless. A nation's military must be permitted to do what ever is needed to extract a victory. Honor is not respected, especially when the enemy has no honor in its decisions. The Tali-ban and al Queda have yet to hold Congressional Hearings on their actions in this war. And truth be known, they never will hold hearings, nor will they arrest their soldiers for rape and put them on trial. Just the opposite; they give their worst soldiers praise and awards.
War is not for the faint at heart. It is ugly. people get killed. People get maimed. Honor is good ONLY if the other guy fights with honor. However, the enemy knows we are honorable, and they use that against us; over-and-over again!
Wake up America. War is not a Hollywood production. It is not a 122 minute flick where the good guy comes back from a near defeat and wins the fight and the girl in the end. There are no stunt-doubles in war. The explosions, blood, and guts are not FX special effects. The effects are real human blood, and flesh. And if you are going to fight, than you go into that fight with the expectation that you will win AT ANY COST!!!! When you run out of bullets, you bash the head of the enemy in with the butt of your rifle; or, run your bayonet into the heart or gut of the enemy. Honor only goes so far, than realty hits home like an incoming mortar round. And should you not get out of its way, you will be buried at the bottom of the small crater that incoming round makes.
There are no words to explain just what our men and women face every minute of every day that they are in "Harm's way" and we, back in the homeland, half-way around the world from the explosions and hand-to-hand-combat can't begin to imagine the horrors that each decision made to maintain their right to live another day brings.
Grow up. You that speak of honor, and fighting in a way that lifts up American standards have no idea what war does to a persons morals, values, and honor.
By the way. Those who think America should treat the Gitmo detainees with respect according to the Geneva Convention need to know that according to the Convention, any person captured out of uniform is not to be accorded the rights of a POW. These folks are in all actuality, spies, and deserve only to be shot. Since terrorists don't wear the uniform of their nations military, they are nothing more than spies, and should be taken out back, at Gitmo, and shot dead! That is the letter of the law, and that is the honorable way. So, I guess, our torture tactics are more humane than the alternative, which is a firing squad, and death???
Pastor Paul:type:
England fought their wars "honorably" and look where it got them.....if you are going to beat this new kind of enemy, you have to fight them on the same level that they fight you. If we fight in an honorable way, we will be defeated; and defeated soundly.
By the way, I believe Iraq had WMD's, but they had several months to relocate these weapons before American's invaded, and that is what they did. Had we went in immediately, we would have caught these guys with their pants down!. America can't keep warning the enemy that we are coming on such-and-such date, and do it right to the last second.
We are a world leader. You are very correct on this count. The problem is, we need to be less honorable where less honorable is needed, and since Obama has said that we are NOT a Christian nation, than we have nothing to lose. Rome was great because they were ruthless. A nation's military must be permitted to do what ever is needed to extract a victory. Honor is not respected, especially when the enemy has no honor in its decisions. The Tali-ban and al Queda have yet to hold Congressional Hearings on their actions in this war. And truth be known, they never will hold hearings, nor will they arrest their soldiers for rape and put them on trial. Just the opposite; they give their worst soldiers praise and awards.
War is not for the faint at heart. It is ugly. people get killed. People get maimed. Honor is good ONLY if the other guy fights with honor. However, the enemy knows we are honorable, and they use that against us; over-and-over again!
Wake up America. War is not a Hollywood production. It is not a 122 minute flick where the good guy comes back from a near defeat and wins the fight and the girl in the end. There are no stunt-doubles in war. The explosions, blood, and guts are not FX special effects. The effects are real human blood, and flesh. And if you are going to fight, than you go into that fight with the expectation that you will win AT ANY COST!!!! When you run out of bullets, you bash the head of the enemy in with the butt of your rifle; or, run your bayonet into the heart or gut of the enemy. Honor only goes so far, than realty hits home like an incoming mortar round. And should you not get out of its way, you will be buried at the bottom of the small crater that incoming round makes.
There are no words to explain just what our men and women face every minute of every day that they are in "Harm's way" and we, back in the homeland, half-way around the world from the explosions and hand-to-hand-combat can't begin to imagine the horrors that each decision made to maintain their right to live another day brings.
Grow up. You that speak of honor, and fighting in a way that lifts up American standards have no idea what war does to a persons morals, values, and honor.
By the way. Those who think America should treat the Gitmo detainees with respect according to the Geneva Convention need to know that according to the Convention, any person captured out of uniform is not to be accorded the rights of a POW. These folks are in all actuality, spies, and deserve only to be shot. Since terrorists don't wear the uniform of their nations military, they are nothing more than spies, and should be taken out back, at Gitmo, and shot dead! That is the letter of the law, and that is the honorable way. So, I guess, our torture tactics are more humane than the alternative, which is a firing squad, and death???
Pastor Paul:type:
JustChristian
New Member
Bub you need to start acting like what you call yourself, a Christian.
Cool It....
If you guys don't get back on topic, the Mods will shut this post down, and I don't want that. So, I beg of you: please get back on track, and stop the finger pointing, and fingerwagging....
If you guys don't get back on topic, the Mods will shut this post down, and I don't want that. So, I beg of you: please get back on track, and stop the finger pointing, and fingerwagging....
THANKS
:thumbs:I disagree, in fact I strongly disagree. We are no better than they if we stoop to their level. Think about it RD, we cannot fight evil with evil or evil has won because it caused the good to become evil.
We are better and shouldn't compromise our morals for any reason. It is like Christianity, we don't compromise our beliefs in the face of horrendous evil of any kind. Jesus taught us to "Love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them which despitefully use and persecute us;". Nowhere did he teach to compromise these values in the face of new kinds of wicked opposition. The day the righteous turns to wickedness to conquer evil is the day evil has won over righteousness.
RD, I must make a confession but I hope this eases your position. I cheated and skipped to the back of the book. In the end, Good triumphs over evil. Good has nothing to fear and no reason to compromise being Good, in the end the righteous will prosper and the wicked will die.
The Bible also teaches that governments do not bear the sword in vain. It is important to separate individual actions from those done on behalf of the ruling authorities and/or laws charged with governing and protecting people. Certainly we as individuals should love our enemies, but we should also love our friends and family and fellow citizens. This means it is sometimes necessary to take physical action against our enemies on behalf of the rule of law, so that innocents are not harmed. This action has to be done by people. Someone who refuses to intervene physically to help someone under any circumstances because we are called to love our enemies is thinking only about his own self-righteousness. If I may be so bold, in some cases it is a convenient excuse for cowardice. There is nothing unGodly about resisting those who would harm innocent people, whether it is in your own home or on the battlefield or in the interrogation room. You can make the decision yourself to lay down in front of the evil and be slaughtered if you so desire, but using the name of Jesus to essentially call on all the good people to simply surrender to the evil is evil in itself. Restricting ourselves AS A COUNTRY to specific limited rules of conduct while our enemies are free to do anything they want is, as a practical matter in the long run, doing just that. That doesn't mean having no morals. It simply means adjusting the application of our morals to the practical necessities of war, the purpose of which (in this case) is the protection of our citizens from those who have no morals and seek our extermination. That is in no way lowering ourselves to their level, and I honestly can't understand how someone could look at the facts and conclude that it does.
windcatcher
New Member
Ha! This is funny in a way: Comparing how we fight!
If the early colonists had fought with the lined up discipline of British soldiers during the revolutionary war..... we would have lost.
But they had learned from the Indians some techniques which helped them.
One doesn't win wars by comprimising their moral values..... but they do have to know the techniques and strategy of the enemy, his weaknesses and strengths and use that knowledge to modify one's own techniques. Warfare involves not only strategy, armaments, but the breaking of morale which holds loyalties, determination, and courage together within the resolve of each individual soldier whether separated or united with his fighting team, but has as its goal subduing the enemy by whatever means necessary. Killing and brutallity are part of the ugly picture.
The seeds of war originated in the rebellion in heaven and the disobediance in the garden. War is evil: But as long as there exists dualities of good vs evil in coexistance of life, there will be wars which originate from the conflicts between good and evil. The evil of war is not as clear cut situation as the determination of a society which decides to protect the life of the unborn, which our country is proving that it is morally incapable of doing.
People of different countries get caught up in their obligations and duties when they join or are compelled into the military. The people who make up these forces are expected to perform under orders with allegiance to their country, not allegiance to their faith or religion. The morals and faith of an individual play a part in personal choices when and if he's in a situation to influence others or in a position to make an independant decision. Otherwise, the burden of moral decisions rests primarily on those who give orders, and they have to answer to those above them for either carrying out orders as given or for their interpretation in carrying them out.
RD2, stated correctly, war is hell. That is where it originates and that is where it will stay when the righteousness of the King reigns in the new world yet to come.
In the meantime, this is one of the many reasons that we should pray for our soldiers and our country: Many Christian soldiers are fighting for us. Their independant choices under orders are quite limited. We can pray that God will give them strength and endurance, protection and success in their endeavors, and good moral leadership: And pray that God will give both them and the officers over them wisdom in making decisions which are not only good strategy but will pass the scutiny of conscience when later revisited by memory or history..... .
The following ventures from the topic:
I think how the Bible speaks about Lot's living in Sodom where his own soul was vexed: While he lived as a righteous man, he lived with his family in the midst of a society rife with immorality and no regard for God. (Can't we all identify with this?) When sheltering the angelic visitors, even he was tempted to offer his own daughters to the merciless and sordid appetites of an immoral mob.
As Christians, we are in this world but our citizenship is not of this world. Our young men (and women) are not currently compelled by law or drafts to join the military. But many feel compelled to join the military for varying reasons, one of which may include believing this is God's calling. They need our prayers. Once enlisted, they go where they would not and may be compelled to do that which they would not. Their consciences may be seared by what they endure in training and combat, and by what they hear, see, and feel, when 'doing their duty'. If we donot agree with the policies of our administrations, or if some of us do not agree with the reasons for war, the polices which led us there or keep us there, as Christians, we can still find reason (in the love of Christ) and understanding (in that we are human and subject to deception and obediance under powers not always open to our understanding) and exercise caution and sensitivity and our own restraint, if and when we choose to voice opposition, so that we add no more burden to the conscience and obligations of those who serve to keep us secure.
On April 16th of this year, my 87y/o dad was honored to receive 14 medals which were due him from the course of his military service in WW II, in the Mediterranian and in the Pacific, 20 years in the Navy: One statement he made at the brief ceremony had to do with the information now given to the public. He gave his opinion that the military faces greater difficulties today than ever before due to the insistance by the news media and public that everything is published and open..... which includes what he feels should be information kept secret and internal to the operations of war..... both for the safety of the men who serve and for the security of us who benefit from their service. He voiced that often we mistakenly give a morale boost to the enemy by the exposure of our weapondry, strategy, and methods, while undermining the protections and security and the morale of those in our military and allies which are on our side. In his opinion, caution and restraint should be exercised until exercises are over and a war is concluded before bringing anything other that obvious criminal or treasonous conduct before the public.
I agree with his position. There are somethings which are better left alone or unknown. Knowledge adds responsibility, sometimes to those who never owned it to begin with. In a civil society ruled by politics and opinion, often times exposure serves the political rather than the moral or security interest of society.
If the early colonists had fought with the lined up discipline of British soldiers during the revolutionary war..... we would have lost.
But they had learned from the Indians some techniques which helped them.
One doesn't win wars by comprimising their moral values..... but they do have to know the techniques and strategy of the enemy, his weaknesses and strengths and use that knowledge to modify one's own techniques. Warfare involves not only strategy, armaments, but the breaking of morale which holds loyalties, determination, and courage together within the resolve of each individual soldier whether separated or united with his fighting team, but has as its goal subduing the enemy by whatever means necessary. Killing and brutallity are part of the ugly picture.
The seeds of war originated in the rebellion in heaven and the disobediance in the garden. War is evil: But as long as there exists dualities of good vs evil in coexistance of life, there will be wars which originate from the conflicts between good and evil. The evil of war is not as clear cut situation as the determination of a society which decides to protect the life of the unborn, which our country is proving that it is morally incapable of doing.
People of different countries get caught up in their obligations and duties when they join or are compelled into the military. The people who make up these forces are expected to perform under orders with allegiance to their country, not allegiance to their faith or religion. The morals and faith of an individual play a part in personal choices when and if he's in a situation to influence others or in a position to make an independant decision. Otherwise, the burden of moral decisions rests primarily on those who give orders, and they have to answer to those above them for either carrying out orders as given or for their interpretation in carrying them out.
RD2, stated correctly, war is hell. That is where it originates and that is where it will stay when the righteousness of the King reigns in the new world yet to come.
In the meantime, this is one of the many reasons that we should pray for our soldiers and our country: Many Christian soldiers are fighting for us. Their independant choices under orders are quite limited. We can pray that God will give them strength and endurance, protection and success in their endeavors, and good moral leadership: And pray that God will give both them and the officers over them wisdom in making decisions which are not only good strategy but will pass the scutiny of conscience when later revisited by memory or history..... .
The following ventures from the topic:
I think how the Bible speaks about Lot's living in Sodom where his own soul was vexed: While he lived as a righteous man, he lived with his family in the midst of a society rife with immorality and no regard for God. (Can't we all identify with this?) When sheltering the angelic visitors, even he was tempted to offer his own daughters to the merciless and sordid appetites of an immoral mob.
As Christians, we are in this world but our citizenship is not of this world. Our young men (and women) are not currently compelled by law or drafts to join the military. But many feel compelled to join the military for varying reasons, one of which may include believing this is God's calling. They need our prayers. Once enlisted, they go where they would not and may be compelled to do that which they would not. Their consciences may be seared by what they endure in training and combat, and by what they hear, see, and feel, when 'doing their duty'. If we donot agree with the policies of our administrations, or if some of us do not agree with the reasons for war, the polices which led us there or keep us there, as Christians, we can still find reason (in the love of Christ) and understanding (in that we are human and subject to deception and obediance under powers not always open to our understanding) and exercise caution and sensitivity and our own restraint, if and when we choose to voice opposition, so that we add no more burden to the conscience and obligations of those who serve to keep us secure.
On April 16th of this year, my 87y/o dad was honored to receive 14 medals which were due him from the course of his military service in WW II, in the Mediterranian and in the Pacific, 20 years in the Navy: One statement he made at the brief ceremony had to do with the information now given to the public. He gave his opinion that the military faces greater difficulties today than ever before due to the insistance by the news media and public that everything is published and open..... which includes what he feels should be information kept secret and internal to the operations of war..... both for the safety of the men who serve and for the security of us who benefit from their service. He voiced that often we mistakenly give a morale boost to the enemy by the exposure of our weapondry, strategy, and methods, while undermining the protections and security and the morale of those in our military and allies which are on our side. In his opinion, caution and restraint should be exercised until exercises are over and a war is concluded before bringing anything other that obvious criminal or treasonous conduct before the public.
I agree with his position. There are somethings which are better left alone or unknown. Knowledge adds responsibility, sometimes to those who never owned it to begin with. In a civil society ruled by politics and opinion, often times exposure serves the political rather than the moral or security interest of society.
Last edited by a moderator:
windcatcher
New Member
As Christians - and I'm assuming all the posters thus far are Christians - we have to remember that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and that we are not to conform to the standards of this world - whether those standards be those of the Taliban, the CIA, or MI5 etc. If we stoop to the level of our enemies, then we have already lost the moral battle.
windcatcher
New Member
It follows, then, if agreed with your ascercion, that Christians should not involve themselves in the military or in any other occupation which requires our conforming to the policies of this worlds' systems and rules of law: That would include public school teachers and office holders. Perhaps, we need to acknowledge that the standards of the kingdom of God vs the kingdoms of this world are different.... the standards of justice, the standards of morality, the standards of law. Perhaps we should not concern ourselves with laws which are based more in humanism than Biblical morality since the origin for them and the necessity of them arises from the evil in this fallen world (need I say abortion, or same s@x union?). Perhaps we should concede terratory and let the devil have his due. ( I don't agree.)
Or......... we can do the best we can..... realizing that while our citizenship is not in this world, still we are called to serve in the liberty which we have in Christ in this world, in whatever occupation we are called to serve, recognizing that from time to time we may face vexation of conscience, and hoping that from time to time the Lord will open opportunities for witness and testimony through our walk with him in the duties of our calling. It was not for nothing that our LORD, in his model prayer, said 'lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil'. It is the world which continues to lower the standards..... not our head, which is Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
So, if someone chooses to actually follow what Jesus said, opposed to paying lip-service to what Jesus said, that person is a coward and is only concerned about his own self-righteousness?
But the person who chooses to follow the ways of the world, corrupted and polluted by the world's violence...even to the point of torturing another human being, that person is pleasing to our Lord?
Jesus and His apostles disagree with you. Does that matter?
It means are morals are corrupted by the world, no matter what words are used to soothe the conscience and we impliment an "ends justifies the means" mentality.
So, your view can be summed up in 4 steps:
Step 1. Disregard what Jesus and the apostles say in God's Word.
Step 2. Call anyone that wants to follow what Jesus said in God's Word a self-righteous coward.
Step 3. Deny our morals have been corrupted as we follow the ways of the world.
Step 4. Claim you can't understand how anyone could see it differently.
I'll stick with scripture.
peace to you
raying:
Last edited by a moderator:
Not necessarily, no. Just that we have to, as Christians, if we're serious about being Christ's followers and disciples as opposed to being merely 'cultural Christians', have to ask ourselves seriously every step of the way, "What would Jesus do?" If we can't see Jesus doing it, then neither should we; sometimes that means we may have to lose our jobs or that we shoudn't apply for certain jobs - but not always - and if that means we have to as a consequence disobey orders or lose our jobs, then that's what that means. It might mean, for example, that a Christian nurse refuses to assist with an abortion or (real case in this country) that a Christian registrar of marriages is fired because she refuses to perform same-sex civil unions (to use your two examples).
I reiterate: if we're serious about being Christians, then "what would Jesus do" is very pertinent. Somehow I can't see Him torturing people. Therefore neither should we as Christians - and we shouldn't support those who do: we have a higher standard to which to be held accountable than the princes of this world.
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul in no way encourages the leader to take matters upon himself, go outside the law or to match evil with evil. That is not at all what he was saying. Leaders are still expected to rule within the law. What he is saying is that the law at times will appear harsh (...ie eye for eye) but it is not the leaders law to administer, it is Gods Law.
I disagree... God's law prescribed the punishment for the crime. This is not man's punishment, it is prescribed by God. Ruling authorities must stay within that framework and not create justifications that makes matching evil for evil okay. No where do you see God encouraging human rulers to take whatever extremes he feels necessary to protect his people.
Whether individual or ruling authorities there are laws and we must adhere to laws or we are no better than the wicked and evil of the world.
It takes more strength to love your enemy than to reciprocate evil with evil. That is the lesson Christ was trying to teach. It is a strong man who can love them that hate him, it takes strength to turn the other cheek not cowardice. I don't understand your view of God's word.
I don't know what is implied by "nothing". God has told us in His Word what is Godly. Anything contrary to that is unGodly no matter the reason or place. I don't recall God's Word encouraging us to abandon righteousness to protect innocent people. Can you show me that in His Word?
I am not using the name of Jesus, I quoted scripture. God is my protector, my sword and shield. I have no reason or excuse to resulting to evil. If you have a Gospel that you can abandon in the face of adversity then so be it but that is not the Gospel I am set to defend.
Restricting ourselves as a country to specific limited rules is what makes us civilized, a great nation and leader in the world. Lowering ourselves to the actions or midset of thugs makes us no better than they. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
I disagree and don't find your assertions consistent with the Word of God.
Your first and last sentences seem to conflict with themselves.
Adjusting strategy and fighting techniques are different from matching evil with evil. I agree war is brutal and ugly but once we have the enemy captive and under our control, we are then obligated to a moral standard that is not the same as combat. We as a civilized nation created an Army field manual with interrogation techniques we find acceptable. The use of other techniques should begin by modifying the manual.
Subduing the enemy by whatever means necessary is not an excuse or justification to abandon our moral beliefs and become evil in order to conquer evil.
Mt 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
You can't defeat evil with evil, evil must and will be defeated by Good.