Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense and War: A Biblical Perspective
Lew Rockwell ^ | 11/23/01 | Ron McKenzie

Posted on 11/23/2001 4:03:53 AM PST by Ada Coddington

Defense and War: A Biblical Perspective
by Ron McKenzie

A key responsibility of the civil government is to protect its citizens from attack by wrongdoers. This involves punishing those who break the law. It also involves defending the nation from every external attacker, including nations, other groups of people or dangerous pests and diseases. All these responsibilities are encompassed in the power of the sword (Romans 13:1-8). Therefore, pacifism is not a Christian option.

The Bible gives a nation the right of self-defence. However there are a number of principles which should control the civil government’s exercise of this authority in the fulfilment of its responsibilities.

1.War is only justified for defence (Romans 13:1-8). It should not be used to expand a nation's boundaries, or to take control of another nation, or to extract trade advantages. This is a fundamental principle. A nation should never need to establish military domination in another region or nation.
2.The idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures. The nation of Israel conquered and destroyed the Canaanite nations. This was only done after a specific and direct command from God (Deut 7:1,2). This was a special case where God had a specific purpose in terms of the salvation he planned for Israel. It is not an example that can be followed by Christians or a Christian nation. We should not use war to win people for the gospel. (We should be honest and admit that the crusades were a mistake, however well-intentioned the crusaders may have been).
3.A Christian nation must not have a large "standing army"(Deut 17:16; 1 Kings 10:26-29). An army that is constantly training for war is dangerous, because it will be tempted to find a situation where it can use its skills. The military should not be given too much political power, as they will have a tendency to use war to solve all problems.
4.The defence force should take the form of a part-time local militia. The central command structure may be full-time professional so that the defence of the nation can be well organised (Deut 20:5). However, most of the soldiers will be trained civilians who can be called up when a defence force is needed. As they have other interests there will be no danger of them becoming over militant and fighting unnecessary wars. However, because they will be defending their families and friends they will be highly motivated if they are needed. They will be well prepared, but they will be only rarely called upon to fight.
5.The militia should be up made of volunteers. Anyone who is faint-hearted or afraid should not be forced to fight (Deut 20:5-9). People who are at a critical stage in their lives should not be forced into military service. For example, men who have recently married, started building a house or started a business should be freed from service, because they would not be focused on the battle.
6.The army of a Christian nation will not have offensive weapons (Deut 17:16). God forbade the king from acquiring great numbers of horses for himself. The reason for this was that horses and chariots, at that time, were offensive weapons used for attacking other nations. The defence of the nation would not need large numbers of them. A modern defence force should choose weapons that are best for defensive purposes.
7.Only the civil government has authority to declare war. Individuals or companies do not have the authority to commit a nation to war. Any declaration of war must be in accordance with correct legal processes (Deut 20:10).
8.War should always be the last resort. Before declaring war, the civil government should try every means possible to obtain peace (Deut 20:10). We should never forget the horror of war. It is always costly in terms of human suffering. Christians should never glorify war. While it is an honour for a man to give his life to defend his family and community, war is never an ideal solution. A Christian government should be prepared for war, if it is attacked, but it should also hope that it would never have to fight.
9.A Christian nation should always seek God’s will before declaring war. A nation going to war, because it thinks it is right, is being presumptuous (Deut 1:41-44). Presumption is a terrible sin. If the war has God’s blessing, the army is more likely to have success.
10.A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance of success. Jesus said that before a king goes to war, he should sit down and consider whether he can match the army that is coming against him. If not he will send a delegation to ask for terms of peace (Luke 14:31-32), even if this involves a loss of freedom. For Christians freedom is not an absolute value. It may be better to lose freedom to govern, than to lose a large number of lives in an unsuccessful defence. In fact, because Jesus has set us free, we cannot lose our freedom.

Two things should always be remembered,

a.Christianity can survive under extremely hostile environments. It was born in the hostile world of the Roman Empire. In our own time, Christianity has blossomed under the hostility of both the Soviet Union and Communist China. Therefore, Christianity will never be dependent on winning a war for its survival. If a Christian government has no hope of defending against attack, it should surrender, knowing that Christianity will survive. b.It is God who determines the appointed times of the nations and the boundaries of there habitations. (Acts 17:26, cf Job 12:23, Deut 32:8) If a nation is invaded by another and this is not God’s will, he will not allow the situation to last long. For example, after the Second World War, the Russian Empire took control of most of Eastern Europe. However, because this was contrary to God’s will, that empire had collapsed within fifty years. If a nation is unable to defend itself, all is not lost; God will have his way in the end.

Counting the cost of war, is not just a matter of estimating how many soldiers will be lost. The full cost of the war should be counted. There are generally very few winners in war. The cost for the families of those who die is enormous. For the soldiers who survive the cost can also be high. Many will have injuries that blight their lives. Worse still, war has a desensitising effect on its participants, and good men can be drawn into doing great evil. They will have to live with there consciences. War is also an enormous waste of economic resources. There are actually very few situations serious enough to justify the enormous costs of war.

11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one. A good example of this is Gideon, who defeated a large Midianite army with 300 unarmed men (Judges 7). However, this promise should not be used as a justification for foolish wars.
12.Total war, as it has been practised in this last century, is prohibited by the Bible. Those engaged in war are prohibited from attacking and damaging the land (Deut 20). The same protection would apply to women and children. Non-combatants should also be protected.
13.This prohibition makes nuclear war unacceptable. Nuclear weapons would harm the land and non-combatants. The same principle would rule out many modern weapons. Only weapons which can be targeted at combatants or other weapons can be used by a Christian nation. On the other hand, anti-ballistic missile defence systems may be justified, because they are defensive.

14.Military alliances are common in the modern world. However these are forbidden over and over again in the Bible. A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3). Therefore, defence alliances are not an option for a Christian nation.
15.God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. (Acts 17:26). No nation has the authority to invade another nation to change its government (even if it is evil). A nation cannot even be invaded to establish democracy. (Democracy must come from the hearts of the people, it cannot be enforced from the outside.) Most attempts by great powers to establish "better" government by force in other nations have failed, because the spiritual forces that control the nation have not been defeated (Dan 10:13).

The principles outlined here allow a nation to defend itself, but there are very severe restrictions on which methods may be used. Likewise there are very strict conditions which must be fulfilled before war may be justified. Almost all modern conflicts would fail to meet these conditions. The Bible recognises the horror of war. There are probably very few situations that would justify the cost of war. It should be an extremely rare event.

The current war in Afghanistan does fit with these principles. The people who organised the attack on the World Trade Centre, committed a dreadful crime and should be punished as criminals. However, the nation of Afghanistan did not attack the United States. The Taliban did not attack the United States. Afghanistan may be harbouring the criminals who organised the attack, but that is not a justification for war. We may dislike the Taliban intensely, but that does not justify war against them. The United States does not have the right to determine who should govern Afghanistan. (The Taliban gained power through victory in a civil war. This is the same way that the current federal system in the United States was established). The United States is not defending itself against an attack by Afghanistan, so it is not justified in attacking Afghanistan.

The methods of warfare being used in Afghanistan cannot be justified either. Bombs that destroy the land and can kill and maim civilians are forbidden by Deuteronomy 20. The alliance with the ungodly men of the Northern Alliance is also contrary to the Scriptures.

November 23, 2001

Ron McKenzie is an economist in Christchurch, New Zealand. He is also a Presbyterian minister.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: christianlist; christianpersecutio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last
Okay, Christian warmongers, justify the war against the Afghans according to doctrine.
1 posted on 11/23/2001 4:03:53 AM PST by Ada Coddington (ACoddington@Compuserve.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
US is not a Christian Nation in the sense that Israel was chosen by God in O.T. times. The Law upon which he draws so freely was specifically given to and specifically accepted by ancient Israel.
2 posted on 11/23/2001 4:16:10 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
US is not a Christian Nation in the sense that Israel was chosen by God in O.T. times. The Law upon which he draws so freely was specifically given to and specifically accepted by ancient Israel.

That is true. However, the question is directed only to Christians who, presumably, place God before nation.

3 posted on 11/23/2001 4:21:37 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
We may dislike the Taliban intensely, but that does not justify war against them

Methinks Jesus might have a beef with us if we let the Taliban keep oppressing, raping, and murdering its people, including its women.

4 posted on 11/23/2001 4:40:23 AM PST by Rightwing Canuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Canuck
Methinks Jesus might have a beef with us if we let the Taliban keep oppressing, raping, and murdering its people, including its women.

Which government is without sin in oppressing its people? Jesus followed the law as written and the Hebrews generally had no problem in obeying the laws of other countries when they were guests there.

5 posted on 11/23/2001 4:44:50 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Perhaps some perspective on who owns what:
PROPERTY RIGHTS  11-22-2001
 
The purpose of this article is to prove that the Jewish race along with those who have converted to Judaism OWN the entire land now commonly referred to as Israel and Palestine by Divine grant and title; that this land was deeded to the Jews in perpetuity by God Almighty; and that this title to the land has never been and never shall be revoked.
 
GOD OWNS EVERYTHING
 
Psalm 24:1  The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
 
GOD AFFIRMS THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN AND KEEP PERSONAL PROPERTY
 
Exodus 20:15  Thou shalt not steal.
 
    GOD DECIDES WHO GETS WHAT AND HOW LONG THEY KEEP IT
 
Daniel 4:17  This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
 
IT IS A SIN TO COVET (regard with resentful envy) ANYTHING THAT GOD HAS GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE
 
Exodus 20:17  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
 
GOD GAVE A CERTAIN AREA OF LAND TO ABRAHAM AND HIS DESCENDENTS
 
Genesis 12:7  And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
 
Genesis 15:18-21  In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
 
Nehemiah 9:6-8  Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. 7 Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; 8 And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:
 
     Note that the land that God gave to Abraham is much larger than the present nation of Israel now occupies. The non-Jews who now occupy much of this land are trespassing.   The land deeded to Abraham includes the Sinai Peninsula, all of Lebanon and Jordan, parts of Syria, and Iraq, and even a little of Kuwait.  All of this land (and possibly more, depending where on the Nile River you measure from) BELONGS to the descendents of Abraham, and "in Isaac shall they seed be called" (Genesis 21:12).   In Judaism, this larger area of land has been referred to as "Greater Israel".  I affirm their claim.  The Jews own all that land by Divine title, and they are authorized to remove and displace every other race, tribe or religion that occupies ANY of it - including all Christians.
 
GOD PROMISES TO PRESERVE NATIONAL ISRAEL TILL THE END OF THE WORLD 
 
Jeremiah 30:11  For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
 
    Even if the Jewish nation is temporarily driven from the land as a punishment for their bad behavior, yet the Lord God declares that Israel will be the last nation left intact in the world.  America and  France and China (etc.) will all cease from being nations before Israel ceases from being a NATION.  Even in dispersion, the Jews were and are a nation - a nation in TEMPORARY dispersion. 
 
Jeremiah 31:35-37  Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. 37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
 
Jeremiah 46:28  Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the LORD: for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee: but I will not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished.
 
    The land of Israel has been the national homeland of the Jewish race since God made His promise to Abraham, and whether the Jews were there in great numbers or TEMPORARILY driven out and scattered across the world, they were still a nation in God's sight with a national homeland.
 
Jeremiah 7:7  Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.
 
    Those who try to make these promises apply to The Church instead of the Jews are simply denying the plain language of scripture. Yes, I know that there are what the Bible calls "True Jews", but the above language refers not to a people defined by their spiritual character, but to a people defined by race and national culture.   Those who say that the Jews have forfeited their right to OWN THE LAND because of their sins have refused to face the UNCONDITIONAL nature of God's promise to Abraham and the later, prophetic reiterations that prove THAT GOD INTENDS TO PRESERVE AND DEFEND THE NATION OF ISRAEL for the Jews until the end of the world.  
 
GOD PREDICTS THE RESTORATION OF THE JEWISH HOMELAND IN THESE LATTER DAYS
 
Jeremiah 16:14-17
14  Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
15  But, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.
16  Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.
17  For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.
 
    After the Babylonian captivity, the Jews returned FROM THE EAST.  Look on a map: Babylon is EAST and not NORTH of Israel.  Germany, Eastern Europe and Russia (where the most of the Jews now in Israel came from in the 1940's and later) are all north of Israel.
 
    I affirm that Jeremiah 16:14-17 is a prophecy specifically about the modern State of Israel. 
 
    Furthermore, the reference to hunters and fishers agrees with how and why the Jews went back to Israel starting in the late 1930's and the 1940's:  because they were being HUNTED DOWN and pursued.  The persecution during that time was nearly worldwide, and they fled to Israel from the lands of their dispersion to escape the "hunters and fishers" that were after them.
 
Luke 21:24  ........and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
 
    Jesus PREDICTS the restoration of Jewish control over Jerusalem, and anyone who denies that THAT is what Luke 21:24 says, is JUST A LIAR.  As it is now, the Palestinians still control a part of Jerusalem, so there is yet more to be fulfilled.  It seems likely that when the Jews regain control of the entire city, THE END is truly here.   
 
 
THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM TO COME IS A POLITICALLY AND GEOGRAPHICALLY JEWISH KINGDOM
 
Zec 14:16-17  And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. 17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
 
GOD THREATENS TO DESTROY ANYONE WHO ATTEMPTS TO TAKE ANY OF THAT LAND AWAY FROM THE RACIAL JEWS
 
Zechariah 12:9  And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
 
Joel 3:2  I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.
 
Psa 121:4  Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.
 
    AND NOW.....THE "RANT".........
 
    Others have gone much further and quoted more scripture than I have quoted to prove that the modern and restored nation of Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy. But those who are (for whatever their reasons) disposed to deny that the modern carnal Jews own that land and refuse to acknowledge that these Jews are still being used by God as a sign to the whole world, will NEVER BE CONVINCED by any amount of 'scripture and plain reason'. 
 
    Let me make it perfectly clear to you that anyone who rejects Jesus Christ's self-made claims is UNacceptable to God.  All Christ rejecters, if found to be so at The Judgement, are damned, whether Jews or Gentiles.  The fact that the Jews "own the land" does not make them "saved". The Christ rejecting Jews OWN THE LAND, but still they will be damned if they utterly and ultimately refuse and reject Jesus Christ.    Jesus Christ was and IS the predicted Messiah of the Jews, and He will fulfill the prophecies yet unfulfilled at His 2nd Coming.  All the Jews that live through the tribulation will be forced to admit that Jesus Christ was and IS the very Messiah they claimed to be looking for.  STILL - this mere concession does not save their souls from damnation, for at that time they will not have any power to refuse or resist the rule of Jesus Christ as the King of Kings; the King of the Jews; the God-Man; and the creator and rightful heir to all the earth.      
 
    ON THE OTHER HAND - I (a racial Jew converted to Christianity) utterly reject the modern so-called "Hebrew Roots Movement".  This is an attempt to divide The Church into separate groups of Jews and Gentiles, and the "Jewish group" likes to think of themselves as superior.  In order to distinguish themselves from the "Gentiles", the so-called "Messianic Believers" (or whatever new name they create for themselves) have invented an exclusive jargon that they use in all their communications.  "GOD" has become "G-d" and the common name of Jesus is replaced with any number of other pronunciations and spellings. The Holy Ghost is now the "ruach quodesh" to them, and their list of exclusive terms and usages appears to be growing every day.  Some of these groups have even gone to wearing yamulchas, prayer shauls, (and some, even) wearing Bible-times costumes and sporting other symbols of  cultural Judaism. They appear to be making every attempt to distinguish themselves from the rank and file Christians.
 
Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
 
    Just a month ago I received a note from a "leader" of one of these so-called "Messianic Believers" groups in which he FLATLY DENIED the Divinity of Jesus Christ.  I believe that the so-called "Hebrew Roots Movement" is heading for heresy, if not open APOSTASY, in EVERY CASE.  They are looking, acting and speaking more and more like a "cult" all the time.
 
The ONLY Divinely spelled and pronounced NAME for the Savior we have is in the New Testament, and in the New Testament (which is GREEK and not Hebrew), the name of the Savior would be "EE-AY-ZOOS".     
 
    I understand that when a Spanish speaking person speaks to another Spanish speaking person, he will say "HAY-SOOS"  when referring to the name of the Savior, and so it is perfectly fine for people who normally speak Hebrew and commonly understand the name of the Savior as "Yeshua" (or whatever) to use that pronunciation with each other. But for English speaking people to simply REPLACE the commonly known and universally received name of the Savior (Jesus) with a contrived pronunciation is a sign TO ME that they are still rejecting The Jesus Of History and The Jesus Of The Christian Church. They want to be anything BUT, "Just Another Christian". 
 
    MY SUMMARY: the racial Jews and their converts are STILL "The Chosen People", but that does not mean that they are "the saved people".  The Jews still own all of Palestine by Divine Title and all those who attempt take that land from them by any means are ENEMIES OF CHRIST AND GOD.  All Christ REJECTERS are damned, whether Jew or Gentile. There is only ONE CHURCH, and this is what the Lord says to this "ONE CHURCH"...
 
1 Cor 1:10  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
 
    Let me now make this perfectly clear:  I reject the religion of anyone who insists that The Church must adopt specifically Jewish customs and jargon.  I believe that anyone who persistently denies that the modern Jews OWN all the land that God gave to Abraham is NOT SAVED, and is also and therefore the deliberate enemy of God AND His Christ.  You may have wavered on these questions up until now with good reason - for the argument over these things is long, loud and persistent: but now is the time for you to choose sides deliberately and finally be whatever you really are.  The current uproar in the Middle East is certainly a prologue to the close and summation of this age
...........and how anyone cannot see how the existence of the modern State of Israel is a providential miracle of prophetic fulfillment utterly eludes me... I conclude that they are wilfully self-blinded.     
 
Psalm 35:27
Just Another (ordinary) Christian,  and,
"US" 1 John 4:6
Main site front page
www.apostasynow.com
 
The Great Dream Book:
http://www.apostasynow.com/tgd/index.html

6 posted on 11/23/2001 4:48:08 AM PST by invoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Christian_list; *Christian persecutio
?
7 posted on 11/23/2001 4:49:02 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
First, this guy tells us that war is justified for defense by the NEW TESTAMENT, which supercedes the Old, then proceeds to argue that large standing armies, blah blah, are not needed based on OLD TESTAMENT principles. Won't work.

Second, although I don't pretend to hear from God on this issue, one CANNOT dismiss the fact that Christian leaders (including the Pope) can receive instructions similar to those given the Children of Israel. I don't think Pope Urban DID, but prophecy and Word of Knowledge/Wisdom are ongoing, and cannot be either dismissed or discounted as a possibility.

Third, the author uses Romans correctly, then INCORRECTLY strips it of its meaning with Old Testament references. The fact is that the "state does not bear the sword for naught," and part of bearing that sword may INDEED be foreign intervention that secures one's borders. Jesus did NOT chastize Peter for slicing off the attacker's ear as a "pre-emptive strike." He corrected him for the TIMING.

Fourth, if protecting the unborn, because they are "innocent" is a commandment, it is just as necessary to protect the adult innocent from foreign attacks. Therefore, if you know through INTEL an enemy is going to strike, you are perfectly justified in striking first to prevent deaths.

Fifth, the Old Testament principles the author DOES cite justify killing ALL of one's enemies in order to prevent revenge attacks. Do you, Ada, support this?

This is just another attempt by the communist left, masquerading as "Libertarians," to hate America. And, as usual, it fails.

8 posted on 11/23/2001 4:55:34 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Which government is without sin in oppressing its people?

Oh come on. Of course all governments have their problems. But there comes a point when you have to draw the line.I don't think it would be Christian-like to tell the women of Afghanistan to 'be good guests'.

9 posted on 11/23/2001 5:09:33 AM PST by Rightwing Canuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Ada,

I apologize for the lengthly post, it was an e-mail I received yesterday, and I did not feel there was any justice done by editing it.

My point of my post above is this: It is DANGEROUS to apply specific commands given to the NATION of Israel to OUR nation. WE have NO such promise; Israel STILL DOES.

10 posted on 11/23/2001 5:16:49 AM PST by invoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
And friends wonder why I became a Catholic after 20 years as an Non-denominational Fundimentalist...
11 posted on 11/23/2001 5:41:41 AM PST by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8: "There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven. . . A time for war, and a time for peace."

Revelation 19:11: And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He [Christ] who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war."

Romans 13:1-7: (1) "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. . . . (4) . . . But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. . . ."

Psalm 89:14: "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Thy throne."

Proverbs 28:5: "Evil men do not understand justice."

Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

Decuteronomy 17:2-13: "If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the Lord your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the lord your God . . .(7) you shall purge the evil from your midst. . . . (11) According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they delcare to you, to the right or the left. . . . (12) . . . you shall purge the evil. . . ."

The God of the Jews and Christians is a just God, not a pacifist. He requires justice be done, brought by Himself or through humans. We are engaged in a "just-war" against the terrorists. Not only does God expect those who have done wrong be brought to justice, but those who harbor the wrongdoers share in the terrorists' guilt. The Taliban, in Afghan, have not purged the evil from their midst. Rather, they have given aid, shelter, protection. Therefore, they have condemned themselves. They are just as guilty as having committed the evil acts. God says we cannot serve two masters. Either we are followers of God or we are not. If we follow Him, we obey him. If we obey him, then we, within our bodies and minds, are to purge evil from within our own selves. Carrying this over from self to country, in God's eyes, if a country harbors evil, it is to purge that evil from its midst or it shares in the guilt, and the just punishment, of the evil doers it protects.

Afghanistan has been ruled by the Taliban which has given aid and protection to evil, rather than purging the evil. It now suffers the consequences of comforting evil doers.

12 posted on 11/23/2001 5:44:48 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Canuck
Oh come on. Of course all governments have their problems. But there comes a point when you have to draw the line.I don't think it would be Christian-like to tell the women of Afghanistan to 'be good guests'.

The Taliban didn't change much re the status of women in Afghanistan. I was there in 1973 and respectable women were never seen on the streets. (However, we did see nomadic women outside the cities who, incidentally, did not wear veils although the men did.) In any event the author claims that war should be absolutely the last thing to be used, perhaps because the war killed more women than the Taliban ever did.

13 posted on 11/23/2001 6:04:43 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance of success. Jesus said that before a king goes to war, he should sit down and consider whether he can match the army that is coming against him.

If a Christian government has no hope of defending against attack, it should surrender, knowing that Christianity will survive. 11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one.

Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?

The Taliban gained power through victory in a civil war. This is the same way that the current federal system in the United States was established.

God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule.

Does this mean the Taliibabies had the same backing from God as the USA?

Okay, Atheist appeaser, justify these inconsistencies. And also stop beating around the bush, and state uncategorically that we should do absolutely nothing to retaliate for the attacks perpetrated against us, and simply hope the terrorists will stop trying to kill as many Christians and Jews as they possibly can.

14 posted on 11/23/2001 6:06:53 AM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: invoman
My point of my post above is this: It is DANGEROUS to apply specific commands given to the NATION of Israel to OUR nation. WE have NO such promise; Israel STILL DOES.

The author is a Presbyterian minister who presumably believes that the nation of Israel is now the spiritual decendants of Abraham.

15 posted on 11/23/2001 6:09:49 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
And friends wonder why I became a Catholic after 20 years as an Non-denominational Fundimentalist...

The Roman Catholics have thought long and hard over what constitutes a "just war". Their conclusions aren't much different from the Presbyterian minister's.

16 posted on 11/23/2001 6:12:00 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Well, then, this author is incorrect:

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

17 posted on 11/23/2001 6:19:59 AM PST by invoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
"A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance of success. Jesus said that before a king goes to war, he should sit down and consider whether he can match the army that is coming against him.

"If a Christian government has no hope of defending against attack, it should surrender, knowing that Christianity will survive. 11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one.

Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?

We'll see if others see a contradiction. I do not. The first verse refers is about declaring war and the second about defensive war. You should not do either lightly. The last verse is a caution against pessimism. For instance, quite often a defensive war is winnable even though the defender has less resources.

The Taliban gained power through victory in a civil war. This is the same way that the current federal system in the United States was established.

Civil wars rarely are successful without the help of outside foreign powers. We had the French and the Taliban had us.

God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. Does this mean the Taliibabies had the same backing from God as the USA?

I am not that much of a fatalist to believe that length of rule is predetermined.

Okay, Atheist appeaser, justify these inconsistencies. And also stop beating around the bush, and state uncategorically that we should do absolutely nothing to retaliate for the attacks perpetrated against us, and simply hope the terrorists will stop trying to kill as many Christians and Jews as they possibly can.

Its the state's job to punish criminal acts. That is not license to kill the innocent. The events of 911 should be considered criminal acts and, if there are others involved in the attacks that were not killed, the state should prosecute them. If these people are not residing in the United States, then we should issue letters of marque and reprisal against them.

18 posted on 11/23/2001 6:28:56 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: invoman
Well, then, this author is incorrect:

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

You might wish to read further in Romans 9. Starting in verse 24, Paul notes:

"Even us, whom he hath call, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

19 posted on 11/23/2001 6:38:48 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Someone at The Chalcedon comes to the conclusion that the war in Afghanistan is not a just war.

The U.S. War In Afghanistan and Just War Theory

The article isn't terribly long and may be worth a read. From this and another article I read there, I sensed that they reluctantly came to the conclusion that this is not a just war, but would prefer to have reached a different conclusion, but I may be reading too much into what they say.

20 posted on 11/23/2001 6:43:05 AM PST by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
The God of the Jews and Christians is a just God, not a pacifist. He requires justice be done, brought by Himself or through humans. We are engaged in a "just-war" against the terrorists. Not only does God expect those who have done wrong be brought to justice, but those who harbor the wrongdoers share in the terrorists' guilt. The Taliban, in Afghan, have not purged the evil from their midst. Rather, they have given aid, shelter, protection. Therefore, they have condemned themselves. They are just as guilty as having committed the evil acts. God says we cannot serve two masters. Either we are followers of God or we are not. If we follow Him, we obey him. If we obey him, then we, within our bodies and minds, are to purge evil from within our own selves. Carrying this over from self to country, in God's eyes, if a country harbors evil, it is to purge that evil from its midst or it shares in the guilt, and the just punishment, of the evil doers it protects.

"Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord". To man it is only given to obey the law and enforce what we have been given instructions to enforce. Our war against the Afghans does not meet the criteria for a just war. No Afghani attacked us, and it is not defensive.

Afghanistan has been ruled by the Taliban which has given aid and protection to evil, rather than purging the evil. It now suffers the consequences of comforting evil doers.

Harboring Bin Laden is not a good enough excuse to make war against a country that had nothing to do with the 911 attacks.

21 posted on 11/23/2001 6:53:01 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
I've read the Catachism, and I must respectfully disagree. I will concede that I believe this minister has gone WAY over his depth, and that is perhaps my chief complaint.
22 posted on 11/23/2001 6:53:35 AM PST by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Ada Coddington
If these people are not residing in the United States, then we should issue letters of marque and reprisal against them.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Anyone that would risk there life, to get Osama and his army of protectors, for reward only, will also abandon his mission if offered more money by the object of his search. (Osama is a very wealthy man)

You really think private citizens going out to seek and destroy, or plunder, Afghani ships, properties, and other holding, but not necessarily the doers of the deeds themselves, is a just way of settling the score, not to mention the fact that most of the perpetrators of the original attack would be left to continue the terrorist attacks that started the whole thing to begin with? Also, wouldn't that just make them see the killing of civilians as an even more justifiable means of attacking their enemy?

24 posted on 11/23/2001 6:56:48 AM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Singapore_Yank
The article isn't terribly long and may be worth a read. From this and another article I read there, I sensed that they reluctantly came to the conclusion that this is not a just war, but would prefer to have reached a different conclusion, but I may be reading too much into what they say.

I'll read it in a few minutes. The conclusion sounds very Calcedonish--they would like to bomb Muslims because they are enemies of Christianity but scripture won't give them the excuse.

26 posted on 11/23/2001 6:58:14 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: tex-oma
The current war in Afghanistan does fit with these principles.

This is where I part ways with the article. There is no justification for this war based on the principles laid out within it.

I think the Author got lazy. The U.S. has of late broken every principle laid out here and hasn't even bothered to let the people it is supposedly defending know what the details of the evidence is against the Afghan government whom it is attacking.

28 posted on 11/23/2001 7:04:36 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Anyone that would risk there life, to get Osama and his army of protectors, for reward only, will also abandon his mission if offered more money by the object of his search. (Osama is a very wealthy man)

Of course, but the United States is far, far wealthier than Bin Laden. That $5 million offer was totally ridiculous. I see now they have upped it to $100 million which is the bare minimum for such an undertaking. We are spending, what?, a billion a day on this operation. Letters of marque and reprisal are cheap at half the price.

You really think private citizens going out to seek and destroy, or plunder, Afghani ships, properties, and other holding, but not necessarily the doers of the deeds themselves, is a just way of settling the score, not to mention the fact that most of the perpetrators of the original attack would be left to continue the terrorist attacks that started the whole thing to begin with? Also, wouldn't that just make them see the killing of civilians as an even more justifiable means of attacking their enemy?

Afghani ships? They are landlocked and don't have any. We have no legitimate quarrel with Afghans. Remember we are supposedly only interested in Bin Laden's person and possibly the destruction of the al Qaeda bases on their soil. (Al Qaeda bases on Bosnian and Albanian soil are just fine.) The perps of the initial attack might be completely dead. If so, we have absolutely no justification for killing anyone.

29 posted on 11/23/2001 7:06:28 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Harboring Bin Laden is not a good enough excuse to make war against a country that had nothing to do with the 911 attacks.

What state harbored McVeigh? I agree with your assesment. This war is unjustified.

30 posted on 11/23/2001 7:08:37 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: Ada Coddington
You said:

The author is a Presbyterian minister who presumably believes that the nation of Israel is now the spiritual decendants of Abraham.

I responded by quoting what Paul has said in Romans. You responded back by requesting that I read further down... I did that prior to posting. It says the same thing. There is a SPIRITUAL Israel, and a NATION of Israel. The author, you said, believes the NATION of Israel is the SPIRITUAL descendants..that is incorrect, and your verse proves my point. The author is mixing what were rules for a NATION of Israel, (only), and what is to be observed by other nations. These rules were for a national ISRAEL only. Not all Jews are SPIRITUAL descendants. The Spiritual Israel includes the Church.

Not all Jews are Spiritual Israel, but all Jews are NATIONAL Israel.

32 posted on 11/23/2001 7:22:01 AM PST by invoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Singapore_Yank
Thanks for finding the Chalcedon article. Decided to post it.
33 posted on 11/23/2001 7:23:24 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
I've read the Catachism, and I must respectfully disagree. I will concede that I believe this minister has gone WAY over his depth, and that is perhaps my chief complaint.

What difference do you find between the Catholic and Presbyterian positions on just war?

34 posted on 11/23/2001 7:28:11 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Your reference to Romans 9 starting in verse 24 is very interesting, to understand who is being refered to here you need to go back to scriptures of the day(the new testament did not exist yet) the old testament. Go to Hosea chapters 1 and 2 and you will see that this refers to the House of Israel, the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom, the lost sheep. Not just any Goyim-Nations-Gentiles.

King James translation of Hosea 2:23:

And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, thou art my God.

The Scriptures Translation of Hoshea 2:23:

And I shall sow her for Myself in the earth, and I shall have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion. And I shall say to those who were not My people, 'You are My people,' while they say, 'My Elohim!'
35 posted on 11/23/2001 7:31:27 AM PST by hsszionist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Another example of error on the author's part. From point 14:..A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3)

The author has taken a promise given to the NATION of Israel and applied it to a 'Chistian Nation'. I am trying to figure out where the author has decided for himself that there even EXISTS such an nation, much less trying to apply specific promises given to Israel to US? If we are a 'christian nation' does that mean Timothy McVey is a christian? Al Sharpton? The REv. Jackson? OJ Simpson? You cannot apply a term 'christian nation'...it doesn't work. NEITHER can one apply that ALL Jews are Spiritual Israel. And furthermore you cannot take a promise given to NATIONAL Isael and apply it to US. The author is not being honest with the text given (Isaiah 31:1-3).

36 posted on 11/23/2001 7:37:14 AM PST by invoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
You're kidding, right? Mr. McVeigh was never "harbored" in this country, but he was found out, tried & executed. Methinks your logic and perception are egregiously faulty.

I believe that Afganistan and the ruling Taliban were diplomatically requested to do the same, i.e., give Osama up for terrorist atrocities.

37 posted on 11/23/2001 7:47:29 AM PST by Thommas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord". To man it is only given to obey the law

Micah 6:8: "He [God] has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to (that's an action word), to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

I restate: We are not called to be pacifists. God requires much of us "to do." "Do justice" is one. James is full of examples of how we are to live. Most apply to those who call themselves Christians. They are not applied to non-believers. A government is called to different actions than believers or non-believers. Rulers are empowered to take actions which differ from individuals. And individuals are to submit to their government, as the believer is to submit to God, as the wife is to submit to her husband, and he to her. In this way is order accomplished, politically, nationally, and within the family.

We differ only on opinion as to whether the Taliban deserve punishment for harboring those who have murdered thousands. I have already substantiated my position through scripture. And there are countless others which apply, to which you will, undoubtedly dispute with others. The debate is pointless.

38 posted on 11/23/2001 7:49:04 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma; Demidog
The current war in Afghanistan does fit with these principles.

No. Hard to explain this to some folks though.
The First Duty of Citizenship: Enthusiasm

You might find this paragraph interesting:


It should be noted that not only did the terror campaign demystify Russian rulers in the eyes of the people but it also caused the Government to overreact.

From 1879 onwards, the Imperial Government introduced a stream of extremely harsh counter measures meant to prevent terror, but which had the effect of alienating moderate groups in Russia.

In the long run this made it impossible for the regime to ever secure the support of moderately conservative and liberal elements in Russian society; so it was left to fall, isolated and alone, in 1917.

--- Richard Pipes

Roots of Soviet Terror

39 posted on 11/23/2001 7:51:38 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
"Okay, Christian warmongers, justify the war against the Afghans according to doctrine."

I find it fascinating that LewRockwell would actually endorse this article by posting in his website. There is so much here that contradicts the principles Lew advocates. But, I guess, when one is desperate to defend his positions, any argument will do. That said, let's examine some of the claims this minister alleges to be found in the bible. This is critical since his concluding paragraphs that this war in Afghanistan cannot be supported by Christians is supposedly based upon these scriptures.

I'll accept McKenzie's position that pacificism is not a Christian option.

McKenzie claims there are principles that control the civil government in it's exercise of the right to defense. Let's examine his points and the bibilical basis claimed by him.

McKenzie's first point is that: "War is only justified for defense." and he bases it upon Romans 13: 1-8 Before we accept that, we should examine the scriptures.

(1)."Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
(5) "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."

There's nothing there about defensive war. It says do what government officials tell you to do. BTW, I only quoted 1 and 5, but feel free to consult your own bible to see if there is anything relevent there. At this point one must wonder if Lew really supports such uncompromising obedience to government authority or if he accepts that government, being ordained by God, can do no wrong? If you apply this scripture, Christians have no choice but to support the war.

McKensie then claims in "2.The idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures." And: "We should not use war to win people for the gospel. (We should be honest and admit that the crusades were a mistake, however well-intentioned the crusaders may have been)."

I know of no one who would object to his argument that God granting the land of Canaan to the Jews is a special case not relevent to Afghanistan, but I can't help but point out that if one accepts this, then the only thing one can condemn Israel for is not driving out all who do not accept the Jewish God. Does LewR really think the Israelis should kill all Palestinians? And, just who is claiming we are in Afghanistan to win the people there to the Gospels? Are we dropping Bibles there?

His next point is "3.A Christian nation must not have a large "standing army". But Deut 17:16 says nothing of the sort. It says: "The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." This is an admonition not to return to Egypt. Even if you accept the claim that a king should not have large numbers of horses, it says nothing about the size of the rest of the Army. Last I checked, we've pretty much given up on horse cavalry and chariots anyway. Now 1 Kings 10:26-29: only describes the number of King Soloman's chariots and horses. Check it out yourself, there is not the slightest thing that can be taken that God was dissatisfied with Soloman's 1400 chariots and 20,000 horses. Guess those aren't large numbers.

Then: "4.The defence force should take the form of a part-time local militia." Deut 20:5 says: "The officers shall say to the army: "Has anyone built a new house and not dedicated it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may dedicate it." How can anyone claim this is God's instruction that the army should be a part-time militia is a stretch.

McKenzie's next point is: "5.The militia should be up made of volunteers." and that certain men should be excused from battle. If your read the scripture cited(Deut 20:5-9), it doesn't say that everyone should be a volunteer only that those who have pressing obligations that would limit their effectiveness should be excused. The nature of these obligations is limited. If you think this means that only anyone has a right to opt out, refer to Romans 13 (above) about obeying government authority.

Then McKenzie claims: "6.The army of a Christian nation will not have offensive weapons (Deut 17:16)." But, we've already examined that scripture and it says nothing about acquiring offensive weapons.

Then McKenzie claims: "7.Only the civil government has authority to declare war. Individuals or companies do not have the authority to commit a nation to war. Any declaration of war must be in accordance with correct legal processes (Deut 20:10)." But this scripture says: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace." Where are declarations of war or legal processes mentioned? BTW, wasn't it LewR that advocated settling things with Afghanistan by Letters Of Marque, contracting with private companies, and bounty hunters?

Then McKenzie claims: "8.War should always be the last resort. Before declaring war, the civil government should try every means possible to obtain peace (Deut 20:10)." We've already examined this verse and there is nothing about "every means possible to obtain peace", is there?

Then McKenzie says: "A Christian nation should always seek God's will before declaring war." I know of no Christian who would walk across the street, let alone declare war, without seeking God's Will. But these scriptures are not about "presumption" but about disobeying God specific instructions and it's consequences.

Then McKenzie claims: "A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance to win." citing Luke 14: 31-32. True, Jesus said these things, but he also mentioned the futility of starting to build a tower without first figuring the cost. Jesus concluded by saying: 33. "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." Clearly, this is an admonition that one cannot go halfway in following Jesus and has little to do with whether a Christian nation should declare war in any circumstance.

I'll skip over McKenzie's arguments in favor of pacificism since he says that isn't Christian. However, one wonders how such statements as this: "If a nation is unable to defend itself, all is not lost; God will have his way in the end." is not pacifism.

Then McKenzie makes this claim: "11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one. A good example of this is Gideon, who defeated a large Midianite army with 300 unarmed men (Judges 7). However, this promise should not be used as a justification for foolish wars." I don't disagree that it is better to be with God than against HIM, I would point out that if one really believes a small army can be justified this way, then there is no need for an army of any size, or a police department, or a fire department. After all, if your nation is conquered, if you are murdered, or if your house burns down, it's only God's will. And, I guess no one should plant a field either since God will provide the food if it is HIS will.

Then McKenzie claims that: "12.Total war, as it has been practised in this last century, is prohibited by the Bible. Those engaged in war are prohibited from attacking and damaging the land (Deut 20). The same protection would apply to women and children. Non-combatants should also be protected." If you read Deut 20 you'll find that after offering peace to a city, if the city surrender, then they inhabitants became slaves. If the city did not surrender, then the men were to be killed and the women and children were to become "plunder". If one applies this to Afghanistan, then we would be right in killing every man there and taking the women and children and livestock as plunder.

Then in "13.This prohibition makes nuclear war unacceptable. Nuclear weapons would harm the land and non-combatants. The same principle would rule out many modern weapons. Only weapons which can be targeted at combatants or other weapons can be used by a Christian nation." Of course, if one applies McKenzie's citation of Deut 20, then the combatants can be killed and their women taken as plunder. How does this limit weaponry? Oh, I get it, if we use nukes then there's no women to plunder.

Point "14.Military alliances are common in the modern world. However these are forbidden over and over again in the Bible. A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3). Therefore, defence alliances are not an option for a Christian nation." Is ours a Christian nation, living in accordance with a covenent with God? I tell you what, I'll give up the alliances if everyone else is willing to live in covenent. And, I want some plunder too. Takers?

"15.God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. (Acts 17:26). No nation has the authority to invade another nation to change its government (even if it is evil)." See 11 above.

Also in 15. "Most attempts by great powers to establish "better" government by force in other nations have failed, because the spiritual forces that control the nation have not been defeated (Dan 10:13)." This passage in Daniel describes a supernatural conflict between an angel messenger of God and an evil spirit. It does not apply to nations.

Now his conclusions (I've corrected what I think is a typo.) "The current war in Afghanistan does (not) fit with these principles." and "The methods of warfare being used in Afghanistan cannot be justified either. Bombs that destroy the land and can kill and maim civilians are forbidden by Deuteronomy 20." and "The alliance with the ungodly men of the Northern Alliance is also contrary to the Scriptures."

His principles have been shown not to be consistent with the scriptures he quotes, Deut 20 contains no such prohibitions, and I'll give up the alliance in exchange for a covenential nation (and some woment to plunder).

40 posted on 11/23/2001 7:58:08 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice,(that's an action word), to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

When I posted the above scripture earlier, "do justice" got cut off. It should read as stated above.

41 posted on 11/23/2001 8:04:28 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
as the wife is to submit to her husband,and he to her

I may have missed the verse where the husband is supposed to submit to the wife? He is to love her as though it were his own body, and die for her, if necessary. I might be wrong on this, but could I request a text for the 'submission' part of it? I've checked 3 seperate texts, 1st Corinth. Ephesians, and 1st Peter and none of them say submit to the wife. Perhaps it was a 'mistype' on your part?

42 posted on 11/23/2001 8:07:20 AM PST by invoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Afghani ships? They are landlocked and don't have any.

Exactly, that's why a Letters of Marque is ridiculous. That's what the original intent of the term was.

A letter of marque—or letter of reprisal—is the means by which a government authorizes a civilian to arm a private ship in order to attack and plunder the merchant ships of an enemy nation during war. This is the meaning the term had acquired by the eighteenth century. In earlier use, it referred to the means by which a government righted a private wrong against one of its citizens. For example, if an English trader had his goods stolen in Holland and could not receive satisfaction through the Dutch legal system, the English government might grant him a letter of marque. He was then authorized to seize any Dutch ship to regain the value of the goods stolen from him.

We have no legitimate quarrel with Afghans. Remember we are supposedly only interested in Bin Laden's person and possibly the destruction of the al Qaeda bases on their soil. (Al Qaeda bases on Bosnian and Albanian soil are just fine.) The perps of the initial attack might be completely dead. If so, we have absolutely no justification for killing anyone.

"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" was meant to right a wrong done onto a citizen. If this is your answer to the problem, we would have the family members of every citizen that was injured or killed as a result of 9-11, legally being able to set out on their own to kill an equal amount of Arab citizens.

Also, let's not forget the Pentagon was also attacked, so your answer to the problem would allow for the US military to feel free to seek out and destroy an equal number of Talibanis as who died at the Pentagon (whether or not they had anything to do with the attack on us). That's why your "solution" to the problem is totally ridiculous. Or President choose WAR against those who gave safe harbor to the perpetrators.

.

Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,

When Congress passed The War Powers Act of 1973. (Public Law 93-148. 93rd Congress, HJ Res. 542. November 7, 1973). They effectivly gave the choice of using the military to the head of the Executive Branch of the government. He choose WAR (with the consent of the congress).

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

43 posted on 11/23/2001 8:13:25 AM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
What state harbored McVeigh? I agree with your assesment. This war is unjustified.

NO state harbored McVeigh. Once we found him out, we quickly arrested, then executed, him. That was not the case in Afghanistan. They new Osama was there and committing terrorist acts around the world, but did nothing to stop him or his band of murderers. That's harboring.

This war IS justified.

44 posted on 11/23/2001 8:22:12 AM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
If you are looking at this as a question directed only to Christians, then this conversation is pure rhetoric and wastes time. Reality is where we live and the fight we have on our hands is serious. I refuse to play "what if" with my teenagers for the same reasons. Also, we cannot afford to NOT have a significant standing army as war in the modern age can be brought to you in virtual moments. There could be no time to call up reserves and/or train and/or manufacture the necessary resources for an engagement. This article presents itself in a very paternalistic fashion telling us how to behave. I do not agree.
45 posted on 11/23/2001 8:37:13 AM PST by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: Thommas
I don't think my logic is faulty at all. Afghanistan asked for evidence which showed bin Laden was actually responsible. The administration refused and then claimed that such a request was proof that Afghanistan was "harboring" terrorists.

When the feds asked for McVeigh's extradition for trial they presented evidence. That's the way it's supposed to work.

48 posted on 11/23/2001 8:51:37 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: invoman
1 Cor. 7:3: Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (4) The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (5) Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time . . .

I was unclear what I meant by submission. There are instances, such as above, where the man, and the woman, submit to each other (and perhaps this scripture can be taken as more than submitting to each other's physical needs). Regarding decision-making, the husband is not to submit to his wife, but he should listen to her as a partner. But he, ultimately decides what course of action to take. She is to submit to that, not he to her.

49 posted on 11/23/2001 9:17:25 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Demidog; tex-oma
Are you guys crazy? The Taliban "govt" knew of Osama's terrorist activities, his terrorist training camps for foreign Arabs, and his declared war on Americans and Jews whether in uniform or civilians (from Osama's own mouth), and his Al Qaeda group. Yet they never acted to shut him down. They (Taliban) even invited Osama into their government as Afghanistan's defense minister.

Do you actually believe if we showed them pictures of Osama instructing a class on piloting aircraft into tall buildings with "September 11th is the day of our attack so be prepared" written on a blackboard behind him, they would have handed him over to us? Get real.

50 posted on 11/23/2001 9:17:39 AM PST by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson