PDA

View Full Version : Debate with a Youth Pastor




Tobias2dope
11-30-2007, 02:10 AM
I help with a church youth group and work with the Youth Pastor at the church, I was browsing "myspace" and ran into a Blog he made about the War, which got on my nerves a bit, so I decided to reply. Sorry if it's long and tedious, but you can't post html in the original so it might be hard to follow with simple text.
I just thought maybe someone would like to see what some Pastors think
He knows I support Ron Paul already.


The Reason For War
Category: Life
This weekend I had a conference youth all nighter. As a part of that evening we held a round table discussion on the war in Iraq. It was very interesting to hear the rhetoric that MTV has spewed forth onto our kids; war was for oil, we should be out now, too many people are dead, they have their own govt.

Some of these points are tragic, yet in the course of the evening there was some real wisdom from the 'mouth of babes'. I asked the teens, "what is the purpose of our being in Iraq?" 1 teen (maybe 15) lifted her hand and said, "we are there to defend people who can't yet defend themselves".

What made this so profound is that we had just asked how or if we who are Christians should be supportive of this effort. In Isaiah we are told to, "defend the orphans and plead the case of the widows". In short - we are to stand in the gap for people who can't fight for themselves.

How long? Until the threat is eliminated.

Do you know that we still have soldiers in every major arena of battle of the 20th century. When the dems scream, bring them home - they act as if we havent spent 60 years in germany and japan...50 years in korea and 15 years in saudi arabia.

In fact - the only major theater of operations that we pulled out of was veitnam.

and by some estimates - our leaving cost millions of lives...

Way to stand in the gap America...

MY FIRST RESPONSE
First, when did MTV spew it's rhetoric, I don't watch it, neither should you, but I have no evidence of MTV telling little kids that we're in Iraq for oil, we can blame them for the garbage the play or the dumb perverted shows that's enough. Maybe some band members say that, but I see it as a cheap shot to blame this on MTV because the average Christian would agree because they don't like MTV anyway.

"Too many people are dead?
"we are there to defend people who can't yet defend themselves".

US Killed 3876
wounded 30,327
not to mention 20,000 Unlisted brain injuries no counted by the pentagon
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071123/1a_lede23.art.htm

Iraq Casualties
Lancett Estimate over 600,000 back in October 2006
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-10-11-iraq-study_x.htm

Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/counterexplanation.html

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ says about 80,000 based on media reporting deaths
and Health Minister estimated 150,000 civilians based on dead in morgues
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111000164.html

4 Million Iraqis have been displaced by violence in their country
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679

That is not MTV Rhetoric

"we are there to defend people who can't yet defend themselves" applied to this situation
is not exactly from the mouth of babes, because she was obviously taught that by her parents or something.

"defend the orphans and plead the case of the widows" I can't stress that our actions have MADE an innumerable amount of orphans and widows. And not helped them, I don't recall hearing about windows and orphans in Iraq pre-war.

"we are to stand in the gap for people who can't fight for themselves."
Who is we? we as Christians? Christians are not running America, judging by the fact that we have abborted 48,589,993 of our own babies. Any injustices being done around the world should come second to American problems, we need to clean house here first. And since we as a nation are in debt 9 Trillion dollars We really can't afford to go and do these things, and borrow 3 billion a day from places like China. Christianity does not condone Preemptive war. And not to mention that according to a number of polls and surveys over 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq.

I am aware of our occupation of other countries we should pull out of there as well, what a bad investment of our time and resources. Tell me who estimates that us leaving will cost Millions of lives? The Same people who said iraq would be easy? And even if you say it would be a catastrophy to leave only strengthens the fact we shouldn't have been their meddling in the first place.

They found no WMD's which was the catalyst for the Iraq War
Now they say that Iran is has WMD's
The Same War Mongers Want the war to spill into Iran, Colin Powell just said about a week ago that that Iran has no Nuclear Weapons and isn't close to it,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hhx_TURxlqOeQdTUoILUjNdi2mRQD8T0J8400

The CIA said the same thing, and yet "a nuclear first strike" is not off the table

It's not just anti Bush Democrats that want us out of Iraq because they hate bush, in fact Hillary wants to stay in Iraq as well, so there are Democrats who are agaist the war out of convenience.
way too much info to keep going, sorry it's been so long but I've barely Scratched the surface.

~Tobias

HIS FIRST RESPONSE
When referring to the MTV generation - this does not apply Tobias to you. By saying MTV - I am not saying that each person who believed the way that they did only did so because of MTV - I am implying that the mentality that fuels the MTV rhetoric is what caused those kids to speak talking points that could not stand a direct challenge. Yes I do call them liberal talking points...and I acknowledge that not only liberals believe them.

So to directly address your points:

1. How many people died pre invasion? How many did Sadaam Hussein kill in obvious human rights violations. How many died in his illegal war with Kuwait and also with Iran? How many were tortured, abused, maimed? How many more mass graves are going to have to be found before someone like yourself would have to come to the conclusion that the direction that Iraq is heading now is a much better direction than pre invasion?

2. Why can't you give her that she came up with that herself? The question posed to the young lady was, what should the christian response to the war be? She brought back the issue that we as Christians should be defending the cause of the widow and the orphan. I think it a fair assessment to say that we are doing that in Iraq right now as the only think standing between the innocents and the enemy is the army. If I as a believe in Christ support the troops in their mission - are they not acting on my behalf? In short, am I not involved in the fight with them?

3. We havent helped them? Sheesh Tobey - dont they have free elections now. Arent they formulating their own govt - constitution - oil sharing plan - alliances - infastructure - individual rights etc et al? How do you look past this?

4. Pre emptive war not condoned? I'd like you to answer for me why the israelites were ordered to kill all of the inhabitants of Canaan as they came into the land. LET me help you - it is because God knew that the people would corrupt the israelites so he ordered their COMPLETE AND TOTAL DESTRUCTION! Sounds like pre emprive war to me.

Look man - your thoughts are well presented - yet I cant agree. Field these questions - and lets see where this goes.



MY SECOND RESPONSE
"1. How many people died pre invasion? How many did Sadaam Hussein kill in obvious human rights violations. How many died in his illegal war with Kuwait and also with Iran? How many were tortured, abused, maimed? How many more mass graves are going to have to be found before someone like yourself would have to come to the conclusion that the direction that Iraq is heading now is a much better direction than pre invasion?"
__________________________________________________ ____________
First of all why are you talking about illegal wars in Kuwait and Iran, when YOU want AMERICA to engage in Illegal wars with Iraq and Iran?

How many died from Sanctions and Bombings in Iraq for over 10 years?
300 child deaths every day
2000 children dying for every coalition soldier killed
Since US invasions 2 million of the Iraq victims have been children.
according to http://www.coia.org.uk/

http://books.google.com/books?id=B74HkM07HkIC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=%22300+child+deaths%22&source=web&ots=KP39xL2-N3&sig=ZlgUJj50jpyG5J84q5bZntTekBI

Madeleine Albright on 60 minutes - "Worth It":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8

Effects of Depleted Uranium: The health impacts of the use of depleted uranium weaponry in Iraq are yet to be known. The Pentagon estimates that U.S. and British forces used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of weaponry made from the toxic and radioactive metal during the March 2003 bombing campaign. Many scientists blame the far smaller amount of DU weapons used in the Persian Gulf War for illnesses among U.S. soldiers, as well as a sevenfold increase in child birth defects in Basra in southern Iraq.
WATCH THIS VIDEO ABOUT DEPLETED URANIUM :
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html



__________________________________
"2. Why can't you give her that she came up with that herself? The question posed to the young lady was, what should the christian response to the war be? She brought back the issue that we as Christians should be defending the cause of the widow and the orphan. I think it a fair assessment to say that we are doing that in Iraq right now as the only think standing between the innocents and the enemy is the army. If I as a believe in Christ support the troops in their mission - are they not acting on my behalf? In short, am I not involved in the fight with them?"
______________________________________
You quoted her as saying "we are there to defend people who can't yet defend themselves" Unless she said so, I doubt she thought of windows and orphans, all her statement implied is that "we're defending Iraqis", and in Christian pop culture it's the same vague rhetoric that is being taught with not much base at all; she was just repeating what she heard, it's really not hard to believe because I've heard it before. This is speculation on my part having not been there in person.

We keep spending hundreds of billions on an overseas war which we have no moral or legal right to be involved in, to "defend the cause of the widow and the orphan"? In truth it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that we are CREATING orphans and widows, and killing them too. Why do we not defend the innocent children being ripped apart in their mother's wombs in America? 4,000 American children are slain EVERY DAY, and fake Christians and politicians won't lift a finger or raise their voice against this wickedness, yet will happily and openly advocate an illegal and murderous war which they will NEVER see, all from the comfort of their La-Z-Boy.
I pray for the troops safety, for them to come home where they belong, and also for the innocent. I believe your prayers about their "Mission" are ineffective and vague. The troops are NOT acting on your behalf, they take their marching orders from the US government alone.




_________________________
"3. We havent helped them? Sheesh Tobey - dont they have free elections now. Arent they formulating their own govt - constitution - oil sharing plan - alliances - infastructure - individual rights etc et al? How do you look past this?"
__________________________________________________
Wow, that's like cutting the limbs off of a little puppy and then throwing it a bone. And what sense does it make to "Give another country individual rights", but we suspend habeus corpus, while The Patriot Act took a dump on our Bill of Rights. Also if you hated Iraq under Saddam, don't forget who put him in power.





__________________________

"4. Pre emptive war not condoned? I'd like you to answer for me why the israelites were ordered to kill all of the inhabitants of Canaan as they came into the land. LET me help you - it is because God knew that the people would corrupt the israelites so he ordered their COMPLETE AND TOTAL DESTRUCTION! Sounds like pre emprive war to me."
__________________________________________________ ____________
What you're failing to grasp is that GOD ALONE DECIDED to destroy Canaan because ONLY GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE:"Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God."

Are you seriously comparing a Theocratic Government directly ordered by God to exercise his divine judgement on entirely evil idol-worshipers, as justification for Christians to engage in Preemptive war? The only thing that tells me is that ONLY God could make a judgement call like that. Not only is America not in the slightest equivalent to God's Chosen People B.C., you still have the problem of God ignoring nations due to their own sin:

Isaiah 1:15
When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood

Psalm 44:9-11
9 But now you have rejected and humbled us;
you no longer go out with our armies.
10 You made us retreat before the enemy,
and our adversaries have plundered us.
11 You gave us up to be devoured like sheep
and have scattered us among the nations.

Deuteronomy 1:41-42
41 Then you replied, "We have sinned against the LORD. We will go up and fight, as the LORD our God commanded us." So every one of you put on his weapons, thinking it easy to go up into the hill country.
42 But the LORD said to me, "Tell them, 'Do not go up and fight, because I will not be with you. You will be defeated by your enemies."

Numbers 14:42-44
42 Do not go up, because the LORD is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies, 43 for the Amalekites and Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from the LORD, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword."
44 Nevertheless, in their presumption they went up toward the high hill country, though neither Moses nor the ark of the LORD's covenant moved from the camp.


America's hands are full of the innocent blood of their own sons and daughters. Do you think God can look upon our nation and bless it? And now we attack other nations and kill their sons and daughters, all in the name of "freedom"? What perverse thought processes must one go through to think such things? Do you honestly think that bombing other nations and killing their women and children is a legitimate way to share the gospel of Jesus Christ? Have you stopped to think of the faceless people in Iraq that, because of our actions, have further hardened themselves against Americans and Christians because their family members are being blown up. There is nothing in all of this that spreads the Gospel, in fact it's the exact opposite. This is so destructive to the message of peace and mercy. If you think I'm wrong , The IISS reported that al-Qaeda's recruitment and fundraising efforts had been given a major boost by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The CIA calls this "Blowback" it's a very real concept. They don't attack us because "They hate freedom", that's stupid. Listen to the CIA, listen to your enemy.


Jesus is "The Prince of Peace", and said things like "blessed are the peace makers" at the Sermon on the Mount

James 3:17-18
17But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Hebrews 12:13-15
14Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many

1 Timothy 2
1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,


So I'll say again Christians do not Condone Preemptive War, They don't advocate war in general, that's why there is Just War Doctrine that lays out extreme conditions for war, because it's a last resort.
_______________________________
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing that it seeks to destroy."
- Martin Luther King, Jr

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

Peace out yall, and let me know if I misrepresented anything

Omphfullas Zamboni
11-30-2007, 04:07 AM
Very thorough. I like how you continued to cite your sources. If I may make one suggestion, it would be the following minor nitpick:

When emphasizing a word or phrase, use italics instead of ALL-CAPS. In doing so, "The troops are NOT acting on your behalf..." becomes, "The troops are not acting on your behalf..."

To me, this looks more professional--although my composition skills are a little rusty. With any luck, others will be able to offer more substantiative review.

Best regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

jmdrake
11-30-2007, 02:35 PM
Good answers! I can't believe this person raised Iran as an excuse for the Iraq war. Well...in a way I can. It has become a Bush talking point. But it is a STUPID talking point! We supplied Iraq with military intelligence for the invasion! Plus the Bush administration blocked congress for imposing sanctions against Iraq for using poison gas (which we supplied). Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched to Iraq to assure Saddam everything was ok.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDB113BF936A35753C1A9669582 60
http://www.bhopal.net/otherbhopals/archives/saddam+rumsfeld.jpg

Besides the same people that are pretending to be so upset over Iraq's "aggression" against Iran now are pushing for the U.S. commit aggression against Iran! (Or has your Youth Pastor forgotten the whole "axis of evil" speech?)

Good point bringing up Madeline Albright! Although since this youth pastor is so quick to quote Old Testament genocide as justification for preemptive war, he might agree with Albrights view that the deaths of millions of Iraqi children was somehow "worth it". (And how does he distinguish his own view on genocide from that of "Islamofascists"?) Still I wonder if your pastor friend has read Matthew 5:38, 39?

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Note that Jesus is making a reference to this old testament passage:

Deuteronomy 19:21

21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

In other words just because something was done in the Old Testament does NOT mean that Jesus gave it His blessing in the New Testament! Or does this youth pastor go around sacrificing passover lambs too?

Also I wonder if he's aware of the fact that Christians in Iraq actually fared better under Saddam! Saddam's second in command, Tariz Aziz (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,943280,00.html), was Christian. After the fall of Saddam Christians have fled Iraq by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!

http://www.digtriad.com/news/national_world/article.aspx?storyid=94010&catid=175
http://www.christiansofiraq.com/ancientrootsaug27.html

Finally, if he's SO concerned about human rights is he ready to invade Burma, North Korea, China etc?

Regards,

John M. Drake

Tobias2dope
12-04-2007, 01:24 PM
jmdrake, Thanks for some of the info. And sorry for the clumsiness of it all, but myspace doesn't allow html in responses to blogs apparently.

This is starting to give me a headache


2nd RESPONSE FROM PASTOR
Ok Tobey - lots of info...lemme see

1. Define an illegal war? I'd like to hear your definition of what makes a war legal or illegal. Don't quote me someone else - I want to know what you think and how much our sovereignty plays into it. When you consider implying international law - remember that Ron Paul wants to pull the US out of the UN - so it kinda makes that implication moot.

2. I have not implied that I want the usa in Iran. I will say this - should it be proved that Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons - then we should bomb their infrastructure into the stone age. To not do so is to recreate the foolishness that happened before ww2 when we tried to pacify Hitler - we all know the effects of Chamberlains errors. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF LIVES LOST.

3. When you tell me why we have no moral or legal right - then i will debate the war's expenses.

4. I dont know that we put sadaam in power. I know we supported him against iran - but put him in power (no)

5. I dont give a fig of what madeline allbright has to say.

6. Depleted uranium - i think weapons are doing the precise job they are supposed to do. This is WAR man - there will be lasting consequences.

7. "perverse thinking" wow thats quite an accusation. Lets make this simple ok? You asked for a case of pre-emptive war and I gave it to you. Who ordered it is moot. It's there and that can't be debated. That God can not bless us - quite a reach as well. God was ready to spare sodom and Gomorra for the sake of 10. God blessed babylon, greece and rome - and their sins were as grievous as americas. Hey want to know the funny thing - the gospel is being spread all over Iraq. Did we go to do this, NO - we went and have given the people the freedom of choice...and some are choosing Christ.

8. What more did you want us to do that you may feel better about this war? There were 14 resolutions by the UN. There was a no fly zone in both northern and southern iraq for a decade. We watched as sadaam gassed the kurds - murdered olympiads - persecuted, raped and murdered his own people. He thumbed his nose at international weapons inspectors - a necessity for the peace of 92. He paid off security council members - he paid of the secretary generals own family...

what more did you want

I'd say we were the only people who did the right thing...

My 3rd Response
Point 1, Rebuttal:

The United States Constitution states that to go to war, the President must receive approval from Congress, a Declaration of War. Bush received no such permission, thus violating the supreme law of the land. Also the Iraq War violated Iraq's sovereignty, as well as numerous international laws. What does Ron Paul have to do with this? Who cares if he wants us out of the UN? Even so, you're logic is flawed because it would only require YOU to believe in the UN. If the UN said it was illegal, and you thought we should be in the UN, then you would accept it as illegal, regardless of Paul's opinion.


Point 2, Rebuttal:

You accepted "proof" that Iraq had WMD's which turned out to be false, and if the mere POSESSION of Nuclear Weaponry is basis for "bombing into the stoneage" the nation found to be in posession of them; then we would have started WW3 with Russia decades ago, and probably caused the total obliteration of human life on this Earth. And as for WW2, Stalin and Hitler both had designs on conquest of Europe, and both were amassing armies for that purpose before WW2 started. Funny isn't it, that Stalin killed more innocents than Hitler, and the US allied with Stalin, even dividing portions of Europe to the evil dictator after the war was over.


Point 3, Rebuttal:

I have already elaborated on this. We have no (1) Legal Right because it violated the Constitution, as well as international law, and we have no (2) Moral Right because AMERICA MURDERS 4,000 OF HER OWN CHILDREN, EVERY SINGLE DAY!(Matthew 7:5 anyone), If the purpose of war is to protect the innocent, why doesn't the US Goverment declare war on America's own death factories and bomb them? This argument is aside from the fact that we have killed hundreds of thousand of civilians, orphans, widows, and children. Something that you think is justified.


Point 4, Rebuttal:

Essentially, yes. The CIA supported Saddam in his struggle for dictatorship against his Communist rivals in the 60's, even giving him a hit-list of people to kill in order to assume total power.


Point 5, Rebuttal:

You've totally missed the point
This reinforces the fact that the Government knew the staggering figures of disproportionate children deaths. Maybe you should give a "fig", since Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State, she represented our nation at the time of the
bombing campaigns of Iraq, which she admitted killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, and stated that "We[US government] think the price is worth it". Worth it for WHAT? Was it a Bargain?


Point 6, Rebuttal:

So our weapons' Job is to kill a Million innocent people and cause birth defects even on our own troops children? Cause that's precisely what they're doing. What a cold thing to say, this statement shows your advertisment of the Iraq War as a war to protect the "orphans and widows", to be the joke that it is. We as a peace-loving Christian nation should not be at all concerned about the devastating effects of radioactive munitions upon non-combatants. Responsibilityis overrated. After all, God turns a blind eye during times of war. It's kind of like a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Also, the effects of Depleted Uranium are put upon our Armed Forces as well, showing your proclamation of "supporting our troops" to be the empty catch-phrase that it is, not to mention your support of keeping our troops in the way of danger.



Point 7, Rebuttal (broken into sub-sections):

1 ""perverse thinking" wow thats quite an accusation." It certainly is. Perversity is that which goes against the precepts of God. I guess "Love your neighbor as yourself" ACTUALLY meant "bomb your neighbor".


2 God commanding the total destruction of the Canaanites is NOT a case of "pre-emptive war", just like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is NOT a case of "pre-emptive war". "Preemptive war: is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war" Remember that the destruction of Canaan was to keep Israel pure.

And to say "Who ordered it is moot" is kinda blasphemous, as it was GOD alone who ordered it. You site God as being able to bless America because he said he would spare Sodom for 10 rightious souls. How you turn "spare" into "bless" is beyond me. So you totally ignore the verses I showed you concerning God ignoring nations due to sin, and you think NOT DESTROYING and

BLESSING are the same thing. Sparing is just short of killing, blessing is to approve of and to give. Please read the verse again and look the two words up in the dictionary.


3 God "blessed" Babylon, Greece, and Rome? Show me this in the Bible, please. The only time God USED their armies was to dispense His divine punishment upon apostate Israel, and other wicked nations. It was not because they were "holy", or He was "blessing" them, and if God was blessing those Empires as you WRONGLY claim, then how come they were destroyed? You did know they were destroyed BECAUSE they were sinful right? I'm being serious.


4 "the funny thing" - freedom of choice existed, and the Gospel was being spread throughout Iraq LONG before we started bombing it and killing civilians. I wonder how many of those killed were Christians? Christians now face greater persecution in Iraq than before the war. Experts agree they had a greater measure of protection under secular Saddam Hussein than they do under the ensuing onslaught of radical Islamists vying for power since Hussein was deposed. Tariz Aziz, Saddam's second in command, is a Chaldeean Christian. Regardless of whether he was truly saved, it proves that you were allowed to be
a Christian. After the fall of Saddam, Christians have fled Iraq by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS! I'm sure there are Iraqis who are choosing Christ DESPITE the violence, obviously because God works everywhere, but conversions are not BECAUSE of our occupation and bombings, like I said- it's in spite of it. Unless of course you're reffering to someone getting saved in preparation of their impending death.

http://www.christiansofiraq.com/ancientrootsaug27.html

The Rev. Canon Andrew White, an Anglican priest known as the Vicar of Baghdad:
"There's no comparison between Iraq now and [under Saddam]," says White. "Things are the most difficult they have ever been

for Christians - probably ever in history," he tells Pelley, referring to the nearly 2,000 years of Christian history in the area. That's because White estimates that 90 percent of Iraq's Christians, once thought to number over a million, have either
fled or have been murdered by Islamic extremists during the religious civil war."
Meanwhile, we borrow money FOR the War from Red China, a Totalitarian State which has been murdering inumerable amounts of their own children, has made Bible-study illegal, and Christianity punishable with imprisonment and worse. But please, continue to tell me about how our bombings, funded by China's blood-money, have helped spread the gospel.


Point 8, Rebuttal:

If you think that empty talk of UN resolutions, no fly zones, and Saddam's murdering wickedness, and also some things that may or may not be true is going to make our own murderous and illegal invasion of Iraq seem more appealing to me, then you are sadly mistaken.

Basically, our response to Saddam's bomb/kill/maim/and poison, is for US to bomb/kill/maim/poison, and almost all those who are suffering are innocents, women and children. There's a phrase children are taught, "Two wrongs don't make a right"

His 3rd response
Tobias - I find you very passionate about this topic and that is a refreshing and encouraging thing to see. If you would permit me one word of caution, please be careful that you separate the position from the person. What happens if you do is that we can have a great debate and perhaps even open eyes on either side of the spectrum for a more profound impact. If you can't - then what always seems to happen, at least in my experience, is that a wedge is put between people that care about you and you care about. A difference in opinion is not worth that division. Some of what you have written seems as if you are making this a character issue. I don't want this to go that way. Please Tobias help me to keep this on topic.

I am going to assume that you'll help me do this and will answer to the best I can your points:

1. You claim that Bush did not go to congress for approval in the war? I dont know why you would feel this way remembering that Kerry said, "Well I actually voted for the war before I voted against it." Hillary has been accosted for her approval of the war...and Obama has stayed vigilant in his continued stance of not voting to approve the war. So it seems, unless there is something that I am not seeing, that Bush did exactly what he should have.

1a. International law was violated and Iraq sovereignty? What war does not violate sovereignty? As for international law - could we not counter that by saying that Sadaam was a war criminal - who committed crimes against humanity? His removal should have been done by the united nations - who balked on the effort. In my opinion the USA did what the UN and all of its 'international law' should have done.

2. I will give you that the world community and specifically the USA seems quite hypocritical in its application of justice. I find the USA very much a bully in how/where it chooses to intervene vs ignore. i will give you that soviet russia was given much latitude and that we killed the ideals of dealing with them by the shameful dismissal of George Patton during ww2. But to say there were no weapons of mass destruction? Maybe not as Bush envisioned them - but the potential for sale to terrorists and the rationale for attack seems to have existed.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

3. I dont agree with your stance that because we are killing babies that we should have no moral high ground in world affairs. I do not kill babies - I too see the scripture as the center piece for our lives. It is for that reason that I believe we do have moral high ground is because I see that Iraq will be better after of departure than it was before we came. It's democracy is in infancy - this takes time to develop and mature - see also the many rebellions after the inception of the 13 colonies of the USA (whisky rebellion, Cival war - are just a few issues of democracy needing time to mature)

4. Ok - so we supported Sadaam, I'll take your word for it. Does this mean that we should not clean up our mistake if he became what we did not want?

5. My disdain for allbright is one that comes from the hypocrisy of our application of justice. We did wrong in Bosnia. That was totally a civil war and we got involved and bombed them and put Milosivitch on trial though we ignored in large part the rise of al quada - the sufferings in africa - the nuclear ambitions of north korea.
That thousands of innocents die tobe - that is the byproduct of war. It is terrible, but a byproduct none the less. That is was 'worth it' - there was no national interest involved...i agree with you, what was that war worth?

6. Why are you painting me with words that I did not say? You act as if I am waving the bag of cliches and I am not. I AM trying to lay down facts as best I can know and apply them. To the issue of depleted uranium - does it have side effects, obviously so. Does it also stop an enemy tank square in its tracks - YES. It is a weapon that has done its job. this is no different than the controversy over land mines or cluster bombs etc. This is an acceptable means of making war - and while i too dislike the consequences of it - remember something here:
a. The men and women who are a part of the military chose this. They chose to put themselves potentially in harms way. This effect needs to be studied and in my opinion, a new weapon shell devised that can do the job, but this effect should not lessen the necessity of the military having the best tools available to do their job. Do we no longer mine for coal because of cave ins and deaths/black lung? Do we stop up oil wells because of the potential for environmental damage?

7. a. In your opinion my thinking goes against the precepts of God. IN YOUR OPINION. Again lets be careful to not make this a character issue. I SEE THE GOD OF THE BIBLE as one who used war many many times to make/get his will accomplished. David wrote in psalms "blessed be the lord my God who trains my hands for war an my fingers to fight". David was brutal to those he conquered - did he too suffer from perverse thinking?

b. You said, "the destruction of the people of canaan was to keep Israel pure". Let me put that another way, we get rid of them before they can corrupt us". Sounds pretty much pre-emptive to me.

c. I guess my thought here is how did these empires get so big without the hand of God?

he LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. 1 sam 2:7

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Romans 13:1

I would argue that these people enjoyed the blessing of God

d. I dont know how to answer this. In theory - freedom of religion breeds Christianity...yet in practice...it may be another thing. As for borrowing money from China - i need a reference.

8. You asked for legitimacy - i provided my position to offer such. This was not a wake up one morning "ooh lets go to war today decision" - this had been a decade in the making. A decade if not longer tobias of trying to work within the system to reform that government and their illegal practices.

Sounds like a last resort to me

janeuner
12-04-2007, 03:07 PM
A few responses, not thorough.

1. The invasion violates the Just War theory, as Congress failed to declare war. Voting approval or disapproval is not the same as an up or down vote on a declaration of war.

1a. Don't bring up international law. We did not justify our actions under international law, and there are no real penalties for the US when they do violate those laws.

4. Yes, we probably should have cleaned up our mess. But more to the point - we did clean up the mess. We should now step back and allow events to unfold according to the will of the Iraqis.

6. Depleted Uranium is an insignificant issue. Yes, it is dangerous, but it is not deadly. When all the dangers in life are compared, depleted uranium is not going to make a major impact.

7. The use of scripture here has its ups and downs. However, the use of Romans 13:1 is particularly damning. I cite Romans 13:2 - "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." This puts us in a bit of a conundrum. As he pointed out earlier, Saddam rose to power on his own accord. By removing Saddam, a pre-existing authority, from power, we were acting in defiance of God. Furthermore, this logic extends to every other war a democratic nation participates in, even calling to question our own revolution two centuries ago. This scripture does not endorse war - it damns those who participate in it.

The question comes down to whether or not the Bible itself is fallable. I have no doubt that there are great truths in scripture...but if it is indeed infallable, then it is our own understanding of the Bible that needs greater examination.

8. In theory, Freedom of Religion breeds truth. The breeding process, however, is messy. The Truth and our understanding of the truth are two different things - as we grow as individuals, we have to opportunity use precedents and reasoning to improve our faith, if we choose to use them both. Otherwise, we will be stuck where we are.

boberino
12-04-2007, 03:11 PM
Foxnews.com should be the new Godwin's Law.

Zarxrax
12-04-2007, 03:27 PM
Here's a good point I think you should bring up to him:
His argument seems to be that we are in iraq to protect the iraqi people. The Iraqi people have stated though, that they do not want us there and are ready for us to leave! What if we are causing them more harm by being over there? How is this war justified in that case?

Brutus
12-04-2007, 04:00 PM
Q1. You claim that Bush did not go to congress for approval in the war?
A1. Ron Paul offered a declaration of war (which he wanted to vote against), having a declaration of war was rejected. They had the opportunity to do this right and passed on it.
Q2. WMD to terrorists
A2. This exists with all governments that have WMDs, so either this was EXCUSE to do something "we" wanted to do anyway, or it is non-relevant.
Q3. Fledgling democracy, Iraq better than we found it
A3. I keep looking in the Bible for some praise of democracy and don't find it. If by better he means less populated, then I guess he is right. If by better he means having more sectarian violence, then I guess he is right. If by better he means that now we are no longer embargoing the country so they can get medicines and supplies, I guess he is right, but we could have stopped the embargo without invading. The embargo did to Iraq what it did to Castro -- strengthened his hold on the country.
Q4. Since we supported Sadaam should we then clean up our mess?
A4. Maybe it means we should stop meddling in the affairs of other people. If someone comes into my house and smashes my TV I don't want him to stay while he puts it back together I want him to LEAVE. Doing me damage doesn't give you unrestrained right to then run my life after that.
Q5. Albright
A5. Huh? Guess I missed something. Maybe if we're such bad policemen we should stop trying to be? Especially since being policemen invariably means that lots of people die.
Q6. Depleted Uranium, anything to stop the aggression
A6. Then we should nuke the country now and be done with it. As to the soldiers, great support for them. Lots of sympathy for those used in radiation testing during and after WWII as well, I suppose. They signed up, after all. The state claims rights to over soldiers which would put any other "employer" in jail.
Q7. Bush as Moses
A7. Hmm. Be careful who you follow. You are responsible for those choices.
Q8. God exalts...
A8. This yields some interesting questions, did God BLESS the Aztecs for their virgin sacrifices? After all, they conquered all of the surrounding tribes. Virgin sacrifices must then be okay, I guess, after all God BLESSED them.

linj2fly
12-04-2007, 06:43 PM
When I first heard about Ron Paul, and his reasoning that the Iraq War was unconstitutional because Congress did not declare war, I wanted to believe him, but I was confused.

I thought, "What is he talking about??" I remember the vote. So I looked up the actual Law. It is called:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

I read the whole thing and made many notes, especially regarding how many times UN resolutions are used as a rationale for going to war. I bought into this rationale at the beginning, thinking that they (the UN) aren't enforcing their own resolutions--so WE WILL.

But the part that really struck me is this: (bold italics added for emphasis)

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

That is NOT a declaration of war.

I studied more about the constitution and the war making powers. I learned that the two powers, (declaring war, commander and chief) were meant to be separated.

I find it very dangerous to our country, and frankly, negligent, on the part of Congress to abdicate their power to 'make war' to the president. It is not constitutionally in his jurisdiction to 'determine' whether war is 'necessary'. Such a serious consideration and debate is to be made in Congress, and by so doing Congress ultimately takes responsibility for the decision, not the president. His job is to [I]execute[I] the declaration. This is why Ron Paul forced a vote on a declaration. Unfortunately, it is politically prudent to many to circumvent this responsibility, and later be able to 'blame the president' for the war.

And lastly, I must say I was very confused about the whole war thing (I supported it up until a few years ago). I never found any peace about it until i finally went to the scriptures and studied and prayed.

I initially supported the war based on 'defending ourselves before they get us' and the whole notion in scripture about defending ourselves. But...I hadn't read it in a while. I didn't study it at the time. Now after making a careful study of it, and also more recently, the constitution, i see my folly, and have regretted it considerably, as I voted for Bush twice, and supported the war on false principles.
When people justify the war based on the israelites killing the canaanites thing, it really makes me want to puke. First, God commanded it (and with very specific instructions) and he spoke through His prophet. I seriously doubt that Bush would be that person today. I think your response to his justification (based on the israelites) was heroic.

sugaki
12-08-2007, 01:47 AM
I'm for staying in Iraq as long as it takes, so my position is different to yours--or to your youth pastor.

But since I don't want to derail the thread in debating specific points, I will say this: arguing morality with him won't work, because he's interpreting the same facts as you are differently. So it's not the facts that's the issue, it's what he makes of the facts. It sounds like anything you bring up--be it news articles or bible verses--won't do anything, because you're arguing past each other.

BUT, one thing that you're really losing on is you're making it more personal and emotional; as the youth pastor said, you're mixing up people with positions. And such ad hominems undermine whether your arguments are compelling or not. If you resort to insults, your youth pastor (who's kept it tactful) will feel like he has the moral high ground.

I'd ditch the rhetoric and stick to the facts. Oh, and depleted Uranium rounds are nothing compared to cluster bombs that failed to explode. These soda-can-sized things are like mini-mines, and blow people up.

Tobias2dope
12-08-2007, 06:46 PM
Thanks for the input guys, it's appreciated.

To sugaki,
The youth pastor is all about emotion and making things personal, he is distancing himself from it now so that it's easier for him to justify the war. Since he is a Christian I'm attacking on Christian principles. Anything seemingly personal is only meant to show how conflicting hiw views are with Christianity, I never meant to insult him. I know that a lot of people try to draw emotional responses from people, while I wasn't really trying to do that, it might have come off like that.

I know there are somethings that I could have expounded upon, but the posts are so long I kinda run out of steam.

I responded a couple days ago, once he responds again I'll post them both.

Thanks

fireinme
12-08-2007, 10:40 PM
I do not want to deflate, but I know from my experience in this kind of debate, that you will not win him over if you win the debate, and you most likely will not win him over before the election. So why debate?

You will learn a lot.
Your debate will be most useful for others to read.


I was pro Bush, pro the War. I debated with people and they argued with me and they lost the debate. They let me win, they made me feel bad for being so hard and forceful in my debating (not the other way around). They made me feel sorry for beating them.

Later the same thing happened again....

I started doing my own research.

I now am against the war. I was "converted" just in time for Ron Paul to come on the scene and I was then totally convinced, this took me one whole year.

Moral of the story
You should debate because it does something psychological in that parson that they might be able to change. However put you effort into those people you talk to who already have freedom ideals and they are much easier to pull over to your side.

Another hint would be to ask more questions. Follow the example of Jesus, He rarely responded to skeptics without a question.

My last piece of advice would be to study all you can about fallacies of logic. If you know something is wrong with the other person's argument it helps so much to put a name to the fallacy. Look critically at your own work and try to find these fallacies in it before you respond and also do the same to the other persons work.
Is the other person using the appeal to fear? Hasty generalization?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

jmdrake
12-11-2007, 09:50 AM
Send this to your youth pastor about depleted uranium. Ask him to watch it on a full stomach.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Supporting documentation:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3581.htm
http://www.refusingtokill.net/Vets'%20children%20with%20birth%20defects.htm
http://www.beyondtreason.com/

Regards,

John M. Drake

Kapt Nemo
12-11-2007, 10:35 AM
6. Why are you painting me with words that I did not say? You act as if I am waving the bag of cliches and I am not. I AM trying to lay down facts as best I can know and apply them. To the issue of depleted uranium - does it have side effects, obviously so. Does it also stop an enemy tank square in its tracks - YES. It is a weapon that has done its job. this is no different than the controversy over land mines or cluster bombs etc. This is an acceptable means of making war - and while i too dislike the consequences of it - remember something here:
a. The men and women who are a part of the military chose this. They chose to put themselves potentially in harms way. This effect needs to be studied and in my opinion, a new weapon shell devised that can do the job, but this effect should not lessen the necessity of the military having the best tools available to do their job. Do we no longer mine for coal because of cave ins and deaths/black lung? Do we stop up oil wells because of the potential for environmental damage?
[/COLOR]

Can I add you to my friends list? I'd like to get in on this discussion as well... particularly after this statement....

jmdrake
12-13-2007, 10:25 AM
Oh, something I forgot to mention earlier. Your youth pastor is trying to score points off of the WMDs "found" in Iraq? Well point this out to him. Even the Bush administration has admitted that we have found no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq.

http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/PR2004/NS-07-12-04.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

So is Bush a part of a "conspiracy" to make his own administration look bad?

The truth is that a relative handful of old shells from the Iran/Iraq war do NOT constitute the "WMD" threat that was the war was sold on. Every so often unexploded munitions from WW I are found in Europe. Does that mean we need to invade France? Also have you noticed that the terrorists haven't successfully used any sarin gas or mustard gas attacks on American troops? There's a reason for that. According to the CIA Iraq's sarin gas only had a shelf life of a few weeks. (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm) With that in mind how viable does anyone thing an Iran/Iraq war era munition (as outlined in Negroponte's memo) would be? Actually it would be great if any terrorists were dumb enough to buy the stuff. They would be able to do little damage with it other than scare foolish people and they would spend money that would better be spent purchasing high explosives for IEDs.

Regards,

John M. Drake

micahnelson
12-13-2007, 10:33 AM
The Range of Iraqi weapons is only about 25-30 Feet in the form of IED's. The united states is invulnerable if we stay 50 feet away from Iraq.

In movies, terrorists always snag nukes, nerve gas, zombie viruses, and laser beams from vast soviet clearing houses. This is the real world, we need leadership that understands this. If the soviet union made all these dangerous things available on the black market, and a terrorist organization could use them- wouldn't they have done it by now?

Instead, they hijacked airliners. Looks like the real answer is to legalize freedom. Allow the airlines to defend their planes. Instead, the government is taking power away from the airlines and federalizing travel. Riddle me this, is restriction of travel by the government a sign of an increase, or a decrease in freedom?

jmdrake
12-13-2007, 11:15 AM
The Range of Iraqi weapons is only about 25-30 Feet in the form of IED's. The united states is invulnerable if we stay 50 feet away from Iraq.

In movies, terrorists always snag nukes, nerve gas, zombie viruses, and laser beams from vast soviet clearing houses. This is the real world, we need leadership that understands this. If the soviet union made all these dangerous things available on the black market, and a terrorist organization could use them- wouldn't they have done it by now?

Instead, they hijacked airliners. Looks like the real answer is to legalize freedom. Allow the airlines to defend their planes. Instead, the government is taking power away from the airlines and federalizing travel. Riddle me this, is restriction of travel by the government a sign of an increase, or a decrease in freedom?

GREAT point! I always like to point out that if the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" then aren't the ones who urge that we "give up freedom for security" really working for the terrorists?

Regards,

John M. Drake

Omnis
12-13-2007, 03:40 PM
Tobias, I can't believe your pastor is a pastor.

jmdrake
12-14-2007, 12:44 PM
Tobias, I can't believe your pastor is a pastor.

Oh come now. He's not nearly as bad as defender of forced abortion (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/aprilweb-only/4-16-32.0.html) Pat Robertson. Or "Jesus never claimed to be Messiah" (http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/10/john_hagee_says.html) John Hagee. Clearly the youth pastor in question has some serious problems interpreting scripture, but unfortunately much of what he says is what's getting passed off as "mainstream Christianity" today.

Regards,

John M. Drake

kylejack
12-14-2007, 12:47 PM
Nice job drilling him on Just War.

Todd
12-14-2007, 12:56 PM
A few responses, not thorough.

1. The invasion violates the Just War theory, as Congress failed to declare war. Voting approval or disapproval is not the same as an up or down vote on a declaration of war.

1a. Don't bring up international law. We did not justify our actions under international law, and there are no real penalties for the US when they do violate those laws.

4. Yes, we probably should have cleaned up our mess. But more to the point - we did clean up the mess. We should now step back and allow events to unfold according to the will of the Iraqis.

6. Depleted Uranium is an insignificant issue. Yes, it is dangerous, but it is not deadly. When all the dangers in life are compared, depleted uranium is not going to make a major impact.

7. The use of scripture here has its ups and downs. However, the use of Romans 13:1 is particularly damning. I cite Romans 13:2 - "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." This puts us in a bit of a conundrum. As he pointed out earlier, Saddam rose to power on his own accord. By removing Saddam, a pre-existing authority, from power, we were acting in defiance of God. Furthermore, this logic extends to every other war a democratic nation participates in, even calling to question our own revolution two centuries ago. This scripture does not endorse war - it damns those who participate in it.

The question comes down to whether or not the Bible itself is fallable. I have no doubt that there are great truths in scripture...but if it is indeed infallable, then it is our own understanding of the Bible that needs greater examination.

8. In theory, Freedom of Religion breeds truth. The breeding process, however, is messy. The Truth and our understanding of the truth are two different things - as we grow as individuals, we have to opportunity use precedents and reasoning to improve our faith, if we choose to use them both. Otherwise, we will be stuck where we are.


I like your point about international law. We don't really believe in it because we ignore it. International law, to be effective, must have an apparatus to enforce it. There is nothing but the great powers for that...and we define it as we may.

jclay2
12-14-2007, 01:37 PM
What is funny is that your pastor, probably would be on your side if the sides were switched. If the democrats were for the war and republicans against it , I bet he would be right on your side.

Todd
12-19-2007, 02:34 PM
There is a difference between a "Holy war" and a "Just war"
.

Question: "Is the war in Iraq a just war?"

Answer: Before we look at the specifics of the situation in Iraq, let’s
take a general look at what the Bible says about warfare. Actually, it
says quite a lot.

The words war and battle are found over 350 times in the Old Testament. We
find God commanding war many times. In 2 Samuel 22:35, David says the Lord
taught him to fight. In Joshua 3:9-10, God commands Joshua to conquer the
Canaanites. In Exodus 15:3, God is called “a warrior” after defeating the
Egyptian army. In many places in Scripture, the Lord uses warfare as an
instrument of judgment against sinful nations (e.g., Numbers 31:1-24).

What we learn from such passages is that war is necessary at times. When
the Philistines took up arms against Israel in 1 Samuel 17:1, Israel had
to either fight a necessary war or capitulate to the enemy. The same was
true in 1938 when the Germans marched into Austria. While war is terrible,
there is nothing inherently evil with it per se. In a fallen world, war is
inevitable (Luke 21:9-10).

However, the Bible does not condone war indeterminately. Most of the
scriptures we’ve cited so far have dealt with Israel in the Old Testament.
To establish Israel in the Promised Land, war was necessary. At the same
time, God used Israel militarily to judge the idolatrous nations of Canaan
(Deuteronomy 18:12).

We’d like to make a clear distinction between a holy war and a just war. A
true holy war is one specifically commanded by God to Old Testament
Israel. The commands to do battle in the Old Testament were for a
particular group of people for a particular time, for a particular
purpose. That purpose has been accomplished, and no one can claim a “holy
war” today.

The Christian’s battle is spiritual (Ephesians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4).
This means, among other things, that God’s people do not use physical
means to coerce people into God’s Kingdom. However, does the Christian
emphasis on a spiritual war mean that physical warfare between nations is
always avoidable? Do we allow aggression to go unchecked? Should we ignore
hostility and injustice? No, there is a place today for a just war.

A just (or justified) war is one that is waged on behalf of justice. The
goal of a just war is peace. Romans 13:1-5 gives us the God-ordained role
of government in society:

1) to govern with authority from God (v1-2)
2) to praise the good in society (v4)
3) to punish the evildoer in society (v4)
4) to bear the sword and execute wrath against wrongdoers (v4)

Just like the shepherd’s job is to protect the sheep from the wolf, it’s
the government’s job to protect its citizens from aggression.

Again, we make no attempt to justify war in general. There is no way to
mitigate the horror and tragedy that war brings. But we do recognize that,
at times, war can be justified. We list the following six guidelines to
bring war under the rule of justice:

1) There must be a just cause. Bringing aggression, injustice, and
genocide to a stop would promote righteousness and therefore be a just
cause.

2) There must be just intention. The goal is peace and safety for all
involved. The desire for ideological supremacy, geographical expansion, or
economic gain does not justify a war.

3) War must be the last resort.

4) There must be a formal declaration of war. This shows that it is the
government taking action on behalf of its citizenry.

5) Proportionate means are used. Weaponry and use of force must be limited
to what is necessary to repel the attack and prevent future aggression.
Unlimited war is wrong.

6) Noncombatant immunity. Individuals not actively involved in the
conflict, including POWs and casualties, should be immune from attack.

So, what about the war against the terrorists in Iraq? We believe that it
is a just war insofar as the United States and its allies are protecting
its citizens and following the six guidelines, above.

May we be faithful to pray for our country’s leaders and for true wisdom
in these dangerous times (1 Timothy 2:1-2). And may the Lord quickly
fulfill His promise to bring to an end all war forever (Isaiah 2:1-4).

paulgirl
12-19-2007, 02:55 PM
Thank you for this very intelligent post. I have been wanting to write something like this, but didn't have the energy. Lots of people on here are constantly misusing the Old Testament to say that Christians/ the Bible support warfare against those who don't believe similarly. I'm not sure that anyone who isn't a Christian would appreciate the differences, or even care that much though.

paulgirl
12-19-2007, 03:05 PM
That being said, I have changed my position on the wars in Iraq/ Afghanistan. I originally thought it was justified for similar reasons. I used to scoff at the liberal activists who claimed it was a war for oil. Now I have changed my mind.

The problem is our nation and its leaders are not moral, and thus have no position from which to even wage just war. I was finally done with this when the new constitutions for these nations came out, and religios liberty is not protected. Islam is still the state religion, and you cannot convert to Christianity. Ask any Christian worker in Iraq whether it is better for them now, or during Saddam. They actually had MORE religious freedom under Saddam than they do under this US backed government.

Saddam deserved what he got, no doubt. But I think it really is all about the oil.

JohnM
12-19-2007, 04:57 PM
Todd Morris, thank you for your excellent post on "holy war" and "just war"