Christianity Today Poll | Christian Leaders and Politics

What do you base this on? Some odds or something? What makes you think I wouldn't?And while I'm btiching about you, why don't you use the quote function more? I've seen replies from you that are like 3 pages later and have no quote and are just little one-liners and it makes it really hard to follow the discussion. Use the quotes! Fuck it. Or continue to ignore you as usual, like everybody else does

i'll put in some spacing just for you. i thought about it, but couldn't decide where.

Thanks for your reply, GDR, and with such candor. You've made some excellent points. Hopefully I will be able to address them satisfactorily.Honestly GDR, I see this war, along with other current events, as the clearest warning sign before the trump of God will be heard. The problem is there is no telling what the future would have been like with Saddam still in power. In hindsight, we say that Iraq was not worth the trouble. But in foresight, did this stop something far more diabolical? We can't say for sure.But imagine, if you will, if the United States decided to leave the tattered relations between the Germans the English as an "European problem that we aren't supposed to meddle in?"Was it better or worse to have stayed out of Iraq? I don't know. But I do know this. Whether we went to in to Iraq or not will not stop what is going to befall the entire world. You know, its an honorable thing for Westerners to want peace in the Middle East, but as you said, we Westerners are a bit naive when it comes to the Middle East and its relations with the rest of the world. We think we can undue millenia of customs in a short period of time. It is true that we are not battle as the world battles. But I know this much: Absolute pacifism brings about absolute corruption. Do you really believe that it extends to warfare, especially in light of reading King David-- who Jesus is heir to? No.Of course this isn't a blank check to go to war. Surely there are just wars and unjust wars. And this is the one area where my wife and I disagree considerably from a theological point of view.If a rapist was coming in to rape your wife and daughter, are you supposed to turn the other cheek? Absolutely not! When someone insults you and mocks and you in to a fight are you supposed to turn the other cheek? Absolutely!I think there is this belief that Christians are supposed to be pacifists. I don't believe that for a second. Anyone reading the Old Testament must surely know that it is irreconcilable if it was the case.Jesus Himself, speaking of the End Times, uses terms of warfare to get His message across. Yet, He also speaks of peace. Is that irreconcilable? No. It isn't. I believe that war is wrong. I believe that war is a consequence for our ultimate disobedience. I believe that we were never intended to fight with anyone for any reason. But just as the eating of animals was never intended -- i.e., killing them and eating their flesh-- it falls within the permissive will of God, but war and such, is always outside of His perfect will.Therefore, we are to make peace with everyone as much as it is dependent upon us. But should anyone seek to harm us, surely we are guaranteed the right to defend ourselves.As King Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, reputed as the wisest man to have ever lived, there is a time for everything. A time for peace, a time for war, a time to sow, and a time to reap. The interesting thing is that in the 60's during the anti-war protests, the Byrds, in their famous song, was taken directly from this scripture.I would like for you to listen to this Q&A. This apologist featured on the program succinctly describes my sentiments on how Christians should view warfare. Please let me know your feelings about it.http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3/JT/JTCD171-3.mp3

---

"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard

And exactly how did Iraq attack us?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, by this statement: , I can tell. It was cerebral.

---

"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard

cause you're oh so brilliant all the time.

People have been forecasting the end of the age for a long time. I suggest that we should always take the long term view. For that matter when God re-creates this creation who knows what impact our actions today will have on the new creation. I think we should plan on being around for another million years or so and let God worry about the timing of the nest phase of creation. We might not know how the future would have looked if Hussein had remained in power but we can see the situation now. Thousands and thousands of people have died including thousands of western military people. I realize that thousands of people were dying under the brutal reign of Hussein but at least he was carrying the can for it. I contend that the US has been diminished in both economic and political power by the war in Iraq, and I see that as a real shame. I believe that at its best the US could easily be the greatest force for good the world has ever seen and I hate to see that potential diminished. Well, seeing as how the US went into the war officially after being attacked by Japan, and seeing as how Japan and the Nazis were allies I don’t quite accept your point. Please don’t take that as being ungrateful for what the US did in WW II. The US entry into the war in Europe probably shortened the war by a year in which time the Nazis could well have developed the atomic bomb. The US entry no doubt saved tens of thousands of Canadian lives alone. Thank you. Which is one reason I believe that it was ill advised to go into Iraq. Actually I’m not a pacifist. I spent a number of years in the military. The question becomes is the Iraq war just. We should also use our God given wisdom. Are the goals in Iraq achievable? I contend that in both cases the answer is no. The answer in your first case is no. In the second case, ideally, I believe the answer is yes. (Wisdom and discretion might come into play here as well. ) All I know is that as Christians we are called to bring God’s truth, love and justice to the world. I just can’t see where dropping bombs on Baghdad meets that calling. I don’t believe that we can use the OT to justify war either. We have a new covenant. Jesus tells us that we are to love God and love our neighbour. If what we do doesn’t comply with that then we are not in the will of God. We are called to turn the other cheek. The problem is though, how do you turn the other cheek on behalf of someone else. We can look at Iraq and say that we are doing the Christian thing by defending innocent Iraqis from a amoral tyrant. The problem is huge number of innocents killed in the process. Also, it sure appears to me that it is highly unlikely there will be a stable government for all the people installed in that last place anytime within the next hundred years. Actually the Byrds were using a Pete Seeger song, but I agree they did a good job of it. I don’t really have a problem with what he says. I agree that there are going to be times when war becomes the only alternative. It is primarily a matter of sorting out when war is justified. In the case of Iraq I contend that it hadn’t gotten to that point. It seems to me that on a humanitarian basis, a much better case could have been made for going into Sudan.None of these problems are easy. Just what would Jesus do?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This forum would probably be in Russian instead of English or German.Seriously, NJ, please either take some classes in history or at least read about it on your own. Your appalling ignorance on this subject seriously detracts from the quality of your arguments. The idea that the US alone saved the world from Hitler is also an insult to everyone else involved.Sorry admins for the off-topic crap, I just really hate even the pretense of falsehoods concerning history.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Only if the Cold War went hot and the Western world faltered. What on earth was inaccurate about what I said? If the alliance between France, Brittain, America, and Russia had lost to the axis, there's an excellent chance we'd all be speaking German right now.Aside from which, I was speaking in terms had the US remained isolationist on the issue and never entered the war. Anglagard, I'm not giving sole credit to the US. Every nation involved with stopping the Japanese, Italians, and Germans played integral and instrumental roles in stopping fascism. Should any of the alliance been taken out of the equation, I dare say the outcome could have been vastly different.But you have to remember that the Nazi's were already well inside the UK and Russia. My point is that if America decided that a European war was not our business, our current disposition might be completely different than what is known today.Now please tell me what I said that was so grossly inaccruate that you felt the need for revisionist history lessons.

---

"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard

Very true, but have almost all of the key players been aligned in such a way as they are today? Some people are of the view that we shouldn't worry about prophecy too much, even though the Bible is comprised of 2/3 prophecy, because its always looking to future events. And if its looking only at the end game, then it neglects what Jesus called us to do in the here and the now.On the flip side of the coin, you have some today that are unwilling to even be instructed by prophecy and kind of take the attitude that what will be will be, so we shouldn't worry about it at all. I see myself as being in the middle of that road. I believe that prophecy is very imortant, but not if we lose sight of the humanity we are supposed to glean from the gospel. The Western world is fickle. Al Qaeda leaders were right when they said America has no heart for an actual war. They get really pepped up but lose heart so quickly when people start dying, as if war never produced casualties.When the Iraq and Afghan casualities are juxtaposed by Vietnam, WWII, WWI, etc, the net loss is no where comparable. People are forgetting that we're in it for the long road this time. Even if we left Iraq right now, its not going to stop nations like Iran. I don't know how else to say this, but expect darkness before you see the light, for it is always darkest before dawn. She has always been that beacon of light. And yes, it is a shame. But I won't go in to why I believe that it has diminished. There is a spiritual battle at the heart of America far more insidious than anything terrorist organizations can do. Well, don't thank me... I wasn't even alive! But I understand what you mean. The President at that time really didn't want to get involved. And I can't imagine the tragedy of thinking what would have happened should the US decided to remain isolationist on the issue. Germany clearly had aspirations for global domination, as Hitler's war machine systematically invaded country after country. All that may be. What then would you advise the US to do if you were in charge? We can all argue all day day along about how it was good or bad to have gone in to Iraq. But the plain fact is we are there now and nothing can undue the past.At the present time though, is it better to leave Iraq immediately, establish a timeline wherein either an objective is met or not, or should the alliance stay in for the long road? Consider your alternative. Did you know that the US was attacked 8 times, without provocation, over the course of 20-25 years? At what point should the US have said enough is enough?!?!I should also add that no one is dropping bombs on Baghdad. Precision guided missles and smart bombs are in their place. Carpet bombing is no longer a viable tool in the US arsenal because of the fear of hitting unintended people. Now, even with precision guided munitions, there still exists the possibility of collateral damage. And we've all seen photo's of that damage. GDR, do you think the US targets unarmed civilians and hate Iraqi's? Honestly, do you believe that? You do realize that if we wanted to end this war, we could incinerate Iraq in one afternoon. But because we cherish life, we painstakingly ferret through and attack those who attack us, at the expense of our own people, laying down their lives to save others.Loving our neighbors is as simple as offering a cold glass of water to a thirsty Iraqi grandmother. Loving our neighbor is praying for salvation of the man you've shot who just tried to kill you. Loving your neighbor is randomly stopping to help a motorist in distress. Loving your neighbor is picking up a prostitute and buying her time to listen to the gospel, rather than using her for her body. Loving your neighbor is stopping barbarism where it grows, so that untold innocent people can live in a free society.Consider your alternative. Keeping them over there keeps them from being here. Surely you know Canada is not safe. The second your soldiers entered Afghanistan, you became another target. But moreover, the second you don't want to ascribe to their ideology, you became a target. The mere fact that you desire to turn the other cheek makes you a target. Consider your alternative, friend. Well said, which is why a distinction should be made. We war, not because there is anything implicitly good about it. There is nothing good about war. Nothing. Except perhaps the fact that the complete pacifism brings about more bloodshed. That's because a government is mostly interested in protecting itself. We all know that going in to Iraq is not strictly a humanitarian effort to free untold Iraqi's. That's just a perk. The real goal is stamping out a threat. If we really wanted to save the whole world, we'd perpetually be at war because evil exists all the time.I should add that I'm not defending or protecting the Iraq war. I think there are great arguments made by both sides. And as you said, there are no easy answers in this game. But I do stand by the just war theory.“Those who preach sloth and cowardice under the high-sounding name of ”peace' give people a word with which to cloak, even to themselves, their failure to perform unpleasant duty. For a man to stand up for his own rights, or especially for the rights of somebody else, means that he must have virile qualities: courage, foresight, willingness to face risk and undergo effort. It is much easier to be timid and lazy.” -Theodore RooseveltEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add quote

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

but those aren't even comparable questions. the first is a question of protecting the vulnerable and the second is a qustion of vengeful aggression. now, if you were to say "if someone was coming to rape you, should you turn the other cheek?" the answer might be different. and for me, it would be, and has been.

what was innacurrate is this idea that the US didn't say that these were problems between england and germany. they did. they only entered the war after japan attacked and shipping to the states was threatened. until then, we were staunchly isolationist. we weren't concerned with the european problem until it became our problem, despite direct knowledge of atrocities being committed and the invasion of several countries.

quote:

---

If a rapist was coming in to rape your wife and daughter, are you supposed to turn the other cheek? Absolutely not! When someone insults you and mocks and you in to a fight are you supposed to turn the other cheek? Absolutely!

---

I don't inherently see war as vengeance. Would some people use it for reprisal? Yes. Does that mean that all acts of war are acts of retribution? No, I don't believe so.Warfare and law enforcement are similar notions. When you really get to the heart of the matter, they exist to protect values-- the protection of life and limb, of property, of sanctity, of living peaceably, etc.But perhaps the acid test for some people in determining a just war from an unjust war is who strikes first, whether it is offensive or defensive. If America goes into Afghanistan, is it justifiable or are they acting as the aggressors? What do you think, personally?

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

The US had already embargoed Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Japan, and Germany well before, as well as froze the assets of Germany and Italy.I'd also like for you to read this document. Pay close attention to the date when it was written, because Pearl Harbor was in December of '41.Its also true that the US tried to ride the fence as long as possible, even though Churchill requested our help long before. I'm contending that. Hell, Cananda officially declared war before the US did. I'm simply asking what would have happened had the US not entered the war. We did know about it all along-- to include the Nazi concentration camps. And in that sense, I agree that we tried to remain neutral on the matter for as long as possible, but the gravest of concerns were still very much expressed during that time.

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

you didn't say war. you said: you were comparing whether to protect someone from being raped and whether to take vengeance for being insulted. there's a lot more to just war than whether you struck first or not. also, there may not be a line between being justifiable and being an aggressor. we took action during the yugoslav conflict. it was aggressive and completely illegal under international law. but it was right. we defended civillians from millitary attack. if we were to act against the UN in sudan, it would probably be illegal and definitely be aggressive, but it would be justifiable, because we would be defending civillians from millitary attack.afghanistan is an odd case because while we went to war against the taliban government, they were not the attackers. they supported and protected, sure, but they were not the attackers. however, they were horribly oppressive and supported various heinous practices. but i think that the simple fact that almost no one has anything to say about the afghanistan war being indefensible should be your answer.but iraq and afghanistan are very different. there were lots of times and lots of reasons for going into iraq. a good one would have been when he bombed our ship. another good time would have been when sadaam opened rape camps. but no. we waited until the wrong time and the wrong reason. we waited for our president to lie to us and say they were a threat to us and had something to do with 9/11. it was flat, purposeful lies defended with treason and putting our intelligence force in direct deathly peril (maybe ms plame wasn't currently undercover, but anyone who had ever been associated with her was now suspect and in danger). funny you never hear about wmds anymore.was there a time when we would have been justified in agressive action in iraq? yes. was there a way to have been successful in iraq? yes. could we have done it in 2003? i don't see why not. i was opposed to it based on timing, reasoning, and international support then, but it could have been done right and well. but it wasn't. and now instead of doing the things neccessary to create a stable and viable iraq, we're combing the streets for enemies we made when we crippled the economy and let thousands if not millions of unemployed, armed young men into the streets.it's not about culture. it's about angry young men with idle time. look at the second wave of the civil rights movement in this country. it was very threatening and i don't know why it didn't explode. and why? because they were young and angry after years of their country fighting to oppress them and one man with a strong political will and a manipulative voice called them to arms.sure, you could say it's because he was a muslim, but that's a poor excuse. the novelty of his faith (and the inaction or worse of american christian churches) may have been a powerful draw, but it was not the source of the violence. certainly. i'm only ideally a pacifist. however, you absolutely must exhaust all diplomatic and economic means prior to warfare and we seem to be incapable of doing that. throwing money at problems doesn't fix them, but throwing bombs doesn't either. it only makes more angry people.