# Bush's address to the UN



## bfrank (Sep 20, 2006)

Anyone catch the speech? How'd he do?

I thought he delivered a strong message and am thankful he is unwilling to waver even in the midst of strong opposition.


----------



## ParnellM (Sep 20, 2006)

President Bush's understanding of "liberty" (like that of the overwhelming majority of other Republicans and Democrats) is fundamentally flawed and contrary to scriptural precept.

No nation that is a slave to sinful humanism like the USA is truly free, nor can it bring liberty to any other nation. No nation ruled by heretics and infidels like the USA is truly free.

A nation can only be truly free if it is reformed Christian.

So we should not be surprised that President Bush's speech is fundamentally flawed.

- Parnell McCarter
www.puritans.net


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 20, 2006)

Glad to have you on the board Parnell!! 

I'm on the yahoo historicist board.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 20, 2006)

Ditto again brethren. Any nation who spits on the law of God, kills millions of babies a year and celebrates sodomy, not to mention the innocent blood shed around this world is sure for coming judgment. Bush is simply a sock puppet for the globalist elite.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 20, 2006)

all roads lead to rome-except the narrow path to eternal life.


----------



## bfrank (Sep 20, 2006)

Whoa, 

I wasn't speaking to the morality of the United States or to any higher fact...other than we have a leader who is unwilling to waver to the threat of terrorism. And, that leader took a strong stance in the face of much opposition and will continue to do so.

So, in your piety...brethren, perhaps you will have a easier go of it when you live out 1 Timothy 2:13-17 when the Lord brings our next leader into power...


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 20, 2006)

Sorry brother. Did't mean to be offensive. All the worlds leaders must be held to the same standard. That is the Word of God. All are weighed in the balance and found wanting. GW's, as well as all previous admisistrations for abut the last 60 years have done more to cause and perpetuate "terrorism" than they could ever in a thousnad years do to stop it. There is no war on terrorism in my opinion. It's a war for control of strategic geopolitical interests. The only war going on is the war on freedom here at home.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 21, 2006)

> It's a war for control of strategic geopolitical interests. The only war going on is the war on freedom here at home.




Overheard conversation between protestor and soldier: "If you want to go somewhere and defend my freedom so badly, march on Washington, not Baghdad!"


----------



## jfschultz (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> Whoa,
> 
> I wasn't speaking to the morality of the United States or to any higher fact...other than we have a leader who is unwilling to waver to the threat of terrorism. And, that leader took a strong stance in the face of much opposition and will continue to do so.
> ...



9/11 did not happen because they "œhate our freedom." They hate us for what we do. This is not to defend them, but we need to realize that many in the world do have grievances against the United States, and are powerless to do anything about it.

The issue is morality. As a nation we have an over inflated *EGO* and think that we are so *RIGHT* that it is our duty to impose ourselves on others. We have overtly and covertly brought down governments to bring in "our" people. Prime examples are Chile, Vietnam, and Iran. We fostered a revolt by a portion of Columbia because Columbia was not willing to grant us a long-term lease for a strip of land. Our attitude and policy concerning the Middle-East is far from unbiased. Our "War on Terror" is just another episode in this sad history.

We need to thank God for His common grace that we have not seen more terror. If anything the "War on Terror" is just making it worse.

(BTW check your verse reference. 1 Timothy 2 ends at verse 15.)


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bfrank_
> ...



Excellent observation brother!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 21, 2006)

*I\'ve always felt this passage could be applied to America*

Isa 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 
Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear. 
Isa 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. 
Isa 59:4 None calleth for justice, nor [any] pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. 
Isa 59:5 They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper. 
Isa 59:6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works [are] works of iniquity, and the act of violence [is] in their hands. 
Isa 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts [are] thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction [are] in their paths. 
Isa 59:8 The way of peace they know not; and [there is] no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace. 
Isa 59:9 Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, [but] we walk in darkness. 
Isa 59:10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if [we had] no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; [we are] in desolate places as dead [men]. 
Isa 59:11 We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but [there is] none; for salvation, [but] it is far off from us. 
Isa 59:12 For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions [are] with us; and [as for] our iniquities, we know them; 
Isa 59:13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. 
Isa 59:14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. 
Isa 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he [that] departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw [it], and it displeased him that [there was] no judgment. 
Isa 59:16 And he saw that [there was] no man, and wondered that [there was] no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ParnellM_
> President Bush's understanding of "liberty" (like that of the overwhelming majority of other Republicans and Democrats) is fundamentally flawed and contrary to scriptural precept.
> 
> *No nation that is a slave to sinful humanism like the USA is truly free, nor can it bring liberty to any other nation. No nation ruled by heretics and infidels like the USA is truly free.
> ...



 (emphasis mine).

Good to have you with us, Parnell. I remember you from R_F_W.

Cheers!


----------



## ServantOfKing (Sep 21, 2006)

This is exactly what I have been thinking but have not been able to put into words. It seems that our "war on terror" is more accurately a "war OF terror." 



> _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> 9/11 did not happen because they "œhate our freedom." They hate us for what we do. This is not to defend them, but we need to realize that many in the world do have grievances against the United States, and are powerless to do anything about it.
> 
> The issue is morality. As a nation we have an over inflated *EGO* and think that we are so *RIGHT* that it is our duty to impose ourselves on others. We have overtly and covertly brought down governments to bring in "our" people. Prime examples are Chile, Vietnam, and Iran. We fostered a revolt by a portion of Columbia because Columbia was not willing to grant us a long-term lease for a strip of land. Our attitude and policy concerning the Middle-East is far from unbiased. Our "War on Terror" is just another episode in this sad history.
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Blueridge reformer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> ...





It is clearly seen how much the US is hated by the world (not in the biblical sense) when Hugo Chavez rebukes George Bush in his speech at the UN (calls him the devil!) and the whole floor errupts in clapping and snickering.

I'm afraid we are all too comfortable in our postmodern "nothing bad ever happens to the U.S. 'cause we're the king of the world" mentality. Someday, something will happen...not a matter of if, but when.


----------



## bfrank (Sep 21, 2006)

Amazing! Though it is clear that the US is far from the height of morality, we are after all living in a fallen world, I would posit that we are hated on the world stage not because of our many sins...but for the ideal for which we stand. Those who hate us love tyranny and oppression. 

It is true that real freedom belongs only to those who were chosen by Him. However in this world system, the US is the closest thing to freedom we will see until Christ returns for His Church.

As for the 1 Timothy reference you are correct. I inadvertantly wrote Timothy instead of Peter. 1 Peter 2:13-17

So, regarding the situations and issues that face the US as a nation...what would you have us do?

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by bfrank]


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> Amazing! Though it is clear that the US is far from the height of morality, we are after all living in a fallen world, I would posit that we are hated on the world stage not because of our many sins...but for the ideal for which we stand. Those who hate us love tyranny and oppression.



I'm not sure about that. I don't buy that we are a "christian nation" or really anything close to it (if indeed you are saying this). That doesn't mean that all of our ideals are bad, in fact, many are good. But that doesn't change the fact that we are a pluralistic nation that does not honor Jesus Christ as our king. In this, we are no better than the "other" nations.



> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> It is true that real freedom belongs only to those who were chosen by Him. However in this world system, the US is the closest thing to freedom we will see until Christ returns for His Church.



I sure hope not. I believe that Geneva during the time of Calvin or the Netherlands under Abraham Kuyper would be a much closer thing to true freedom. Unless if we are to give up all hope of reformation to these ideals....


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 21, 2006)

Forgive me brethren, but I regard nationalism as a dangerous thing. I intend to pass my time here on earth by God's grace as a testimony to God's grace and obey as well as pray for those in authority as long as they do not try to force me to disobey God's book. I refuse to fly any flag or swear allegience to any nation here on earth. My home is not here. I'm a squatter if you please.

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 
Hbr 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 
Hbr 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 
Hbr 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God. 
Hbr 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 
Hbr 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 
Hbr 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 
Hbr 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 
Hbr 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 
Hbr 11:16 But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. 

I'm still a stranger and pilgrim here on earth. I refuse to be a partaker of other mens sins and then wrap myself in thier flag and try to justify it. One has only to look at the plight of the middle east and see what our governments blanket support for the nation that calls itself Israel and see all of the grief it has caused with the support of flag waving dispensationalists(as well as some others in the evangelical community) and the "my country right or wrong arrogance". This nation is no different than any other nation on earth. The wicked shall be turned into hell and all nations that forget GOD.

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by Blueridge reformer]


----------



## bfrank (Sep 21, 2006)

> I'm not sure about that. I don't buy that we are a "christian nation" or really anything close to it (if indeed you are saying this). That doesn't mean that all of our ideals are bad, in fact, many are good. But that doesn't change the fact that we are a pluralistic nation that does not honor Jesus Christ as our king. In this, we are no better than the "other" nations.



Nope, not saying that at all. I don't believe the US is or was at any point in history a Christian nation. Some of the founding fathers may have been Christians, however; many were simply deists with no firm biblical foundation. As you know we were founded on the precept of separation of Church and state. There was no intention of being a Christian nation. 

I agree that only a nation that honors Christ as king is a God honoring nation. But, that will not come until glory. Any nation that has ever tried to become a "Christian" nation has only do so on this earth by means of the sword...Rome, England...etc. By nature, men hate God...if not regenerate, why would they submit to Him?

I am simply saying that though GW is imperfect he is at least willing to take a stand on an issue because he believes it to be the right thing to do. Something we haven't seen in previous administrations.
The "war" is a very unpopular thing yet he believes its the right thing to do for the time we are in and he is not wavering. I personally admire that fact.



> I sure hope not. I believe that Geneva during the time of Calvin or the Netherlands under Abraham Kuyper would be a much closer thing to true freedom. Unless if we are to give up all hope of reformation to these ideals....



You are speaking of very different times. These men during 17th and 19th centuries would have absolutely zero chance of running for office and being elected in the US today, which of course speaks to your point on how sorry we are as a nation in our post-modern culture.

So, regardless of where we came from or how ridiculously short we fall, as a nation, from God's standard...what then do we do?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 21, 2006)

Although Mr. Brooks wroth this for England, this shoe fits the American foot to a tee.

A whore's forehead

(Thomas Brooks, "The Privy Key of Heaven" 1665)

"You have a whore's forehead, you refuse to be
ashamed!" Jeremiah 3:3

"Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No,
they have no shame at all! They do not even know
how to blush!" Jeremiah 6:15 

They had sinned away shame--instead of being ashamed of
sin. Continuance in sin had quite banished all sense of sin 
and all shame for sin; so that they would not allow nature 
to draw her veil of blushing before their great abominations. 
How applicable these scriptures are to the present time, I 
will leave the prudent reader to judge.

But what does the prophet do, now that they were as bold in 
sin, and as shameless as so many harlots; now that they were 
grown up to that height of sin and wickedness; now that they 
were above all shame and blushing; now that they were grown 
so proud, so hardened, so obstinate, so rebellious, so bent on 
self-destruction--that no mercies could melt them or allure them, 
nor any threatenings or judgments could in any way terrify them 
or stop them? The prophet goes into a corner, he retires into the 
most secret places, and there he weeps bitterly; there he weeps 
as if he were resolved to drown himself in his own tears. "I will 
weep in secret because of your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly, 
overflowing with tears." Jeremiah 13:17

In the times wherein we live, hell seems to be broken loose, and 
men turned into incarnate devils! Soul-damning wickednesses 
walk up and down the streets with a whore's forehead, without 
the least check or restraint. 

Ah, England, England! what pride, luxury, lasciviousness, 
licentiousness, wantonness, drunkenness, cruelties, injustice, 
oppressions, fornications, adulteries, falsehoods, hypocrisies, 
atheisms, horrid blasphemies, and hellish impieties--are now 
to be found rampant in the midst of you! Ah, England! 
England! how are the Scriptures rejected, God derided, 
and wickedness tolerated!

And what is the voice of all these crying abominations--but 
every Christian to his closet--every Christian to his closet--and 
there weep, with weeping Jeremiah, bitterly--for all these great 
abominations whereby God is dishonored openly. Oh weep in 
secret for their sins--who openly glory in their sins, which should 
be their greatest shame. Oh blush in secret for those who are 
past all blushing for their sins; for who knows, but that the 
whole land may fare the better for the sakes of a few, who
are mourners in secret?

. . . . . . . . .


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bfrank_
> ...


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 21, 2006)

So would it have been better to leave Iraq under the control of Saddam Hussein?


----------



## Cuirassier (Sep 22, 2006)

Greetings brethren - since the birth of our daughter, time for visiting here has been limited.

Brothers James, John, et al - your perspectives on this are most refreshing. On a board that is predominantly American, I admit I feel the need to tread lightly, out of respect for these members, and to ensure what I say is not the mindless American-bashing that is commonplace. 

And as a Canadian, I certainly recognize that our government's hands are no cleaner on domestic legislation (gay rights, abortion, etc.). Equally applicable to Canada are the charges of wanton self-gratification, hedonism, consumerism, and all the other common traits of modern "western" societies.



> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So would it have been better to leave Iraq under the control of Saddam Hussein?



Brother Mark; implicit in that question is the assumption that the US/UN/world community had a mandate to "leave" or "depose" the head of state of a foreign country. That presumption is one of the many reasons the many countries have distrusted/disliked US administrations (going as far back as the The Philippine-American War, but especially in the last 60 years). 

Now I will be the first to acknowledge that Saddam was a fiendish tyrant. So let's quickly review some history. Iraq was suspected of WMDs in 2003 and that was the pretext under which the US invaded Iraq. Well, the fact is that those weapons were being used in the mid-80's. That Iraq possessed and WAS USING WMDs was known, documented, and understood by the UN, US, and everyone in the military, intelligence and foreign affairs communities. Chemical weapons were used to kill thousands--of Iranian soliders and civilians alike, not to mention Iraqi Kurds and other dissidents. Where was the US's policy of going after terroist weapons then? 

The US response? Tacit approval? No - even worse. Then-special envoy Rumsfeld himself went over to Iraq on at least two occasions, to convey Washington's support Iraq against Iranian ambition to topple Saddam. Fact: National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse." 

Later that year, Washington announced that (referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power,) "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims." 

So, in the 80's Iraq's Saddam-run government possessed and employed terrorist weaponry--was considered a legitimate government by the US--worthy of both direct and tacit support. Fast-forward to 2003, and now Iraq's government is no longer legitimate. Never mind that WMDs were not found either during the inspection, nor in the occupation that has followed the invasion. 

This example of patent hypocrisy is an example of the mockery of justice which brother Blueridge referenced from Isiah 59. Further examples of such hypocracy are evident in the complete contrast between th "talk" of espousing freedom and democracy, versus the "walk" - the US's key allies in the "war on terror" include Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia - countries whose treatment of its citizens defies amost every description of democracy. Never mind that those countries routinely persecute believers. 

Saddam is certainly not a alone in the hall of notorious tyrants the US has either endorsed, or outright supported. The Shah of Iran, the military dictatorships of Latin America, Cuba's Batista, Vietnam's Diem - the list goes on. The wickedness and violence these men visited on their citizens is well documented and abominable - and I believe that to the extent that the US and other western nations have knowingly supported them, that innocent blood shed will be not go unanswered before the Lord.

That's the beauty of the Word of God - it's universal standard of righteousness and evil. It will never be co-opted either by the humanistic godless "left" nor the whitewashed hypocritical "right". It requires the same of all men - repentance, and promises eternal life and forgiveness to those who put their faith in Christ. 

Let us pray that our leaders will seek the holy and righteous guidance from the Bible - not the ideologies of men. " ... Happy are the people whose God is the Lord." Psalm 144.15(b)

In Him,

dl

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So would it have been better to leave Iraq under the control of Saddam Hussein?



Well I guess Reagen should have thought about that before he helped Sadaam out in the 80's. 

What gives the US the right to say who and who should'nt be in power in any given country? Are we the World Police? 

Sadaam and any man like him should not be in power. Frankly any man who denies the Lordship of Christ and suppress the Church should not be in power. 

America has got to stop thinking it can just waltz into any country and swap out whomever for a puppet regime. 

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> Greetings brethren - since the birth of our daughter, time for visiting here has been limited.
> 
> Brothers James, John, et al - your perspectives on this are most refreshing. On a board that is predominantly American, I admit I feel the need to tread lightly, out of respect for these members, and to ensure what I say is not the mindless American-bashing that is commonplace.
> ...


----------



## providenceboard (Sep 22, 2006)

From Orwell's _1984_: (The Ministry of Truth is kinda like our media)

"Airstrip One is part of the vast political entity Oceania, which is eternally at war with one of two other vast entities, Eurasia and Eastasia. At any moment, depending upon current alignments, all existing records show either that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, or that it has always been at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia. Winston Smith knows this, because his work at the Ministry of Truth involves the constant "correction" of such records. "'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 22, 2006)

Interesting at least we know that it's the Lord who created the past,present, and future!


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by providenceboard_
> From Orwell's _1984_: (*The Ministry of Truth is kinda like our media*)
> 
> "Airstrip One is part of the vast political entity Oceania, which is eternally at war with one of two other vast entities, Eurasia and Eastasia. At any moment, depending upon current alignments, all existing records show either that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, or that it has always been at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia. Winston Smith knows this, because his work at the Ministry of Truth involves the constant "correction" of such records. "'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"



 Emphasis mine. Right on, brother!


----------



## bfrank (Sep 22, 2006)

What then do we do...what is the answer?


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

As much as it is in your power, live peacably with all men.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> What then do we do...what is the answer?



Check other sources like Fox and The Washington Times.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

Your kidding about FOX (FAUX) news right?

These are the guys who ran a caption under the feed of the Iranian President while he was speaking that said "Axis Pres." !


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 22, 2006)

All we can do is strive to be apt to teach and be patient will all men while trying to live in peace with all. DO NOT let yourself be scammed by any of the political parties. Both of the major parties are under Satan's control.
God has a purpose in all of this children. All we can do is be salt and light and occupy. I refuse though to be hemmed in to a political party and then have to apologize for thier apostacy once they are in power. I see no hope for this nation apart from the intervention of our great and sovereign God and Saviour Jesus Christ.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Your kidding about FOX (FAUX) news right?
> 
> These are the guys who ran a caption under the feed of the Iranian President while he was speaking that said "Axis Pres." !



Thanks for setting me straight, brother. 

FAUX news - I'll remember that!


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

So it is better to leave a people under physical oppression when it is within our power to remove the oppressor?

Is government not a tool instituted by God to control sinful men? Is the consensus here that government is merely a creation of man?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 22, 2006)

Yes it is a tool and ordained of God. Remember that God raised up Pharoah as well as Nebechenezzar as well as Titus. That doesn't mean that they are godly or are always doing good but they are doing Gods will. Here in this country we have a covenant between the sovereign states called the constitution. Neither party has paid any attention to it since Lee surrendered at Appomatox. Choosing between the globalist repulican party and the globalist democratic party is like choosing between lung cancer and liver cancer. BTW, what would you say if the rest of the world decided they didn't like our leader and decided to invade and depose him?

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Blueridge reformer]


----------



## Cuirassier (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> What then do we do...what is the answer?



There are myriad outworkings of what Christian domestic and foreign policy ought to be which I couldn't possibly do justice to in a simple post - but I'd start with the following: 

Prayer - for their salvation, and for sound, Biblical legislation - starting with domestic matters.

Discernment - taking our guidance on interpreting policy from the Bible's perspective, rather than from the various biased worldly ideologies.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2


In Him,

dl

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## Ambrose (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Blueridge reformer_
> Yes it is a tool and ordained of God. Remember that God raised up Pharoah as well as Nebechenezzar as well as Titus. That doesn't mean that they are godly or are always doing good but they are doing Gods will. Here in this country we have a covenant between the sovereign states called the constitution. Neither party has paid any attention to it since Lee surrendered at Appomatox. Choosing between the globalist repulican party and the globalist democratic party is like choosing between lung cancer and liver cancer. BTW, what would you say if the rest of the world decided they didn't like our leader and decided to invade and depose him?
> 
> [Edited on 9-22-2006 by Blueridge reformer]




E.G.?: 

Iranian Ayatollah Addresses 5,000 American Patriots 

Wishful Thinking News (WTN) 

WACO, TEXAS (WTN) -- The Ayatollah of Iran, speaking to an overflow crowd of nearly 5,000 applauding patriots at a meeting of the American Iran Public Affairs Committee, used blunt language that seemed to hint of military action or possibly the overthrow of the government in Washington D.C., though he mentioned neither option explicitly. 

"For our part, Iran is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the Bush regime," he said. "And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow the US government to continue to build and proliferate more weapons of mass destruction. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared, the Middle East must be declared a nuclear-free zone, beginning with the dismantling of Israel's weapons of mass destruction." 

The Ayatollah told the cheering crowd, which included survivors of the US government holocaust on a Waco church, "Of all the nations on our planet, none has less to fear from any military threat than America, which is surrounded by a vast ocean to the east and west, and thoroughly impotent neighbors on the north and south. 

"Yet this fabulously powerful and wealthy country also has the most paranoid government on earth, brimming with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to crush every imagined threat from anywhere in the world. This same paranoid government has repeatedly waged aggressive wars against countries which meant it no harm. The US government has committed the most heinous and cowardly atrocities in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and on a smaller but no less criminal scale, on a church full of children here in Waco, Texas. 

"Meanwhile, it insists on holding everyone else accountable. The Bush regime is a government of nuclear-armed paranoids, hypocrites and rabbi-worshippers; the whole world, not just the Muslim and Arab nations, should shudder, and must work for regime change in Washington." 

The Ayatollah concluded, "Iran supports the democratic aspirations of the people of the US, and the removal of its current fanatical neo-con Bush-Cheney regime." 

Iranian officials stated that the Ayatollah had recently promoted a drive to bring American patriots and students to Iran, blanket the US with English-language Iranian radio and television broadcasts, and support American political dissidents. 

The Iranian administration recently announced it would ask the Iranian legislature to boost 2006 funding for US-related pro-reform initiatives from $10 million to $85 million.The $85 million program will be overseen by an Iranian woman, a deputy assistant minister of state for North American affairs, who is also the Ayatollah's daughter. The money is intended to be given to American patriots for reform of corporate war profiteers, removal of corrupt judges, reform of the IRS and a return to Biblically-based, non-usurious banking and credit unions. 

Iranian spokesmen said that some of the money marked by Iran for US reform, will be used to build a third party in the United States."It is two years until the US presidential elections," the Ayatollah's daughter observed. "The time to begin to build a populist-patriot third party in America, for return of the Federal government to the people, is now," she declared. 

"Typically third party movements in the US are formed at the last minute and fail to get on the ballot in all fifty states. We hope to assist Americans in forming a third party this summer, two years in advance of the presidential election, so as to qualify for the ballot in all fifty states," she said. 

She stated further, "Iran will also provide funds to monitor, expose and help prosecute vote fraud such as was seen in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000, and to purchase extensive television advertisements for third party candidates and fund a lawsuit to ensure that a third party presidential candidate is included in the national presidential debates. 

"The Iranian people are fond of the American people," she noted. "Our reform initiatives are aimed at helping Americans free themselves from the stranglehold of traitors like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, who wage wars on behalf of Israel, the bankers and corporations, toward the goal of accumulating more unconscionable profits for Exxon-Mobil, Carlyle Group and Halliburton, and guaranteeing that more Palestinian civilians will be treated like Amalek: murdered and taken prisoner in their own land," she concluded.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

What he said:bigsmile:


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

Hey Chad, As one of those "neighbors to the north" I resent being called impotent!

Just kidding the last time y'all started something with us we kicked your butt, as I recall


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

Our government is freely elected. It has been validated by the people. Tyrants like Saddam Hussein are not.

The rule of law still exists in the U.S. It did not exist in Iraq.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

I got two words for you Mark...Hanging Chad!


----------



## Ambrose (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> I got two words for you Mark...Hanging Chad!



Hey leave me out of this!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Our government is freely elected. It has been validated by the people. Tyrants like Saddam Hussein are not.
> 
> The rule of law still exists in the U.S. It did not exist in Iraq.



I wish it were true my friend. You get to choose from hand picked candidates of the big business globalists. Whoever you pick...you lose.
As for the rule of law, if our "elected" officals were tried the case could be made that most are traitors and guilty of treason against the constitution of the US. Freedom in this nation is an illusion.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

Okay. If you are that jaded about our system of government, then I'm not sure I can say much that will continue a constructive discussion.


----------



## Cuirassier (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So it is better to leave a people under physical oppression when it is within our power to remove the oppressor?



Brother Mark, this has already been addressed. The US has been tolerating (and in most cases, actively supporting) oppressive tyrants for decades. With respect, I would submit that on the basis of that record, the US does not possess the credibility to go in and remove oppressors - assuming the Bible supports ANY country's doing so. 

When the Lord clearly speaks against oppression and the shedding of innocent blood, I see no Biblical evidence that convinces me His indignation is different in looking at the tens of thousands killed by the goverments led by the Shah of Iran, the Argentinian military junta, or by Saddam.



> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Is the consensus here that government is merely a creation of man?



Absolutely not - Romans 13.4 teaches us Government are to minister righteous leadership and justice to ITS people. 

dl


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

Mark, all kidding aside you raise two points. They are both legitimate issues, however neither of them reach the level of justification for war.

The first; our government is valid because it is "validated by the people". A second part of this is that "tyrants" by definition are not validated by the people.

Some observations;


By what definition?

1)It seems to me that you are basing your political theory on a form of Lockean analysis. Have you considered if this is Biblical? 

2) How may "the people" "validate" in order for him to be valid and not a "tyrant"? Must it be by elections? Every 2 years? 4 years? 6 years?
Only in a 2 party system? Multi-party system? With primaries? whithout?

Do you see my point? It is easy for us to mistake our own form of Government with the "right" one.

3) how does the "validity' of the US govt. grant it "validity" to act outside of it's borders?

It seems (to me) self evident on its' face that if You are president of a country (US) then you, by definition are NOT president of another country (non-US).

Thus it seems that questions of Validity are by their nature limited in scope.

An example Jane is not validly married to John. She simply lives with him. I am validly married to Sally. 

Question what is my authority over Jane?

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Kevin]


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

Well, I would say you don't have a right to tell Jane how to fold the clothes, but you do have a responsibility to protect her if her husband/boyfriend is beating her. Even if you had ignored it in the past, that does not absolve you of responsibility in the present.

Yes, I do tend towards a Lockean analysis, and yes, I do consider it to be largely a biblical view.

(Edited to include "boyfriend" after you edited your post).

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by mgeoffriau]


----------



## Richard King (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> As much as it is in your power, live peacably with all men.





brothers,
I understand all of the US bashing. The feds have never been my heroes nor have I ever trusted completely any politician in any party.
I am such a whacknut that I think Bush still has a way to go before he is as constitutionally wrong doing as Lincoln or Roosevelt! 
Very few of you will probably agree with me in my opinion that tactically invading Iraq was a bad idea. That doesn't mean Sadam didn't beg to be deposed. Our planning though and results so far was along the lines of invading Ruby Ridge or Waco. 
Yes, I am that whacko about BAD government.

I keep hoping that the Pres has info that I am not privy to and somehow this will all make more sense in history classes years from now...but intel seems to be politics driven so maybe he doesn't.

however...
this country in all its wickedness is still VERY different in some good ways. If there is a Tsunami or an earthquake (such as a few years ago in Afghanistan) our armed forces always end up doing rescue and aid. Nobody minds our helicopters then. I have not seen that reciprocated by some of these muslim countries.

So I find it hard to root for the opposition.

Now as to the question being asked about Bush's speech...it was unwavering from what I have heard him say all along, regardless of where he sunk in the polls... so at least that is refreshing.

And to the second question...I heard bfrank ask...so what do we do ???
I don't know that people who want you dead will hear your reformed message and certainly EVIL exists and there is a record in the Bible of God using Assyrians or other less than perfect groups to achieve his will.

live peaceably with all men is easy to suggest but it just doesn't fit every case...it is not always what God tells us to do.
Romans 13 raises lots of questions in that regard I guess.


----------



## Cuirassier (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Our government is freely elected. It has been validated by the people. Tyrants like Saddam Hussein are not.



Ah yes - all well and good in priniciple. But, you're forgetting that the US wants democracy and freedom domestically - but it has a double standard when it comes to other countries.

If freely-elected, popularly-validated governments are the standard, then why were the freely-elected, popularly-validated governments of Chile (Allende), Guatemala (Arbenz), and Congo (Lumumba) the objects of massive CIA-funded destabilisation and assassination projects? 

In all cases, there were threats to large corporate interest. And in the case of Guatemala, what is most obsene is that the the large US company involved (United Fruit) was unhappy that it got caught massively defrauding the Guatemalan government, and unhappy with the expopriation offer that government made. Furthermore, that expropriation was modelled after the very same agricultural land reforms implemented by the US domestically decades earlier.

Further proof of the myth that the the US does not tolerate undemocratic tyrants is evident in observing those she has tolerated and in many cases, directly funded. I believe I've mentioned enough of those to show that this is blatant hypocrisy.

No, Mark, when push came to shove, the actions, rather than words, of the various US administrations (and to be fair, those of of France, Britain, and Italy, among others) show the support for democracy and liberty will go only as far it does not impede the political or economic interests that have been mentioned earlier.

And why, as Reformed believers, is this so hard to accept? If we believe that man is totally depraved, that without God's restraint and grace they will seek to do evil to their fellow man - ought we not to be surprised that any governement, western or otherwise, would act according to sinful nature? 

I present this not to be combative or ungrateful - but rather to remind us that God's standard for justice and righteousness are universally applicable to all rulers. That said, I that I do not believe their failures are cause for us to publically disrespect or ridicule them, for they are put there by God. Rather, I trust we are all the more encouraged to pray for their salvation and just governance. 

In Him,

dl


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

Thanks for the response Mark.

OK, given what you said above. I want to tell you that Nicole who lives 4000 miles away has a boyfriend who beats her. Do you have the same obligation that you feel for Jane who lives down the street?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> What then do we do...what is the answer?



Secede into about 10 small republics.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

Why not 12?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2006)

12 sounds good. Smaller the better. 

For all:
Doesn't the "Patriot Act" negate the proposition that America is a free nation?


----------



## Cuirassier (Sep 22, 2006)

Brother Richard, 

I agree that in many occasions of relief need, the US has acted with compassion as you describe. Having served in the military and been an exchange officer on various US assignments, I have had the privilege of seeing that in practice. These aid efforts, in my view, are an example of the kinds of practical outworkings of compassion and assistance to which those who can help - at personal, civic, national, or internatinoal levels - ought to help. 

No one is claiming every action undertaken by the US government is evil - that's senseless US bashing. What I'm saying, though, is that in terms of foreign policy, a double-standard clearly exists in terms of who it supports and opposes.

I'm still working through brother Chad's post to see where he's going with that Iran connection, but I believe no one would extoll the virtues of an Islamist state.

More importantly, I don't believe we should be rooting for the opposition - not sure what that means ... But the concept of good guys/bad guys is part of the problem. The polarization between "us" and "them" is not how God sees humanity. He sees redeemed and lost. He has a divine law to which all are called to account, and by which all rulers are called to govern. I'm sure you'll agree with that.


In Him,

dl

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## jfschultz (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So it is better to leave a people under physical oppression when it is within our power to remove the oppressor?



If we were to do this consistently, we would be at war with half the nations on Earth!


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

I guess I am a bit befuddled by the "hypocrisy" argument.

Yes, I agree absolutely that the American government is terribly inconsistant in applying a just foreign policy. Yes, more often than not, it appears our actions are driven by self-interest than by justice.

Does this mean it is bad to remove a tyrant?

Suppose Bush really is just a puppet of Satan. Suppose he is lying when he claims he is a Christian. Suppose that he has no standard other than his own glory.

Does this mean that it is better for him to leave a people under oppression than to deliver them from it?


----------



## Texas Aggie (Sep 22, 2006)

I like the smaller republic idea!


----------



## Ambrose (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> I like the smaller republic idea!



Me too! 

Wacky agrarian David Rockett wrote this in an article called Creation and Community: 



> "A second cultural principle of Agrarianism to be pursued is political decentralisation. *Nation-States and City-States should seek to be small and homogeneous -- which respects and enjoys the diversity and independence of all others.* God has not make us all the same. We have a vast diversity of races, languages and religious and cultural traditions. The foolish vision of Industrialist and Environmentalist Utopians seek to assimilate us all under one centralised, multi-cultural, authoritarian and Internationalist rule. This *>global concentration of government power is not only a recipe for tyranny -- it is an assurance of uniformity which crushes any substantive diversity*. The unified Modern State has been a master of assaulting the diversity of ethnic, religious, language and culture groups who wish to separate. The centralisation of Corporate Wealth and Government Power are two facets of Modernism which must be opposed."





> "Thus, the Irish, Scots, Quebecois and Napoleons should be allowed their independence -- as should various Southern States, New England, California, Hawaii and Alaska. The high moral and political principle of Peaceful Secession, contained in The Declaration of Independence should not be repudiated by a grossly inferior Modern Internationalism. A vast array of small independent nations and City-States should and could exist in relative harmony and in various confederation and alliances. Wars, under the Modern Super-State Empires, have been massive with world-wide consequences. Under Decentralisation they would at least be local, temporary and regional if not fewer without a Giant dominant world power."


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> I guess I am a bit befuddled by the "hypocrisy" argument.
> 
> Yes, I agree absolutely that the American government is terribly inconsistant in applying a just foreign policy. Yes, more often than not, it appears our actions are driven by self-interest than by justice.
> ...



Mark,

You need more than good intentions and might in order to go do something, you also need jurisdiction. Since all our rights come from God, one would need to show where God has given the government of one nation the right to go and dictate government policy to another nation.

Or put another way, where does God say to one nation, go beyond prayer and go fight.

CT


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

Which is why I limited that comment to the "hypocrisy" argument.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

In any case, the Iraq war was not a case of one nation dictating policy to another. The international community approved the war and sent forces to fight alongside the American military.


----------



## Ambrose (Sep 22, 2006)

Bahnsen did a great job in this message:

War, Is It Ever Justified: Radio Talk Show with Greg L. Bahnsen. You can listen to it here.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> I guess I am a bit befuddled by the "hypocrisy" argument.
> 
> Yes, I agree absolutely that the American government is terribly inconsistant in applying a just foreign policy. Yes, more often than not, it appears our actions are driven by self-interest than by justice.
> ...




Again dear brother, no saved man would take enjoyment from the suffering of others but we must work within the parameters of the Word of God, which means being fair and just with a just set of weights in your bag as well as working within the law of the land, the constitution. Where in that document does it give any president power to invade and overthrow governments he doesn't like? What if the next batch of "Clinton" types decide they want to free the oppressed people of Kuwait who have suffered under a dictatorship for nearly 50 years. Or how about the oppressed people of Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Jordan.?

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Blueridge reformer]

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Blueridge reformer]


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

If you think the basis of the Iraq war was because Bush "didn't like" Saddam Hussein, I'm not sure what to say. There are plenty of governments Bush may not like, but most of them aren't gassing their own citizens, torturing and raping women, and killing Christians.

EDITED TO RESPOND TO YOUR ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS:

So the knowledge that other people are oppressed too means we don't help any of them?

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by mgeoffriau]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Which is why I limited that comment to the "hypocrisy" argument.



My comment applies beyond the hypocrisy argument. The same question applies if we were to go to war with everyone.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> In any case, the Iraq war was not a case of one nation dictating policy to another. The international community approved the war and sent forces to fight alongside the American military.



Okay then lets change the question to, where does God give the international community the write to dictate governmental policy to something "not" in the international community.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> If you think the basis of the Iraq war was because Bush "didn't like" Saddam Hussein, I'm not sure what to say. There are plenty of governments Bush may not like, but most of them aren't gassing their own citizens, torturing and raping women, and killing Christians.
> 
> EDITED TO RESPOND TO YOUR ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS:
> ...



Actually most of Sadaams most infamous issues are now know to be either overblown or didnt happen at all. But let us say that they were true, so what? Either one has jurisdiction or one does not.

CT


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

I would return the question -- does the lack of jurisdiction supercede the responsibility to save lives?

Not to Godwin this thread, but was our involvement in the European theater to stop Hitler wrong?

EDITED FOR TYPO.

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by mgeoffriau]


----------



## bfrank (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Thanks for the response Mark.
> 
> OK, given what you said above. I want to tell you that Nicole who lives 4000 miles away has a boyfriend who beats her. Do you have the same obligation that you feel for Jane who lives down the street?



Of course not...you simply bury your head in the sand, leave it alone and hope the boyfriend who beat up Nicole doesn't come from 4,000 miles away and start in on Jane. Even if you set the boyfriend and Nichole up in the first place. Simply ignore it, after all...you started it in the first place.


----------



## bfrank (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> I would return the question -- does the lack of jurisdiction supercede the responsibility to save lives?
> 
> Not to Godwin this thread, but was our involvement in the European theater to stop Hitler wrong?
> ...



great point...

Pacifism can be practical when those it seeks to impress prefer peace to war. But evil men who yearn for blood are satisfied with nothing less. They see reluctance to fight as cowardice. Gandhi's nonviolence worked against the British. It would not have worked against Hitler.
- Marvin Olasky


----------



## Ambrose (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> I would return the question -- does the lack of jurisdiction supercede the responsibility to save lives?



That's the same question asked by Paul Hill... and its relevant to ask whether a nation such as Iran has a responsibility to invade the US to put an end to abortion? Do I?


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> That's the same question asked by Paul Hill... and its relevant to ask whether a nation such as Iran has a responsibility to invade the US to put an end to abortion? Do I?



I would argue that while there is still a reasonable possibility of correcting that injustice through non-violent political means, resorting to violent revolution would be sinful.

EDITED TO ADD:

And even if the possibility of non-violent change occuring had been reduced to zero, you as a private citizen would not have the right to resort to offensive violent action.

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by mgeoffriau]


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

bfrank, You miss read me, I am no pacifist. But if you think it is your DUTY to travel the world stopping wife beaters...I hope your family understands, because they won't ever see you again.

BTW you don't really think that Sadaam 'the new Hitler' Hussein was a threat to the 'homeland' do you?


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

Mark, By "reasonable possibility...of non-violent political means" would you include SH's offer to allow the CIA to inspect ANY site in his country for weapons prior to the "coalition" invasion?


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 22, 2006)

> BTW you don't really think that Sadaam 'the new Hitler' Hussein was a threat to the 'homeland' do you?



Depends if you believe that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. 

Not that Saudi Arabia (or other ME nations) didn't. Iraq was the strategic target though.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

It would have been a big step towards avoiding war if Hussein would actually have allowed UN weapons inspectors to conduct surprise inspections of any and all sites.



> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Mark, By "reasonable possibility...of non-violent political means" would you include SH's offer to allow the CIA to inspect ANY site in his country for weapons prior to the "coalition" invasion?


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

If you do believe that (Iraqi involvement in 9/11) then I can think of nothing else to say.

Not even the decider-in-chief believes that and he was the one who started it all. (meaning the war propaganda linking the secular Iraqi govt with radical wahabi muslems)

Iraq was on the Bin Ladin top 3 enemy nations list along with the US and Israel. Iraq made the list by tolerating & promoting Iraqi christians (aprox 1,000,000 before the war) as part of his anti-muslem-pro-secular-anti-Iran-pro-western policy.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

Mark HE DID JUST THAT.

read the UN weapon inspectors report. Or read the US (post-invasion) weapon inspectors report(s).


----------



## bfrank (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> bfrank, You miss read me, I am no pacifist. But if you think it is your DUTY to travel the world stopping wife beaters...I hope your family understands, because they won't ever see you again.
> 
> BTW you don't really think that Sadaam 'the new Hitler' Hussein was a threat to the 'homeland' do you?



Well, we both know that the analogy of "wife beater" really doesn't do the argument justice.

Let me answer your question with a question: Did Sadaam fund islamic terrorism? Have we been targeted by terrorist attacks?


----------



## Kevin (Sep 22, 2006)

No he did not fund Islamic terrorists to attack the US.

I hold no brief for SH. By all acounts he was not that nice of a guy. But he did force (yes by means I would not approve of) the radical Islamic elements within his country into a sort of 'holding patern'. 

He did allow freedom to worship God by the nearly 1,000,000 Iraqi christians, and he did allow full civil rights to christians. BTW that is something he did not do for wahabis.

This is why Bin Ladin dreamed of forcing the US into turning on it's Iraqi allies.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 22, 2006)

As usual conversations about politics tend to raise peoples ire. in my opinion brethren, citizens of the New Jerusalem and strangers and pilgrims here on earth should not get to carried away with this foolishness. So with that I'll bow out of this one.
God bless and keep you every one,
brother James


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> I would return the question -- does the lack of jurisdiction supercede the responsibility to save lives?



Or put another way, does God grant you jurisdiction when people are doing bad things with their jurisdiction? I have yet to see such inferred from God's word. We cannot forget that we serve a sovereign God and we have no need to worry about the things that are in God's hands and not ours.



> Not to Godwin this thread, but was our involvement in the European theater to stop Hitler wrong?
> 
> EDITED FOR TYPO.
> 
> [Edited on 9-22-2006 by mgeoffriau]



As far as our involvement went beyond the protection of our homeland, then yes. (Even then it could be argued that one cannot do just anything to protect their homeland against possible attacks)

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> ...



You can argue that but is that the Biblical position? We must remember that nasty things happen in this fallen world, but sometimes we are not called to do more than pray concerning the issues.



> EDITED TO ADD:
> 
> And even if the possibility of non-violent change occuring had been reduced to zero, you as a private citizen would not have the right to resort to offensive violent action.
> 
> [Edited on 9-22-2006 by mgeoffriau]



Alright, I agree and I would call for the same restraint at the nation level due to the lack of jurisdiction.

CT


----------



## mgeoffriau (Sep 22, 2006)

So you would pray for the woman next door being beaten by her husband or boyfriend, but you wouldn't intervene?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So you would pray for the woman next door being beaten by her husband or boyfriend, but you wouldn't intervene?



First off, to remain on point can you make an argument that you have a God given jurisdiction for such? Otherwise all you are doing is trying to throw the hypocrisy argument back for your own purposes.

To answer your question, it would depend on whether I have jurisdiction. In the society today, I have the jurisdiction to protect, so I would.

CT


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> ...



That reminds me of that conversation we had on gmail chat that night. I am still wrestling over it!


----------

