Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Good morning!
Today’s quote: “You’re only given a little spark of madness. You mustn’t lose it.”
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top151 Comments to “Whirled Views”
Weird thing happened yesterday. I took my son and two family friends (ages 4 to 6) to a popular fast food place for lunch. The kids were really looking forward to the toys that come with the kids meals, so imagine their surprise and confusion to find little plastic characters from “The Simpsons”. That’s not a kid’s show. How many six-year-old girls know who Chief Wiggums is? How many four-year-old boys want a Lisa Simpson doll? The only things stranger was the time my then two year old got a German language CD in a kid’s meal at a popular chicken place. He was still working on English. Do these people ever consult actual parents on these decisions? Anyway I ended up taking the kids to the dollar store for new toys.
Report comment to moderator
Good ol’ Robin Williams.
Report comment to moderator
I recently rode past a local church that had a very inspirational message (not!) on their sign out front. It really struck me as how far we have watered down the true gospel.
It said “Before you say cannot, give it a try”.
In other words you don’t need a savior, just pull yourself up by your own boot straps. I hate to think of what passes as a sermon in a church that would post a thing like that. Our church does not even have a sign in front of it, other than the name of the church.
Report comment to moderator
Deak.
Speaking of meaningless church signs, one I remember a long time for stupidity: If you must be blue, be bright blue
This was at a Baptist church yet!
Report comment to moderator
Deak, I tend to agree that message signs outside churches are useless (or worse). I did see one I liked. It said, “Sign out of order–message inside”.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know who said that but I kind of like it. And it’s obvious some are given bigger sparks!
Report comment to moderator
Rasputin
Report comment to moderator
I recently rode past a church that was in foreclosure–that said on its outside sign, “Go to Hell”
Report comment to moderator
This looks like it could be good …
Question: The draft is reinstated, and you receive notice to report for induction. What would you do?
Report comment to moderator
…start learning the words to “Oh Canada”??
Report comment to moderator
It seems unlikly that someone old enough to be made partner in a law firm would be drafted.
Report comment to moderator
As for the quote, it has to have been some biblical inerrantist pawing through his notes for that dimly remembered third alternative translation for a Koine Greek word.
Report comment to moderator
#9 — turn off the movie when it ends.
Report comment to moderator
Or to put it another way –
suppose you discovered that your third cousin had willed you a magic ring on which the fate of the universe rested, and the only way to get rid of it was to take the advice of a really strange wizard and throw it into a volcano protected by demonic spells. What would do you?
I mean, as long as we’re talking about unrealistic scenarios from movies starring Elijah Wood…
Report comment to moderator
The Phosphorescent Forest
There is a forest in a faraway land,
where in the dark of night,
the woods glow
golden-green phosphorescent light,
sparkling a magnificent magical show,
Kindling the mind with delight,
thinking surely,
this is where spirits and faeries must go,
to gather and dance away the midnight
amid enchanted glory
of twinkling ground and shining bark,
A perfect place for age-old charms
to fill electric air,
feel collective connective power
make wishes come true,
sparking imagination
to love’s miraculous expression,
The trees emit a silent glee
for all those eyes that would see
this private celebration,
that fades to invisibility,
with the break of day.
Gordon Neumann
7/27/2007
Report comment to moderator
#14 LOL!!!
Report comment to moderator
Good Morning all.
I have a question I’ve been wanting to ask for quite some time. I’d like an answer from several of our more thoughtful posters – for example: Peter L., David L., Robert M., or Xion. If I don’t include you in this group, don’t feel bad (but don’t hesitate to answer anyway). I don’t consider myself to be in this group either… Hence my question:
What is the proper basis for true Christian faith?
Let me define the terms…
Proper Basis:
Biblical, rational, and warranted. The basis of our faith is the foundation of our faith, and our faith suffers or grows depending upon how that is built. I think we should be able to point to a biblical foundation for our approach to the faith. Secondly it should be rational and logical (by that I mean it cannot violate the law of non-contradiction: A != non A). Thirdly I think we should have a warrant or justification for our belief.
true Christian faith:
Obviously this is exclusive in nature. I would not include other major religions such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, or even Judaism. In fact of the matter, I would not include Mormonism, Jehovah’s witness, or Christian Science either.
Now of course you may point out some flaw in my definitions or my approach, and that’s all fine a good. I’m just trying to flesh out my question, and using you all as a sounding board to help me do that.
Now for some background material…
There have been three traditional ways to approach Christian apologetics (according to J.I. Packer) but unfortunately I can only remember two of them. One is to attempt to prove that God exists, and work forward from there. The other is to prove that Jesus is who he said he was, and work backwards from there. I wish I could remember the third.
Another approach (if you can call it apologetics) is one I’ve recently come away with from reading Lesslie Newbigin’s book, Proper Confidence: Faith Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship, which seems to be a relational approach (my word for it). In other words, one must realize that all knowledge is personal, and based upon a commitment to unproven assumptions. Our knowledge of God is also based on a commitment to unproven assumptions, in order to develop a relationship with him. (Hopefully I’ve summarized that in an understandable manner.) In committing to assumptions or beliefs we can then learn. If one succumbs to absolute skepticism, then one dies, because you cannot trust anything and are therefore paralyzed.
Also I’ve recently read two of William Lane Craig’s books: Reasonable Faith,Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics and
The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
In the introduction to one of these books, I forget which, Lane mentions something that struck me, but I just didn’t understand. Forgive me if I don’t do it justice. Essentially he said that if all his evidence were refuted, he would still have a basis for faith because of the Holy Spirit. (I think I got that right. I’ll check that when I get home tonight and correct it if needed.)
So now, again, the question:
What is the proper basis for Christian faith?
Report comment to moderator
Pentamom,
The question is simple enough:
What would you do if the draft were reinstated and you received a draft notice?
Brushing the scenario off as improbable just doesn’t cut it.
Granted, the “Day Zero” screenplay probably doesn’t rise to the level of Tolkein, but still. Run it through in your mind. What would you do?
Report comment to moderator
A verse that helps to keep me from losing that “spark of madness” …
Colossians 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Report comment to moderator
Lynn,
Who is the author of yesterday’s quote?
“Conscience is the inner voice that warns us someone may be looking.”
Report comment to moderator
I’m not Lynn, but through a quick google search I found that H.L. Mencken is the author.
Report comment to moderator
Ooh, MIM! I am honored to be placed in the same group with Xion (and first billing even)! I will try to answer your question as briefly as possible.
I believe the foundation of the Christian faith, and what sets it apart from the other major religions, is the resurrection of Jesus and His bodily ascension. I refer you to 1 Corinthians 15. The key verses to me are 13-14 and 16-17, in which Paul repeats the assertion that if Christ was not raised form the dead, then our faith is in vain.
As for His still being alive, I refer to Hebrews 7:25, “Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. (The context is comparing the priesthood of Jesus with the Levitical priesthood.)
I know it is not much to go on, but I hope it helps.
Report comment to moderator
As for today’s quote, it must be something our very own Random Name said, but it is probably Robin Williams or another well known comedian.
Report comment to moderator
#9 and 18 – Thanks Frank. I appreciate the scenario and question!
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
The thought of our country drafting women, and a mother of five, is pretty unlikely, is it not? I think we’d have deeper questions about our country if that ever happened. Basically, we wouldn’t be worth fighting for.
I personally think it’s morally wrong to compel women to fight. What would I do if I were drafted? Well, if a country starts drafting 40-year-old women, you know it’s in military trouble! But my inclination is that I’d look to see what my options were, but I would not fight. I would not carry a gun (except possibly for self-defense).
You do believe that it’s a whole different issue to ask a woman to fight, don’t you?
Report comment to moderator
#11-kbells:It seems unlikely that someone old enough to be made partner in a law firm would be drafted.
If a draft were to be like the old days, it would include men up to age 36, which might include some young, but talented, law firm partners.
That said, I doubt we will have a draft as the drafting of women would be too controversial an issue to deal with.
Report comment to moderator
“Brushing the scenario off as improbable just doesn’t cut it.”
Why not? Besides what Cheryl said, I agree that brushing it off doesn’t answer the question, but it raise the issue of whether answering the question has any value.
The draft scenario (even if you’re not talking about 41 year old anemic mothers of 5 with separated abdominal muscles) is too improbable to have value as a thought exercise.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a quote from my dear departed Granny Kate:
“All the world is crazy except me and thee and sometimes I wonder about thee.”
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the response Peter, I do appreciate it.
Pentamom, Cheryl D., and Joe B.
Please feel free to give your view on my question too. I’m not trying to leave anyone out, and also appreciate your input as well.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, I’m reacting like Peter L. Thanks for the compliment, Make It Man! Not sure I should be in that group, but I’ll give it a shot, anyway.
Simply put, the proper basis for our faith is the Bible. Like you said, a fatal skepticism is the result of intellectual nihilism–that is, if there is no final arbiter of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, we have nothing but chaos, as you can see by looking at the state of the world today.
We don’t worship the Bible, but, like I said, there has to be some rule or standard to measure our beliefs against. But how does one come to trust what the Bible says? Well, the Bible says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God preached. This is because God’s Holy Spirit works through the Bible’s words and in the hearts of men, pricking their consciences and leading them to accept Him.
My own coming to Christ began by a vivid, painful awareness of my own sin coupled with hearing the gracious Gospel of God preached out of the Bible. Everyone will readily admit that he isn’t perfect, but not everyone will connect his imperfection with sinfulness before God. That may be an intellectual matter, but one’s *intuition of his own shortcomings in God’s eyes* is a spiritual matter wrought by the Spirit. After the problem of sin is raised and the Gospel is heard, studying the Bible prayerfully and reading books–taking advantage of the many means of grace God has provided us (in the church)–will increase one’s faith, and the intellect plays a major role in this phase. I think the Bible and Christian theology is rational and will stand up to the scrutiny of reason. “Faith seeking understanding” and “I believe so that I may understand” are two formulas that Christian thinkers have historically held on to.
Paul says in Galatians, “Having begun in the spirit…,” not the intellect and not the will. I am convinced that, although Christianity is rational and logical, its first step is a spiritual one that cannot be proven or argued. The refusal of Christ is not an intellectual or even a moral problem but a spiritual one.
It sounds like you’ve read some good books on this subject. I haven’t read the ones you mentioned, but I’ll mention Francis Schaeffer’s “He is There and He is Not Silent,” which argues for the Bible as being God’s rational, verbal propositional truth communicated intelligibly to man; and Alistair McGrath’s “Intellectuals Don’t Need God,” which is all about intellectual oppositions to Christianity and responding to them apologetically.
I hope these comments help a little.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
Like Cheryl D. and Pentamom, I have trouble coming up with a realistic answer to something that is so far outside the range of probability. I’m not saying it’s a bad question, just that it’s hard to have any idea how you would respond to something that you *know* will never happen. It is something that *could* happen to people who are younger and in good shape physically. But it’s quite a stretch to see what use they could have for an overweight woman of 45 with a bad right foot, bad left knee, and who gets fuzzy-headed from low blood sugar if I don’t eat regularly. If they wanted a computer programmer or office assistant I don’t suppose I would have a big problem with it.
The best I can tell you is what my thoughts on it were when I was younger, when it seemed a possibility that ERA would pass and I could someday be drafted. A part of me was excited by the idea, because I had grown up reading stories of heroes and wished I were a boy so I could be a hero someday. Another part of me knew that I would not want to kill anyone else unless I were convinced it were right and I’d be hard to convince. I wasn’t afraid of being killed, especially if it meant I could save others’ lives (I loved the song “Roger Young”) – the only drawback was that I wouldn’t be around to enjoy the praise of other people for my bravery. I thought that if I were ever drafted (and during the hostage crisis in Iran I wondered if it might possibly happen, since even though ERA hadn’t passed the mood of society seemed to be moving towards equality of the sexes anyway), I would offer to be a stretcher carrier, going on the battlefield as needed but only to save life, not to kill (though I would probably be willing to carry a firearm for self-defense).
At that age I had little knowledge of world events, and while I didn’t think everything the USA did was right, I would not have objected to the draft out of fear that it would support unjust actions by my country. Now that I am older and have heard more stories of people in power who have used that power corruptly. But on the whole my impression is that most people in the govt and military are not corrupt, and if I were drafted I think I would be willing to serve and hope that my leaders were using the power at their disposal for good as best as they understood it. I suppose to some extent it’s because I have always been a follow-the-rules person, and obedience comes to me more easily than disobedience. It would be wrong to obey a command to do evil, but I would have to see clearly that it was evil. Right now the whole mess in the Middle East is pretty, well, messy, and I know that there is a great deal of knowledge I don’t have that would be needed to evaluate it properly. The people actually involved have a lot more knowledge than I do.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s think about this draft question. As a 46 year old mother of seven it is almost attractive to have someone telling me what to do, rather than having to tell, suggest, command (depending on age) others what to do. And to just have to do that one thing while someone else is off cooking my meals for me. Clothes provided, hair style implied, check once a month.
Forget the draft, where do I sign up?
Seriously though, I’m with Pauline, the prospect of killing someone whould be paralyzing to me. I don’t even fish because I feel sorry for the fish. But I could serve in a caring or admin billet.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I’ll take your question.
As a 30-year-old married, college-educated, reasonably fit female with no children, I’m sure I would qualify for a draft if it included women. What would I do? I would serve. Scripture tells us to obey our civil authorities, for they are placed there by God. However, since I did my time in ROTC, I’m not your average respondent. I don’t think women should be in primary combat roles, however.
Report comment to moderator
Well theological questions are beyond my scope today, so I will appreciate the fact that MIM did not include me in that question. No offense intended and none taken.
As for the draft…that is an interesting question. I have fired a gun and I have killed a living, breathing creature. Granted it was only a squirrel and I was a child. This morning I was watching JAG at 6am and the program dealt with a JAG officer on board ship hesitating before giving the OK to fire on a target. That would be me. Interesting that when I female Marine JAG officer was on board investigating it she gave the order to fire on another target.
I have no doubt that if the life of someone I loved or myself were in danger I would shoot to kill. I do doubt that I could make that decision on a battle field. I guess that is why you hear the phrase An old man’s war and a young man’s fight. I respect those who serve in our military, almost married one. I am thankful there are those who will give their life to protect me. Nothing is more moving than to watch the changing of the guard at Arlington.
But back to the question of the draft being reinstated and them drafting someone such as me. I would make sure everyone I loved knew I loved them. I would apologize to anyone I had wronged in any way. I would prepare to meet my Maker and I would go.
Report comment to moderator
In keeping with the quote, here’s a very long thing I came up with myself. Check my math if you like. I’d actually appreciate any corrections.
It’s been said that if you put a bunch of monkeys at a typewriter, they would eventually pound out the works of Shakespeare.
I wrote a little program. What it does is continuously spew random letters until the last few letters spell a word of the programmer’s choosing. Then, it tells you how many letters it took, the odds of that word occuring, and how long, on average, it would take 100 monkeys, randomly typing an average of 5 letters per second, using only lowercase letters, on 100 typewriters, all of which go to the same piece of paper, without stop, without ever slowing, to type that word.
Now, that program never did finish randomly generating the word “shakespeare”. It would generate small words like “hi” and “poo” in a few seconds. Bigger words like “hello” took a bit longer. But after running it set on “shakespeare”, and seeing it go on without end for an hour or two, I decided to crunch the numbers myself. I discovered that if my computer was able to spout 100,000 letters and check them for the word every second (an extremely generous estimate, as the actual number is probably more like 1,000), it would still take my computer an average of over 1,163 365.25-day years per run to get the word “shakespeare” spelled with the last 11 letters of a continuous spew of letters. This uses only lowercase letters. No uppercase letters or punctuation to lower the odds.
Now, we come to the monkeys. It would take the aforementioned monkeys (100 of them) over 232,612 years (with 365.25 days in a year) at the aforementioned rate (5 letters per second each) in order to spell the word “shakespeare” amidst their jibberish. And remember, this uses typewriters without pesky capitals, punctuation, numbers, etc., and an infinitely long piece paper to which they all type.
Let’s then consider their typing out not just Shakespeare’s uncapitalized name, but his works (without any pesky punctuation or non-lowercase letters). I have here a copy of “Hamlet”. These monkeys would spell out “hamlet” an average of once every slightly-less-than-10 years. Now the full title of the play, as written in my copy, is actually “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark”. Stripping out the commas, capitals, and spaces, we have “hamletprinceofdenmark”. This is even longer than “shakespeare”, so we’ll add some more monkeys. Say, 999,900 of them. That pulls us up to 1,000,000 starving monkeys, and their total letters per second up to 5,000,000.
With one million monkeys, they would type the compacted phrase “hamletprinceofdenmark” on average once every nearly 3,283,721,647,244,687 years (3.283721647244687×10^15 for those of you who like scientific notation). It would take one million monkeys almost three quadrillion, two hundred eighty-three trillion, seven hundred twenty-one billion, six hundred fourty-seven million, two hundred fourty-four thousand, six hundred and eighty-seven years! That’s more than three times the estimated number of bacteria in the human body, which wikipedia pins at only one quadrillion.
Just for fun, let’s see about the entire play “Hamlet”. My copy is 136 pages long (just the play — not the notes, intro, outro, title page, or list of characters). I’d estimate about 30 letters per line after lowercasing everything and removing spaces and punctuation. There seem to be 35 lines per page. This puts us at roughly 170,000 letters in “Hamlet”. Since our last million monkeys didn’t do very well, let’s give them some help. We’ll hire more simian typists so that we have 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) monkeys. That’s more than 100 times the amount of human beings on our planet. It’s also about the amount of bacteria on the surface of the human body. Wikipedia does not lie. Usually. Please don’t touch me with your bountiful germs. Let’s just run the numbers…
My calculator won’t take numbers that high. Fine. I’ll find a better calculator. Hm… no dice. But there are roundabout ways of writing the answer. So, here comes the grand total… *drumroll, please*
ONE TRILLION MONKEYS WOULD TAKE 637,968,634.96628409158066098259134 * 10^(94,697,060,525,796,182,027,277,573,880,651 * 10^36) YEARS TO TYPE OUT SHAKESPEARE’S “HAMLET”.
In almost-English, that’s almost six hundred thirty-seven million, nine hundred sixty-eight thousand, six hundred thirty-five times nearly one hundred thousand vigintillion years. I didn’t even know there was such thing as a vigintillion. Maybe someone should check my math.
That’s a really big number. If you’re a mathematician, please name it after me. Or name it something to do with monkeys, typewriters, and/or Shakespeare. Maybe a “hamletplex”.
And fetch me more monkeys, please.
Report comment to moderator
My calculator won’t take numbers that high. Fine. I’ll find a better calculator. Hm… no dice. But there are roundabout ways of writing the answer. So, here comes the grand total… *drumroll, please*
ONE TRILLION MONKEYS WOULD TAKE 637,968,634.96628409158066098259134 * 10^(94,697,060,525,796,182,027,277,573,880,651 * 10^36) YEARS TO TYPE OUT SHAKESPEARE’S “HAMLET”.
In almost-English, that’s almost six hundred thirty-seven million, nine hundred sixty-eight thousand, six hundred thirty-five times nearly one hundred thousand vigintillion years. I didn’t even know there was such thing as a vigintillion. Maybe someone should check my math.
That’s a really big number. If you’re a mathematician, please name it after me. Or name it something to do with monkeys, typewriters, and/or Shakespeare. Maybe a “hamletplex”.
And fetch me more monkeys, please.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – I’m in agreement with the other ladies on this. However, I feel it would be terrible for our country to draft women. (Especially since I have 2 daughters.) If a draft were instituted, I fear they would have to draft women to avoid being “discriminatory”.
Make It Man – I like & agree with the answers you’ve already received. Our faith is definitely based on belief in Christ’s atoning death & His resurrection, & the veracity of the Bible. Do these answers really answer your question, or is there something more you’re looking for?
Report comment to moderator
I’m not comfortable with any of the answers to MiM yet, but am also not comfortable writing my own, mostly because the wrong word here or there will bring down the wrath of the resident atheists/agnostics and derail the conversation. But here goes, anyhow. The Bible says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. So my answer would be that God grants us faith and does so through His Word. Whether the application of that Word is (per MiM’s descriptions) frontwards or backwards varies by individual since God uses many different ways to bring people to Himself.
I’m hoping Pastor Joel will weigh in on this one.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron (33): Scripture tells us to obey our civil authorities, for they are placed there by God.
Frank: Before I go any further, I want to be clear about something: Are you saying that Scripture tells us to always obey our civil authorities, in everything they command us?
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man – As to the “basis” of our faith, are you asking what we need to believe, or how we come to that belief?
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
It’s more complicated than that. Yes, that’s the basic answer. For example, Paul called on his Roman status during his imprisonment rather than escape. On the other hand, Rahab lies and is listed in the genealogy of Christ. Many Christians lied about hiding Jews in their homes during WWII. When the civil authorities are not in direct violation of Scripture, then we are to obey. Daniel took a new name and served his oppressor, but refused to perform false worship, for example.
Report comment to moderator
A common thread I’m seeing in MiM’s answers is that there has to be a spiritual decision — a leap of faith, if you will — to accept Christ. Perhaps we err when we try so hard to convince people that it’s easy to believe.
I think we try too often to convince people that they don’t have to have faith to have faith.
Report comment to moderator
I was called up for the draft during the Vietnam war. I passed my physical. My wife was pregnant. I got a deferment.
I would have been the worst soldier in the military if I had been drafted. I don’t feel “guilty” that I wasn’t, but I don’t feel comfortable about it either. I’m not happy that many young Americans suffered and were wounded and died and killed while I was confusing a small child at home. For that matter, I don’t know that there is anything specially less valuable about the Vietnamese, North and South, who died and killed and were killed at the same time, compared to the Americans, except that our minds and our sympathies and our empathies only have so much space at any given time.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
Jesus also said to pay taxes to Caesar when confronted with the question of whether or not it was right to do so. Certainly Caesar used some of that money in ungodly (i.e., evil) ways, and yet Jesus said that the money was Caesar’s anyway, so give it to him.
I think this apples to this day as well. For example, many of us are downright infuriated by our taxes paying for PP’s “abortion mills”. Even though my first inclination would be to refuse to pay my taxes, it seems that if Jesus said to give the government its money, despite what it did with it, then I have little choice but to do the same.
On one hand, I don’t much like the idea. But on the other hand, this does clear up a possible dillema. On an invisible third hand, I might be misinterpreting Jesus’s words. Let’s hope not.
Report comment to moderator
Incidentally, folks, my (informal) poll question, “What would you do if the draft were reinstated and you were drafted,” is lifted directly from a poll at the site for the movie Day Zero.
The site’s poll offers you five choices:
I chose the last option, without hesitation. Indeed, that is what I am endeavoring to teach my three sons to do also. “Arms out, boys, and wrists together. Better to obey God and be a slave on a Leavenworth rockpile than to obey men and be a slave murdering for Caesar.” (They won’t likely come for this 46-year-old USAF veteran, but if we keep forging ahead into the Big Muddy, they will certainly come for our sons — bet on it — and maybe even our daughters.)
FWIW, the poll’s results so far (1,331 votes) are as follows:
Well, gee whiz. What if they had a war and nobody came?
Report comment to moderator
I posted this to the old Wirled Views section late last night and was surprised not to see more of an uproar. I’ll repost so everyone can see it.
……………
Another example of believer persecution, this time in Wales. “The National Secular Society yesterday condemned the protesters’ actions.”
Brother Alex added: “We are not protesting, we are worshipping God. This is about the freedom of human beings to express their religious values. We are simply determined to do our duty, no more, no less than that.”
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=world-qqqm=world-qqqa=world-qqqid=38342-qqqx=1.asp
Report comment to moderator
“As to the “basis” of our faith, are you asking what we need to believe, or how we come to that belief?”
I think it’s intertwined. But mainly I’m asking how we come to that belief. Or put it another way; What is the proper thing to believe in and why should we believe it?
We recently saw a thread that had to do with a religion reporter who had lost his faith. Obviously something was missing. In order not to shipwreck our faith what should not be missing?
Report comment to moderator
Cuthalion (44):
I appreciate and agree with what you’ve said.
But acknowledging Caesar’s claim to my money is a vastly different thing from acknowledging his claim to me.
Let me put it to you another way: Jesus said the reason that Caesar has a valid claim on our money is because it bears his image and inscription.
Now I ask you: Whose image and inscription do you bear?
Report comment to moderator
Frank, those answers are one of the reasons your scenario is too unrealistic to be worth navel-gazing over. They’re not going to institute a draft and then say, “Oh, look, what a surprise, there are resistors! Now we have to divert even more resources to enforcement and take the political heat, too!” They’re quite aware of what the response would be.
“What if they had a war and nobody came?”
Dunno. Hasn’t happened yet, with an all-volunteer force. Even with reports of trouble with recruitment goals, they have the troops they need for the wars they’re in, and whatever happens, I think everyone knows deep down that the major troop commitments are going to end within a couple more years.
Report comment to moderator
Better to obey God and be a slave on a Leavenworth rockpile than to obey men and be a slave murdering for Caesar.
That reminds me of another thing Jesus said. He told people that if a Roman soldier came and ordered one of them to carry his equipment for a mile, he should instead carry it two. Now was Jesus saying, “Be really good to the Romans, because they’re doing all kinds of good things that I like”? I doubt it. What I’m trying to say is that helping your government’s military, even when you despise them, is not forbidden, but encouraged. I suppose I might be reading too much into it (most people say it just means to be extra nice to your “neighbors”), and I suppose there may be exceptions, but I think it applies to “going the extra mile” for out military, and I think submitting to a draft would be part of that.
Incidentally, I’d make a terrible soldier. Or at least, a miserable one. I hate hot days, and I’m weak enough to get beat up by… um… a peace activist. (Sorry, best I could come up with.)
Report comment to moderator
Frank – I am from a long line of military men. If drafted I would go serve like those before me – the ones that didn;t volunteer (that doesn’t mean I’d necessarily be happy about it).
Report comment to moderator
#50
Cuthalion,
There is an interesting interpretation by Walter Wink of that bit about going the second mile. He says that the Roman soldier was only allowed to require you to carry his pack one mile, and the soldier would get in serious trouble for making you carry further. If you carried it a second mile the soldier would be worried that he might get in trouble, because it would be assumed he had made you carry it the second mile (who would believe that you did it voluntarily?). Therefore he would be put in the position of asking – pleading even – for you to put it down. That way you have sort of turned the tables on him, so that you have kept your dignity and he is the one humiliated due to his own behavior. The other two examples in the same passage are subject to a similar interpretation. Jesus seems to be saying that, rather than responding to injustice with either violence or spineless submission, there is a third way, a way to respond peacefully that maintains your dignity and integrity, and turns the tables on the aggressor.
Report comment to moderator
FRed I thought you were banned at one time and I really take offense at some of the language you are using and some of the things you are saying.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve emailed Lynn, Kim. I’m REALLY looking forward to registration on this site!
Report comment to moderator
My husband always said that if he were in danger of being drafted he would join the Air Force, because in the other branches the officers send the enlisted men out to fight and in the Air force it’s the other way around.
As for pentemom’s question I would find my friend Sam and get him to come with me.
Report comment to moderator
#53
Pauline,
Very interesting. I’m not sure how historically accurate that is, but that’s a neat little tidbit. However, even if that rule existed, it may not have been enforced by any but the most rigid officers. So a traditional interpretation would still work. I guess we’d have to go back in time to know for sure.
Report comment to moderator
#55
Careful, FRed, we may have shotguns.
*click*
Report comment to moderator
Fred reminds me of James.
Report comment to moderator
(Obligatory disclaimer: #57 was a joke, not a threat, blahblahblah don’t ban me.)
Report comment to moderator
Managing Editor’s Note
To Fred, I would like to quote one of my favorite movie lines. Powers Boothe as Curly Bill Brocious in the movie Tombstone:
“Well…bye.”
Report comment to moderator
. . . or Lon, who’s creative enough to use a different style for a different moniker and smart enough to use different computers to avoid ISP detection.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I don’t think it’s at all honorable for a man to refuse to fight “under any and all conditions.” It might be honorable to refuse to fight under specific positions, but war is a legitimate function of government, and I’m pretty sure that compelling men to fight is also legitimate. Compelling women to fight is not. Compelling women to support the troops somehow may be legitimate, though I’d rather see both (the fighting and the supporting) be voluntary.
Report comment to moderator
Tealm23 wins! Robin Williams is correct. Please enjoy your digital cappucino…
~~@)
Report comment to moderator
MIM wrote, “What is the proper basis for Christian faith?”
Rephrasing I Cor 13:11-When I was an unbeliever, I talked like an unbeliever, I thought like an unbeliever, I reasoned like an unbeliever. When I became a believer, I put unbelieving ways behind me.
My favorite definition of faith (i.e. belief) is Heb 11:1-”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
This definition is universal in that it applies to both believers and unbelievers. Everyone has faith in something, even atheists. For atheists, the “something” is nothing. (It sounds absurd because it is. If “nothing” is that which rocks dream about, then atheists are between a rock and a hard place in trying to emulate their cousins. But, it’s faith nonetheless.) When you come to Christ, you essentially exchange one form of faith for another.
The basis of our faith is to believe our fallible, finite being exists, and believe in scripture, which explains all “the evidence of things not seen” that we need to live joyously.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man,
I struggle to come up with an answer to your question. But I’ll take a stab at it, however inadequately. To begin with, I think that the question, as worded, will tend to produce inadequate answers. Behavior is as intrinsic to following Jesus as is belief. So my answer will include what a person does as well as believes.
Repentance – not only being sorry for but turning away from sin.
Accepting God’s grace, knowing that (as Philip Yancey puts it) there is nothing I can do that will make God love me more and nothing I can do that will make God love me less.
Believing and publicly affirming that Jesus is alive and that He is Lord.
Desiring and striving to live a holy life
Becoming part of a fellowship of Christians, for common worship, teaching, encouragement, accountability, and service
There are obviously things I could add, but I see these as foundational. I say this as someone who was not convinced of the truth of the Bible when I became a Christian, and only over time came to accept it as God’s Word. I do not minimize the importance of doctrine, because wrong doctrine can lead to wrong attitudes and actions. But always as I seek to learn truth, my prayer is not simply to learn but to be transformed by it. I have way too much (personal) experience of learning that was not accompanied by changed behavior.
Report comment to moderator
“. . . or Lon, who’s creative enough to use a different style for a different moniker and smart enough to use different computers to avoid ISP detection.”
Outkast, you obviously haven’t a clue what you are talking about
A good chuckle though! All three of my computers have the same IP address. And what in the world is “ISP detection?” haha
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D (62): I don’t think it’s at all honorable for a man to refuse to fight “under any and all conditions.”
Frank: Nor do I. (Did I give you the impression that I do?)
Cheryl D (62): It might be honorable to refuse to fight under specific positions, but war is a legitimate function of government …
Frank: For national defense, yes. But to overthrow tyrannical leaders of other sovereign nations? Or for commercial reasons — e.g., “to maintain the free flow of oil at market prices”?
Cheryl D (62): … and I’m pretty sure that compelling men to fight is also legitimate.
Frank: Do you have any scriptural support for that “pretty-sure” assertion?
Cheryl D (62): Compelling women to fight is not.
Frank: I’ll go you one better: Allowing women to fight is not legitimate, biblically speaking. Yet the United States of Godblessamerica has no ethical compunctions whatsoever about placing military women in harms way — from MPs to fighter pilots. Hmm …
Cheryl D (62): Compelling women to support the troops somehow may be legitimate …
Frank: Again, I’d like you to offer some scriptural support for all this “compulsory” support of “the troops.” Question: Would Germans citizens — men or women — have been disobeying God if they refused to “support the troops” in WWII?
Cheryl D (62): … though I’d rather see both (the fighting and the supporting) be voluntary.
Frank: Which brings me to my underlying point: Just military causes (i.e., national defense) doesn’t require government coercion of the citizenry, whether to enlist and fight or to support the war effort. Peoples’ natural sense of survival will compel them to fight.
Conversely, when a government has to resort to compulsion, it should set off alarm bells re. the justness of the cause.
Report comment to moderator
I’m going to admit to being a hypocrite. sigh.
I have two sons. One is 15 and the other is 10.
I don’t want either to go and fight. I would have a real problem with a draft.
My oldest is totally unsuited to the military. He would likely go, but refuse to do anything remotely resembling combat.
My youngest would go and would go willingly. He still thinks such things are glorious.
I have great respect for our military, and I am very grateful for those who protect us. I believe that there are things worth dying for.
But, I don’t want my sons drafted or volunteering to be in the military. I just don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for your candor, TRS. I gained respect for you with that post. There are many here who secretly feel the same way as they bluster on. Chickenhawks is the term.
Report comment to moderator
kBells (55): My husband always said that if he were in danger of being drafted he would join the Air Force, because in the other branches the officers send the enlisted men out to fight and in the Air force it’s the other way around.
Frank: Interesting that you mention the Air Force. Did you know they are now sending enlisted men and officers who’ve been trained in non-ground combat specialties (e.g., loadmasters, pilots, etc.) to Fort Dix for ground combat training, and then on to Iraq to support the Army in infantry roles?
Air Force Prepares Members for Ground Combat
And people like to pretend that our military isn’t broken, and that conscription doesn’t somehow figure in our nation’s future?!
Wake up and smell the MRE coffee, folks.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, thanks for pointing that out. I had not read that. I wonder if the bushies will find this such anecessary war when THEIR children are drafted to fight THEIR war? Somehow I doubt it.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, no, offhand I don’t have any definite Scripture for my “pretty sure” assertion, which is exactly why I phrased it that way. However, we are to obey those who rule over us, and that seems to be in place unless their commands would “require” us to violate Scripture. Thus, they can force men to go to war. Thus, they also cannot force women to do so. Probably they also cannot force women to “support” a war–but we may have lost the right to have that argument when women gained the right to vote; I simply don’t know.
I don’t know whether governments may “allow” women to bear arms. Considering the story of Deborah, I think the answer is yes, but obviously it isn’t a good idea, and again I’m really not sure.
Report comment to moderator
I read about the reporter who had become a Christian, and believed God had called him to report on “religion” for his paper. He then encountered so many terrible happenings to other people that he lost his faith, that is, he made a decision to claim there was no God. He seems to have been like the seed, the Word of God, that fell on stony soil, took root, but didn’t have enough good soil to survive, and so, fell away.
I felt deeply troubled about his report. I wish I could ask him some pointed questions and offer some pointed observations. Didn’t bad things happen to good people before he became a Christian? But at that time, he may not have been watching for them, so was ignorant of the horrors some people face. And after he denounced God, did it really make life more bearable to know that bad things happened but he thought nobody was in charge? But he has apparently not had any truly awful things happen to him, at least not so much that he’s incapacitated (or dead). So nothing really changed in the “goodnesses” that most people obtain sometime in life.
What drew him to become a Christian. I thought I remembered reading that he felt empty, or that something was missing. What drew him to become a Christian? How did he expect to see his life changed? He actually did seem to feel he was changed, said he thought God had called him to the position of reporting on religion, that is, on the work of God. This calling apparently gave him a sense of purpose and fulfillment. So by renouncing God, he’s willing to give up that there’s a sense of purpose and fulfillment in life?
to be continued
Report comment to moderator
continued from previous post
After his conversion, did anyone present the whole Gospel to him? Did he read his Bible carefully and sincerely? Didn’t he realize that suffering is a part of life? That we are told in the Bible to “endure hardship like a good soldier”, and that we will be part of the kingdom “after (we’ve) suffered a little while.”
Jesus said we must lose our lives in order to gain our life in the kingdom. And, “In the world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world.”
And Paul wrote, “Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.”
But this reporter heard a lot of bad news. And many of those he interviewed apparently lost faith because of the hardships. So he listened to the “wrong voices.” And allowed the wrong voices, the bad influences, to derail his faith.
If God called him to the job of reporting on God’s work, then he failed his assignment because he allowed other factors, not trust in God, to influence him. Or maybe it was his own desire and God didn’t really call – but God isn’t in the “success and achievement” business, but in the building of our character. To conform us to Christ so that the image of God in us may begin to shine forth. Perhaps the assignments about terrible things was a test to bring forth perseverance. If he was mistaken about what God called him to do, God will himself see that his work gets done (if we don’t let our pride and self-constructed God get in the way). So if he was meant to wait on the Lord and seek his way, he again failed his assignment.
“Choosing the creature instead of the Creator, and so God gave them over to their baser instincts.”
How arrogant and selfish we are! If God doesn’t match our expectations of who we invent him to be, then “goodbye God!” Where is the filling up the emptiness going to come from now? If he had interviewed many more Christians who were confronted with terrible things, and had listened to those who were still willing to be faithful, it would have been far better. “Does your heart condemn you? God is greater than your heart. And if your heart condemns you not [because God is greater than that!], then it shall be well with you.”
If he went to college, and met some surly burly professors, did he renounce all colleges as awful? If he didn’t get the job he wanted, did he denounce all employers? If he didn’t write well enough to make it as a reporter, did he give up writing (or did he perfect his skills until he was qualified)? Then who is he to try God for a short term, and, fails to perceive what God is doing, just give up? Anything we do or have in our thoughts is going to cost us some determination to persevere!
His conclusions may seem absurd and shallow and selfish to those who have suffered in this life, but who are trying as best we understand, to allow God to carry us through. To say there is no God because otherwise God would have given him faith to believe, which he didn’t, so he must not exist – is there any other word for that, but “absurd”? Yes, some people are given the “gift of faith”. However, the Bible says God gives every man “the measure of faith.” He also says that even our faith is a gift of God, not something we do for ourselves. But we have to ask him to help us with that faith, not just turn away from him.
Faith is not a feeling. Faith is a fact. Faith is a lifetime commitment. It is setting the rudder to the course of following God, no matter how contrary the winds or how rocky the shoreline. It is trusting that the Bible is right, that God is right, that he knows what he’s doing, and that we may ask him to “endure to the end.”
Report comment to moderator
continued from previous post
If one is going to be a Christian, our foundation is the developing of a living relationship with Jesus Christ. One which can’t be shaken – for Jesus says “I will never leave you or forsake you.” To build on that relationship, we need to read what the Bible says about Jesus, and about our being disciples. We need to do what it says to do, and agree with God that he has the truth. We need to pray and communicate with God constantly. To fix our eyes on him, not on the vagaries of life. We often need others to hold us accountable, fellowship with us. We need to spend some time contemplating how many of the faithful disciples in the Bible were persecuted, tortured, ridiculed, lost their lives for their faith. Yet God says they “are more than conquerors.” (God doesn’t say that about those who decide he didn’t “act right” so he must not exist.)
The basis of our life is that “Christ in our hearts is our only hope of glory.” We can’t make ourselves Godly. But we can open our hands and commit to him, and allow God to perfect himself in us. And we can have God’s faith (not our puny miserable lack of faith) that “whereby are given unto us these great and precious promises [in God’s Word]; that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.” We choose this to be truth because the Bible says so, even if we don’t know how to “feel” it so.
I do feel so sad for this reporter, who seems to have missed the true meanings of being a hrist-follower. I’ve certainly been praying for him!
Report comment to moderator
Marilee,
I’m not trying to defend this reporter’s viewpoint, but as I read it the problem was not with “bad things” happening. The problem was “bad people” – not just bad people in general but bad people among those whom he expected to be the best examples of godliness. A few “bad apples” would be understandable, but he apparently felt that the corruption he saw was so widespread that it was strong evidence against the idea that God changes His followers for the better.
We had a discussion along these lines a while back, after the Ted Haggard story broke. Christians often quote 2 Cor. 5:17 which says that if any man be in Christ he is a new creation. If you look at a large group of Christians, and see just as much immorality as among non-Christians, how believable is it that God has really made any substantive changes in those who follow Him?
I know God has changed me, and I know other people whom God has changed. I also used to know a Christian whose behavior was the sort that turned this reporter away from God. In my experience such people are the exception. If they were more prevalent, it might become hard to continue to believe that God really changes hearts and lives.
Report comment to moderator
Post 66: A prime example of Lon responding to a post as an Anony (which I’ve already admitted to doing myself at very limited times, so the trolls can just calm down).
This just confirms to us that probably half the anonymous postings on this blog are initiatiated by Lon — while all the posts by Jake, Sarah, Weekenderman and Outkast amount to likely less than .0001% of all posts?
Hmm . . .
Report comment to moderator
pentamom (27): … I agree that brushing it off doesn’t answer the question, but it raise the issue of whether answering the question has any value.
The draft scenario (even if you’re not talking about 41 year old anemic mothers of 5 with separated abdominal muscles) is too improbable to have value as a thought exercise.
Frank: First, I think it is generally worthwhile for Christians to consider what we might do in various ethically-charged situations, so that if and when those situations do arise, we have a better basis on which to act. I.e., we will (hopefully) have considered what the Scriptures teach, and what we believe God requires of us.
Second, I’d truly like to know where you get the idea that the draft scenario is so improbable. Consider:
Report comment to moderator
Thank you all for your comments on my questions. Feel free to continue.
I found the introductory quote I mentioned by William Lane Craig in this book The Son Rises, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Here it is:
“In considering the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, it is important to avoid giving the impression that the Christian faith is based on the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. The Christian faith is based on the event of the resurrection. It is not based on the evidence for the resurrection. This distinction is crucial. The Christian faith stands or falls on the event of the resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a myth, and we may as well forget it. But the Christian faith does not stand or fall on the evidence for the resurrection. There are many real events in history for which the historical evidence is slim or nonexistent (in fact, when you think about it, most events in history are of this character). But they did actually happen. We just have no way of proving that they happened. Thus, it is entirely conceivable the the resurrection of Jesus was a real event of history, but there is no way of proving this historically. I think that in fact the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is good – remarkably good. But that evidence is not the basis of the Christian faith. Should the evidence be refuted somehow, the Christian faith would not be refuted. It would only mean that one could not prove historically that the Christian faith is true.
In point of fact we can know that Jesus rose from the dead wholly apart from a consideration of the historical evidence. The simplest Christian, who has neither the opportunity nor wherewithal to conduct a historical investigation of Jesus’ resurrection can know with assurance that Jesus is risen because God’s Spirit bears unmistakable witness to him that it is so. And any non-Christian who is truly seeking to know the truth about God and life can also be sure that Jesus is risen because God’s Spirit will lead him to a personal relationship with the risen Lord. Thus, there are really two avenues to a knowledge of the fact of the resurrection: the avenue of the Spirit and the avenue of historical inquiry. The former provides a spiritual certainty of the resurrection, whereas the latter provides a rational certainty for the resurrection. Ideally these ought to to coincide, the Spirit working through the rational power of the evidence and the evidence undergirding the witness of the Spirit. But even if the historical avenue proved inaccessible, the avenue of the Spirit to a knowledge of the resurrection would remain open and independent.
Thus no one is justified in rejecting the Christian faith simply because “the evidence isn’t good enough.” If the evidence for the resurrection is inadequate, then we cannot prove the resurrection to be an event of history. But God’s Spirit still furnishes the unmistakable conviction that the resurrection occurred and that Jesus lives today. Therefore, whatever the state of the evidence, we can be sure that the resurrection is an event of history. Ultimately then, we must come to grips, not with historical evidence, important as this may be, but with the living Lord Himself.”
-William Lane Craig-
Erlangen, West Germany
Report comment to moderator
Peter L (26): … I doubt we will have a draft as the drafting of women would be too controversial an issue to deal with.
Frank: Non sequitur, I think. They could return to a draft without including women. (Not that there wouldn’t be a lot of squawking from the men, “Hey, whatever happened to sexual equality?”) But the sexual controversy wouldn’t necessarily kibosh the draft talk, in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Now what do you make of this? I’m with Pauline, I’m not sure what to do with this. I’ve spoken to many people both for and against speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit etc. etc. I’ve also spoken to people who speak of the spirit bearing witness with our spirit. Unfortunately I still not sure what to do with it.
According to Craig we can know with certainty because of the Spirit… but to me, it’s tantamount to saying I have a feeling it’s true… But feelings are not trustworthy…. they come and go, as witnessed by that religion reporter we read about.
Report comment to moderator
Outcast,
I don’t think that is Lon. I won’t blow this person’s cover though – even though they’ve blown mine a couple of times…
Report comment to moderator
Interesting, the site stats icon has disappeared. Just when I was starting to have fun too…
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (31): Like Cheryl D. and Pentamom, I have trouble coming up with a realistic answer to something that is so far outside the range of probability. I’m not saying it’s a bad question, just that it’s hard to have any idea how you would respond to something that you *know* will never happen. It is something that *could* happen to people who are younger and in good shape physically. … (etc.)
Frank: Then please consider my response to pentamom at (78) above. You may *know* that *you* won’t get drafted. But do you have any children? (You know, “people who are youger and in good shape physically” over whom you exercise some manner of responsibility and stewardship in the area of moral training?) If so, you might begin considering training them on what the Bible says about war (just vs. unjust, etc.), civil disobedience, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, by the way. I’m not at all a pacifist or a “peace activist.” My sons know they should volunteer to fight if our nation comes under attack. And I’ll be right there with them! By all means, let’s kill as many of the enemy as we can!
But they also know that every war our leaders take us into is not automatically a just war; and that they should do all they can — including going to jail — to avoid participating in a war they believe to be unjust.
“Arms out, wrists together.” Better to suffer for refusing to murder for Caesar than not to suffer and murder for him.
Report comment to moderator
Cuthalion (44):
Have you given any thought to the question I posed to you at (48)? Namely:
By all means, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s! The Savior commands it!
The question is, is your life Caesar’s? Are you Caesar’s, expected by Christ to obey any order to kill that Caesar issues you?
Report comment to moderator
When I read your post, Marilee, I realized you were mindful of the parable found in Matthew 13 (the parable of sowing the seeds in different types of ground), and I hope MakeItMan gives it a read. We too often forget that once we have found faith, the devil will do everything is his power to divert us away from it. As Christ said, we do not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (See Luke 4 where Christ was tempted by the devil). Faith is a gift from God, and no one comes to him unless he draws draws the person to him (which is why I am always amused by people who want to eliminate Christianity. If God doesn’t call a person, none of us could ever convert him anyway).
My answer to MakeItMan’s question comes down to a yes or no question: do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Without the resurrection, it’s all very nice what Jesus taught, but with the resurrection, we have a direct route to God, true reconciliation with him. If you can say yes to Jesus’s dying for your sins and you’re honest about your sins (and how pitiful we all really are), Christ’s laying down his life for you, brings a freedom that I can’t describe. The love there is tremendous.
We read here all the time about how stupid we are to believe in a guy who died 2,000 years ago, but we’ve been told in the Bible that we would be accounted as fools for doing so and to be happy when we hear that. You understand your faith when you can smile at being called stupid for believing and love the speaker anyway.
In the end, it is a choice: do you believe Jesus is who he said he is? Yes or No. And no one can do that for another. The basis of one’s faith is the answer to that question.
Report comment to moderator
Good point, Frank. My older son just turned 15, so in a few years he’ll be old enough. My husband would be quite pleased if he joined the armed forces, as my husband would have done if he had not had multiple physical problems (asthma and extremely poor eyesight in particular) that barred him from serving. His father was a career officer in the Air Force (electronics warfare), and only retired when he was forced to.
Do you have any good suggestions of resources to use in guiding discussions on this matter?
Report comment to moderator
krm (51): If drafted I would go serve like those before me – the ones that didn;t volunteer (that doesn’t mean I’d necessarily be happy about it).
Frank: Two questions:
Report comment to moderator
MiM – #81 – You might describe the Spirit of God bearing witness to my spirit as a “feeling” – but I “feel” it’s more than that –
– sorry I can’t explain it. It’s a confidence, an assurance outside of anything any human being can provide.
I have been a believer for almost 30 years now and never once have I lost that assurance – even during the times I’ve not walked with God the way I knew to be right. It’s all based on Him and His finished work and His gift of love and grace to me – not dependent on my human floundering and weakness.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (87): Good point, Frank. My older son just turned 15, so in a few years he’ll be old enough. …
Do you have any good suggestions of resources to use in guiding discussions on this matter?
Frank: Thanks, Pauline. I can highly recommend a few:
1) Without fail, get Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s 3-sermon series “A Christian View of War” for $14.00 from Covenant Media Foundation:
Be sure to download the free PDF study guide first (found under the “FREE PDF documents” link on the left side). It has discussion questions, a great bibliography and other valuable info, plus it’ll give you a good feel for the lectures. Dr, Bahnsen was a fantastic expositor of the Scriptures on moral and ethical issues, esp. re. a proper understanding of the civil magistrate. … (cont’d. next post)
Report comment to moderator
Hey, VS! Did you ever listen to Bahnsen’s “Christian View of War” series?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (87):
2) Canon Press carries a recording of a history conference presented by Christ Church in Moscow, ID in 1997, entitled “America’s Wars: A Biblical Overview and Evaluation” (8 sessions: 7 lectures plus a Q&A; $28.00):
And the first lecture is entitled (interestingly enough!) “A Christian View of War,” and is presented by Doug Wilson.
The particular value of this series is that it puts the “biblical view of war” issue into the context of the actual wars of American history (thru Feb. 1997, at any rate).
I’ve listened to this and the Bahnsen series numerous times in the last 8 or 9 years, and it never gets old. … (cont’d. next post)
Report comment to moderator
Hey Frank:
•RE #67: Allowing women to fight is not legitimate, biblically speaking. Yet the United States of Godblessamerica has no ethical compunctions whatsoever about placing military women in harms way — from MPs to fighter pilots.
Mind giving me some verses to look up on that one?
BTW, isn’t compelling people to fight immoral in any case, regardless of whether you’re drafting men, women, or both (Deuteronomy 20:5-9)?
•What I’d do if the draft were reinstated: Personally, I’d get out of the country as fast as possible. For good measure, I’d start packing before the draft legislation reaches the President’s desk.
Report comment to moderator
#91 – Frank – I was afraid you might ask! No, I haven’t – mainly because I usually listen to things while driving in the car and the CD player in my “summer” car doesn’t want to play these for some reason. However,I keep putting them back near the top of my “pile” of things to do, read and have every intention of getting to them soon.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, all those reasons you listed are reasons why a draft might make logical sense, from a certain perspective.
That’s rather different than saying it’s likely, though. There are lots of political and practical reasons why the thing that might make logical sense in terms of troop needs, isn’t going to happen.
At any rate, if my son were to be drafted, I’ll tell him to go serve. I haven’t found the current situation to be anything that I think merits disobedience to authority. Unwise, maybe, but by no means crossing the line into morally unacceptable to participate in. Certainly no more than the Roman army, whose soldiers were never told to depart their duty.
If my daughters were to be drafted, I’d tell them to refuse under any circumstances. Women do not belong in the frontline armed defense of a nation.
This certainly isn’t the first time I’ve thought about the issue of my children serving, I just didn’t need a fantastic setup to reflect on it.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (87):
3) And lastly, here’s another free PDF document, the very readable 7-page essay by Dr. John Robbins called “The Bible and the Draft,” written (believe it or not) in 1980! I say “believe it or not” for two reasons: 1) I joined the USAF on 2 Jan 1980, and cast my first presidential vote for Reagan that November; and 2) the essay begins as follows:
I really don’t recall being aware of the “conscription debate” in the summer of 1980, but then I’d only been out of high school a year, plus I was stationed at Bitburg AB, W. Germany at the time!
(I found it rather galling that Uncle Sam expected me to register for the draft after I got out of the AF at the end of 1983, especially since I was — quite providentially — denied re-enlistment! (Honorably discharged, you understand, but denied re-enlistment … a long, sad and funny story about a tin-horn first sergeant who over-reacted to some very minor incidents I’d had … )
Incidentally, in summer 1980, Carter was still president. One of Reagan’s “campaign promises” was to abolish draft registration:
Unfortunately, after Reagan was elected, Caspar Weinberger convinced him to keep selective service registration in place.
Anyhow Pauline, I hope you’ll find these things helpful in your family’s discussions on the subject.
Grace and peace …
Report comment to moderator
Jim Bob (93): •RE #67:“Allowing women to fight is not legitimate, biblically speaking. …”
Mind giving me some verses to look up on that one?
Frank: I’ve got lots of stuff to do here at home yet tonight, so I hope you don’t mind if I pass this one off on a few Christian men whose views I generally respect tremendously:
1) Albert Mohler: “Women in Combat–A Time for Truth” (14 May 2004)
(WMB’s blog-ware disallows more than one link per post, so I’ll continue this below …)
Report comment to moderator
Jim Bob (93):
2) Doug Phillips: “Are they coming to draft your daughters?” (May 2004)
Report comment to moderator
#97
I’ve been wondering about how easily we’re accepting women sliding into combat, also, though I’m as far as can be, I guess, from Dr. Mohler.
Though it may be true and relevant, but the part about Arab society being so outraged about women’s modesty and participation in combat does make me wonder why it’s OK for some women to become suicide bombers?
Human beings are too strange to imagine.
Report comment to moderator
Jim Bob (93):
3) Rev. Larry Beane: “Mothers Wearing Army Boots” (1 November 2006)
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man asked, “What is the proper basis for true Christian faith?”
From the standpoint of biblical theology, it is: “God’s initiative.”
“We love because he [God] first loved us.” (1 John 4:19).
A fundamental premise for true Christian faith is that God made man, and not that man made God. This makes God the initiator. He made us on purpose and the Bible tells the story of His purposes unfolding. God began with a plan for His glory and our salvation and He took the initiative in both our Creation and our Redemption. That initiative went beyond mere divine good intention, all the way to God revealing Himself in real human history to intervene on our behalf (on His terms and on His timing).
That’s the foundation. But there is more to true Christian faith than this (”Faith without deeds is dead” James 2:26). We must respond positively to God’s initiative.
To build on the “foundation” metaphor, one can have a solid foundation but it’s not a ‘house’ and it is of no use if we do not actually build on it. A better metaphor for this aspect of faith (one that Jesus liked) is the bearing of fruit! But remember that we could do nothing were it not for God’s initiative.
It is at this point where I cannot improve on Pauline’s statement: “Repentance – not only being sorry for but turning away from sin.”
Repentance is where all authentic encounters with God begin, and its definition involves the deeds of a changed person.
The Holy Spirit plays a role in this response, but it is a willing surrender on our part, rising out of our honest and deep recognition of our sin, our need and our powerlessness without God.
Once we are convinced that God has acted (especially in the resurrection of Jesus) in history in purposeful ways to initiate salvation, our response is to let God’s powerful, holy and loving track record serve as the foundation for our decision to TRUST in Him to be faithful to His promises. That’s faith.
The Holy Spirit helps to translate that decision into ongoing obedience to God’s will.
There are many other ways to answer, and I liked much of what MiM said about the resurrection at #79. No need to add to it.
Report comment to moderator
Jim Bob (93):
[All bold below is mine; all italics is Doug Phillips']
And last but not least, here’s an excerpt from a memorial (or a “position statement”) on terrorism adopted by my church’s denomination, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals, shortly after the 9/11 attacks:
And as Doug Phillips has said in the piece I referenced above:
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the links, Frank. I’ve got some things to do tonight as well, but I’ll check them out in the morning.
Report comment to moderator
At the risk of incurring the wrath of many, but feeling peckish….
Frank, does that mean Israel, the modern Jewish State, with its non-gender specific draft and combat roles for all is committing an abomination?
Report comment to moderator
CB,
I support Israel in general, but their policy violates the OT.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy at #38,
Thanks for challenging me to think out a reply. It get’s my focus back on track.
Let me ask MiM’s question differently: “What is NOT the proper basis for true Christian faith?”
I would refer back to the recent thread about a journalist who lost his religion, so to speak. His description of his conversion seemed to be rooted in pure feeling and emotion.
I have nothing against authentic emotion, but it is not the proper foundation of real faith, as you already know well.
The journalist shared that there was “something missing” in his life. His marriage was shaky. he hadn’t “studied the Bible much.” He went to a retreat that left him “emotionally raw” and after “36 hours of prayer, singing, Bible study, intimate sharing and little sleep, I felt filled with the Holy Spirit.”
The journalist continued, “With my eyes closed in prayer, I saw my heart slowly opening in two and then being infused with a warm, glowing light. A tingle spread across my chest. This, I thought, was what it was to be born again.”
His conversion account had no mention of repentance of sins. That is foundational for our proper response to God. But even our repentance is worthless if God had not taken the initiative first.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron
Ooohkaeeey. So the commission of an abomination does not mean that you have to show non-support?
Other WMB’ers feel the same way?
(and if you don’t see where that is going, don’t blame me.)
Report comment to moderator
Joel
In all seriousness, how do you define sin? I ask because in our modern era we hear alot of the prosperity preaching … God will reward you and so forth, but God’s rewards don’t seem material to me, in fact rather the opposite. Or God will reward your good behavior. That one you see on this blog to a large extent.
I am not going to argue with you, cajole or otherwise harass, but I am truly curious about your answer. I will accept what you have to say as what you have to say without commenting on it, unless I have a non-provocative clarifying question, which is not commenting or otherwise disparaging, etc. You get the idea, I am trying to ask an honest question, not debate you. What in your view is the essence of sin?
Report comment to moderator
Framk – I am beyond the age that the military will take.
I just don’t see the US getting into a wholly unjust war. I suspect if I saw that sort of seachange in the course of the US I would likely expatriate before then.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (88): … why wait until you’re drafted? Why not volunteer now?
krm (109): I am beyond the age that the military will take.
Frank: Are you over 42? (The US Army is now accepting 42-year-olds as “regulars.”)
Report comment to moderator
krm (109): I just don’t see the US getting into a wholly unjust war.
Frank: And as I see it, we already have.
krm (109): I suspect if I saw that sort of seachange in the course of the US I would likely expatriate before then.
Frank: We already looked into New Zealand for that reason. Beautiful country that basically minds its own business in the world.
Problem is:
1) I’m a patriotic American. I genuinely do love my country — it’s just some of our actions I’m grieved about; and
2) New Zealand just criminalized spanking your children for the purpose of correction. If we moved there, it would have been for our sons’ futures as much as for ourselves. But when the State sets itself up as god like that … well, no thanks.
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue (104): Frank, does that mean Israel, the modern Jewish State, with its non-gender specific draft and combat roles for all is committing an abomination?
Frank: Basically, yes. But really no more of an abomination than our nation codifying legal support for/acceptance of the abomination of homosexual practice.
CoyoteBlue (107): So the commission of an abomination does not mean that you have to show non-support?
Other WMB’ers feel the same way?
(and if you don’t see where that is going, don’t blame me.)
Frank: I’m not exactly sure where this is going, so please draw me a line. Meanwhile, I’ll answer best as I can …
I think there’s a difference between “love” and “support,” at least re. whether or not you “support” the person/nation you love in acting unrighteously.
I love my children and want them to be godly, so I would not “support” their committing sins God calls “abomination.”
Likewise, I love America and want her to be a godly nation, thus I do not “support” those laws or judicial decisions God calls “abominable.”
Now, I know you asked about contemporary Israel. Unlike many evangelicals around these parts, I do not attribute some special status tu the Jewish State. I do not see it as some fulfillment of prophecy, nor do I think that the Jewish State is particularly special in God’s eye. (I think the church — Christ’s body — is.)
I’m saddened when my neighbor’s kid commits some crime, but I’m more saddened when my own kid commits the same crime. Likewise, while I’m sorrowed that Israel trains her women for military combat, I’m more sorrowed that America — my country — also does this.
Hope this scratches your itch … if not, ask again.
Report comment to moderator
Frank
No worries, you skipped to the head of the line already on the where that was going. Your answer is logical, not gonna argue with that. I appreciate coherence.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry to interupt, but some good news on the late Friday news beat.
Lowes has decided to pull advertising from the FOX show Bill O’Reilly Factor due to a write in campaign that points out his many lies and slanders. Good NEWS! This is just the first of many advertisers being notified recently.
a link to the letter Lowes is sending out to people who ask:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/205510/101
There is also the possibility that FOX NEWS reporters will soon be required to wear “Opinion Media” credentials rather than the real Press Pass other journalists wear.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s see how long that lasts, Anony . . .
Report comment to moderator
Anon.,do you have any documented cases of Bill O’Reilly’s many “lies and slanders?”
Or did you just hear that on the news?
Report comment to moderator
#116–sounds like the advertisers do–contact them (Ha, Ha–couldn’t happen to a better blustering philandering fool)
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue,
My example was going to be the example of the abomination of abortion, but Frank beat me to it. Like Frank, I do not see modern Israel fulfilling prophecy, but I do think they have a right to exist as a political state. Both countries have made decisions/laws which sadden God and for which we should repent.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
What is your view of a just war?
I agree that if our country declared war on another for some completely illegitimate or wrong reason,and then instituted the draft,
if I were drafted,I wouldn’t go either.
That might be a bad example(and unrealistic),
but I was wondering what your idea of a reasonable war is…
Like the others,I say,we are commanded in the Bible to respect and honor our authorities,
unless it is in direct conflict with scripture(that should be easy to discern)
Report comment to moderator
Gordon,
my point is that you can’t believe everything you hear on the news,especially in the mainstream media.
In other words,view news reports making a claim with a certain amount of criticism(skepticism?)
Report comment to moderator
#106–isn’t it about time for your proper response to the whispers in your ears–it is never too late to be born again
isn’t it time to repent for the political errors you promulgate in the name of Jesus–Jesus is waiting for you to do the right thing–please, hear the whisper–before you hit the brick wall
A Change of Heart
To defend is to attack,
instead,
transcend the battle in your head,
to inner peace
unaffected by illusions’ strife,
to a consciousness
not new, but forgotten,
Awaken to love’s needed response,
bowing to your brother’s godhead,
removing the baggage from your heart,
to correct your thinking
that corrects your world
away from ego’s fears,
Toward a new beginning
which you are becoming.
Gordon Neumann
5/31/2005
Report comment to moderator
#120–my point is–it isn’t important what we hear–but what the advertisers do about what we hear–check in with Don Imus that
Report comment to moderator
Gordon writes:
“#106–isn’t it about time for your proper response to the whispers in your ears–it is never too late to be born again”
What? In the world are you talking about?
How’s this for a whisper in your ear…
I’m not sure you know what being “born again” means.
Report comment to moderator
#119–the quandary is–that war is, per se, unreasonable
War
Victory is illusive
over the disease that comes and goes
leaving death in its wake.
The search for reason in the midst
of madness,
ends in the depths
of despair.
When the killing starts
so does the insanity
and the wild ride of rationales,
excuses for our inability to see
an option to the horror.
The fever never stops;
it waxes
and wanes
in the guise of lies so twisted
into knots
that bind the mind in blinders
hiding the truth,
blocking release from the pain
of the pervading malady.
Gordon Neumann
12/16/2003
Report comment to moderator
#123–I hear your squawking–and your doubts–so, just as you are–so, just as I am–we will portray our cases at the judgment of the White Throne–where larger forces will remove all doubt
Acceptance
Still doin’ hard time?
Resisting the flow of life,
suffering about what should have been,
or should be,
riding the wheel of opposites
that has no end,
locked into the paradigm of right and wrong?
Fighting? Fighting? Fighting?
No peace is possible
with a mind spitting,
churning, bubbling
with scarcity, competition, and fear.
The choice to spiral upward
with evolving, guiding energy
comes with a resolute calm,
allowing the heart to open,
letting true being shine forth
in all its brilliance,
Accepting bliss
as consciousness dances with ease
in pristine perfection
with whatever is.
Surrender is the beginning, not the end.
Gordon Neumann
4/8/2005
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue #104: … does that mean Israel, the modern Jewish State, with its non-gender specific draft and combat roles for all is committing an abomination?
Actually, modern Israel is not the religious Jewish state, but the political one, founded by the Zionist movement. That is why they allow women in combat roles against the OT command. Religious Jews have moved there, only because it is the one place in the world they will not be persecuted for their faith (except by Islamic terrorists next door).
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue (#108), “In all seriousness, how do you define sin?”
A good question. First, what sin is NOT:
Sin is not an honest “mistake” or an “error in judgment.” Sin is also not just a label for undesirable actions. Humans can change the labels for their deeds all they want, but sin is still sin in God’s eyes.
Among the many aspects of God’s character and nature, He is also our Judge. His justice and mercy are beyond our scrutiny. yet, as a just Judge, he does have laws and they are within our grasp for understanding.
Sin is the willful breaking of His laws or the willful neglect to follow them. The Bible also teaches that there is a natural law (conscience) that we all have to which we are obliged to follow, but we all fail (read Romans).
Sin is akin to cancer. It’s a condition that can grow undetected inside us. It may not hurt at first, but it can kill in time. Sometimes we need sources beyond our own insight (i,e, tests and surgeries) to detect our sin. The Bible, prayer and fellowship with other Christians can offer guidance for greater inner understanding. The the Holy Spirit primarily plays that role, making us sensitive to sins that others would rationalize or dismiss as harmless.
One of the most heinous aspects of cancer is that often people are unaware they have it until it is too late. Only in its late stages do we seem to feel its effects.
God is not just a traffic light deity. Traffic lights call for commitments, not “personal exploration.” God, however, calls for both.
Christians know that God is the boss, inside and out. He loves us and allows us to walk with Him down roads that may include a few traffic lights. Our walk begins with our honest repentance, a renouncing of our sin and a turn to a new direction. We follow His lead, willingly, trusting Him as our guide.
God is not a policeman trying to catch us doing wrong. Rather, He wants to rescue us from our deadly sins (Romans 6:23). He is “not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He “desires ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”(1 Timothy 2:4).
Christians believe that God went to great lengths to provide forgiveness for our sins. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).
Here are a few more New Testament lines to trigger reflection (see them in context for best understandig):
“Everything that does not come from faith is sin.” Paul, Romans 14:23
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4:17
“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” 1 John 3:4.
Report comment to moderator
Gordon: YOU may stand before the Great White Throne, but according to the Bible Christians will be appearing before the Judgement Seat of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Rio (119): What is your view of a just war? …
Frank: To me, the shortest, simplest way to describe a just war is a war of defense.
But of course, there’s more to what’s called “just war theory” (or “just war doctirne”) than that. Here’s a quick overview of the generally agreed-upon tenets of JWT:
[Full disclosure: The following verbiage is taken from the article "Challenging Dr. James Dobson And His Just War Theory" by Michael Gaddy. You can also find scads of articles on Just War Theory on-line.]
• Just Cause: War is justified “only by the injustice of an aggressor.” War is not justifiable ad vindicandas offensiones (to punish someone for offending behavior), but only ad repellendas injurias (to repel injury and aggression). [IOW, the war must be in response to an attack which has already occurred, or to pre-empt an attack in progress before it actually occurs -- e.g., sending fighter planes out to meet enemy bombers rather than waiting until the bombers actually reach your territory and release their bombs. Also, a Q: What aggression against the US did Iraq commit or plan that justified our invasion? -- Frank]
• Right Intention: The objective of state violence must be to establish or to restore a just peace. The intention must not be mere vengeance or vendetta.
• Comparative Justice and Proportionality: Parties to a conflict must limit their objectives to the relative gravity of the injury being redressed. Violence must not pass a point where it exceeds in injustice the original injury incurred. [Q: When we invaded Iraq, exactly what injustice or injury to America were we allegedly redressing? -- Frank]
• Last Resort: Even when necessity demands it, war is a tragedy to be avoided at all costs, save justice. An offended nation must not rush to war, but must instead exhaust every peaceful means to secure justice, e.g., diplomatic negotiation and extended inspections, before resorting to physical combat. Augustine wrote that the greater glory in militarism was “merited not by killing men with swords, but by waging war with words, and by achieving peace by peace itself.” [Note that, even though American and UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq and finding no WMDs, George Bush ordered them out in order for us to begin the invasion because the world knew Iraq had WMDs! -- Frank]
… more to follow.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s grant the injustice of the current war in order to move toward your contention that resistance is biblically required should the draft occur.
ISTM the test for when one refuses to serve (particularly when ordered) requires more than merely a conviction of the injustice of the war. How do you answer the point that we never see an admonition to active duty Roman army members who are professing belief and receiving instruction, to leave their posts, despite Rome’s avid conquistadorial pursuits in the first century?
Report comment to moderator
ISTM — What does this mean?
Report comment to moderator
ISTM = It Seems To Me
Report comment to moderator
Rio asked: “Anon.,do you have any documented cases of Bill O’Reilly’s many “lies and slanders?”
Sure. There are lots to choose from. Not even sure where to begin. The Google is your friend. Here’s a good starting point with documentation.
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/billoreilly
And here is the top ten lies that earned him Misinformer of The Year in 2004.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230006
O’Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn’t oppose 9-11 Commission. O’Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards ‘04 TV ad highlighting Bush’s opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)
O’Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O’Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: “They did have ricin up there in the north — so why are you discounting that so much?” In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)
O’Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O’Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O’Reilly’s claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq’s supposed involvement in terrorism — claims O’Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)
O’Reilly fabricated “Paris Business Review” as source for success of French boycott. O’Reilly falsely claimed “they’ve lost billions of dollars in France according to ‘The Paris Business Review’” due to an American boycott he advocated of French imports. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named “The Paris Business Review.” (4/27/04)
O’Reilly cited phony stats to argue that taxes on rich are excessive. O’Reilly tried to “blow off” the argument that wealthy Americans ought to pay more taxes by citing phony statistics about the tax burden the rich currently bear. (6/30/04)
O’Reilly confused on elementary economics. O’Reilly told a caller on his radio show, “We [the United States] have a trade deficit with everybody, because everybody wants our stuff, and we’re not wild about snails” — indicating that he doesn’t know the definition of “trade deficit” and implying that the United States runs a trade surplus with France. In fact, in the first four months of 2004, the United States had a $3 billion trade deficit with France. (6/10/04)
O’Reilly doctored quotation to suggest Soros wished his own father dead. During his smear campaign against progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros, O’Reilly doctored a 1995 quotation by Soros to make it seem as if Soros wished his own father dead. (6/1/04)
O’Reilly questioned if Kennedy would show up to Democratic convention … as Kennedy spoke behind him. O’Reilly teased an upcoming segment of The O’Reilly Factor, broadcast live from the Democratic National Convention, by saying of convention speaker Senator Edward Kennedy: “When we come back, we’ll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a while, if he shows up.” In fact, Kennedy had already shown up and had been speaking for several minutes, as O’Reilly need only have turned around to see. (7/27/04)
O’Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O’Reilly claimed that Democrats “lost votes from four years ago”; that “18- to 24[-year-old]s didn’t go” to the polls; and that “[c]ommitted Republicans didn’t carry the day for the president; independents did.” All three claims are false. (11/4/04)
O’Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn’t create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: “Socialistic” French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are “government-controlled,” but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)
Report comment to moderator
Just War theory:
St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430), an influential bishop in the fourth century church, believed that war was always result of sin. Yet, in some cases, it might be necessary to wage a just war against the forces of sin and evil.
Since the restoration of peace sometimes calls for practical resistance to wickedness, Augustine (and others who followed) offered a theological framework for waging a just war.
Conditions for a Just War:
1. Public Authority. A just war must be waged by the proper authority. Paul’s instruction in Romans 13 was that we submit to the God-ordained governing authorities. Vigilantism is not an option. To quote Augustine, “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”
2. Just Cause. A just war must rise from a proper cause. The objective of a just war is to protect innocent life, defend human rights, punish injustice and restore peace. For Augustine, the cause of maintaining peace was not merely proper, it was an obligation for a leader.
3. Just Motive. A just war must be waged with right intentions, not vindictive motives. This point effects both the manner of fighting as well as the motives. Cruelty, restlessness, revenge, and lust for domination are all unjust motives. Political motives should not extend beyond peace-keeping protection for the common good.
4. Last Resort. Force is justified only as a last resort, when peaceful alternatives have been exhausted and no other viable options are perceived. Obviously, this is a subjective call.
As centuries passed, other principles for a just war have emerged:
5. Probability of Success. A just war demands that there be a reasonable likelihood that war will achieve its aims. Even if the conditions above are met and losing is still a sure thing, there is no excuse for driving men to their deaths.
6. Comparative Justice. Beyond the odds for victory, there must also be a realistic expectation that this victory in war will end more evil than the war itself causes. The harm caused by a just war must not surpass the harm caused by the evil itself. Again, defining the word “realistic” is the rub.
7. Proportionality. Unnecessary violence is forbidden. Excessive fear-mongering and inflating the danger are illegitimate. Defining “excessive” is the rub.
8. Discrimination. Non-combatants must never be intentionally targeted. Indiscriminate killing of the innocent is prohibited. In fact, pains must be taken to identify and protect them. This is not easy when your enemy is evil enough to dress as civilians and use them as shields.
9. Aspire for Reconciliation. A realistic hope and a plan for reconciliation should remain on the table throughout the effort and after victory. Vengeance should not cripple this plan.
Report comment to moderator
Opps. Got cut off. Here’s the rest of the list:
O’Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O’Reilly claimed that Democrats “lost votes from four years ago”; that “18- to 24[-year-old]s didn’t go” to the polls; and that “[c]ommitted Republicans didn’t carry the day for the president; independents did.” All three claims are false. (11/4/04)
O’Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn’t create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: “Socialistic” French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are “government-controlled,” but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)
Report comment to moderator
In reality, there is no “certified” list of just war conditions. The issue is too complex for that. Theory and practice are hard to reconcile, especially in the realm of war. Modern technology, for example, has complicated just war theory. The potential for random or mass destruction has increased dramatically. A tiny germ or chemical can do great damage.
Remaining problems:
1. To what degree can we respond to real evil when we do not know its source?
2. How far can we go to seek life-saving intelligence (torture, bribery, etc.)? How do we know it is life-saving?
3. What about the pre-emptive use of force to save lives? Such actions are often based on speculation over threats.
4. Can a modern army cross borders with peace-keeping self-defense as their main motive?
5. Who should get the blame when non-combatants are accidentally killed; those who use civilians as shields or those who wield the weapon that killed them?
6. Can we both love and kill our enemies at the same time? Does loving our enemy mean we must allow them kill the innocent?
7. What about God? Do we trust weapons and human strategy more than God? To what extent can we look beyond imminent danger and trust the bigger picture to Him?
A pacifist holds that no conditions justify the use of force.
Report comment to moderator
At least O’Reilly has enough integrity to use his name and stand by it. I trust him a lot more than someone who is too ashamed of their communication to use a consisten identity.
Report comment to moderator
pentamom (130): Let’s grant the injustice of the current war in order to move toward your contention that resistance is biblically required should the draft occur.
Frank: I’m sorry, but I haven’t contended for such a “biblical requirement.” One man’s conscience may allow him to obey that order, while another man’s conscience may not. “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls …” (Romans 14:4).
What I have contended for (in other WMB threads, not in this one) is that people whose consciences convince them of the injustice of a particular war, or of the injustice of conscription, etc. — that these people ought to resist those injustices with civil disobedience. “But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). If he who eats in doubt is condemned, how much more so he who kills in doubt!
Depending on the individual, the convictions of his conscience, the nature of the injustice he faces, his personal or family circumstances, etc., just how such a resistance would be mounted would almost certainly vary.
Two members of the very same church might come to quite different conclusions re. the justnes of a war, or of a renewed draft, etc. The important thing is for people to be aware that God does not require unquestioning obedience to the commands of the civil magistrate apart from the dictates of one’s conscience.
pentamom (130): ISTM the test for when one refuses to serve (particularly when ordered) requires more than merely a conviction of the injustice of the war.
Frank:
Pray tell, then: What additional criteria would you propose?
Report comment to moderator
Rio (119): What is your view of a just war? …
Frank: Joel Mark did a fine job of finishing up for me at (134).
Rio (119): I agree that if our country declared war on another for some completely illegitimate or wrong reason, and then instituted the draft, if I were drafted, I wouldn’t go either.
Frank: Set aside the draft issue for a moment. You may not be aware, but there are numerous military members, either whose consciences have convinced them that our invasion and continued presence in Iraq constitute unjust war (i.e., they are selective consciencious objectors); or who have become pacifists. They have sought to act in accord with their consciences (requested transfers, tried to resign their commissions, sought discharge from the military), and many of them have been persecuted or prosecuted for their decisions.
Rio (119): Like the others, I say, we are commanded in the Bible to respect and honor [i.e., to obey -- Frank] our authorities, unless it is in direct conflict with scripture (that should be easy to discern).
Frank: If our government requires people (by conscription) to fight and kill, in causes that they believe are unwarranted, wouldn’t such fighting and killing be (to them) grievous sin?
Put another way: Does Scripture allow governments to require their people to sin, whether by injury and murder, or even worshipping false gods? Or does Scripture require people to obey their governments, even when doing so would constitute sin for them?
Report comment to moderator
“At least O’Reilly has enough integrity to use his name and stand by it. I trust him a lot more than someone who is too ashamed of their communication to use a consisten identity.”
Joel, nobody really cares who or what nonsense you believe. You’ve shown yourself to be willfully ignorant on many occassions and this is just another one. Run along. I was answering a question from Rio, not you.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see why I *should* stipulate your #2. Of course, if I do, you win all the cookies. But I think that it is not totally obvious that it is murder to shoot someone who is shooting back at you, just because it is someone’s evil use of authority that has put you there in the first place.
Again, I ask you why Cornelius and the soldiers John the Baptist counseled at their own request were not told to leave their posts, or at least, to put it in your terms, (which I think really adds up to the same thing) were not properly instructed that continuing to serve constituted murder so that their consciences would obligate them to leave. If it really follows that participating as a non-policy making soldier in unjust war equals murder, one wonders why John and Jesus did not take care that their followers’ consciences were properly informed of that vitally important moral truth.
Report comment to moderator
#132 – TY!
Report comment to moderator
Nah. There are so many acronyms these days who could know them all….
Report comment to moderator
#128–I just talked with Jesus–he confirmed that the judgment seat is white–and told you to stop “noodling” and reread the Book of Revelation–forwards and backwards–just to alleviate your confusion
Report comment to moderator
#137–O’Reilly uses up most of his integrity when he says his name–and uses up the rest in out of court settlements (He’s a bum in an expensive suit)
Report comment to moderator
#134–Ah yes–the just war–and all the flowing demagogary–that opens the door to atrocity–and the sad reality for all those enter–that there is no justice in any war–no matter how it is felt to be necessary
Necessary War
The only good to be found
in the necessary war,
is in the end to that war,
Justice won’t be
in the means of men
that is madness,
Only in the realm of peace,
at a necessary high frequency
of consciousness,
where true conscience still dwells,
can platonic virtue be considered,
For war, per se,
is low-vibratory fear,
a constructed human abomination
spitting poison in the face of love,
fueled by all forms of desperation
and ill-conceived rationales,
Protect yourself, dear sons of God,
from the malice of the world,
but don’t become the enemy
you seek protection from,
Rather, find strength and solace
in atonement with the White Throne
that dictates the ultimate judgment
of compassion
for both friend and foe.
Gordon Neumann
2/18/2007
Report comment to moderator
pentamom (141): I don’t see why I *should* stipulate your #2 [at post (138)]. … I think that it is not totally obvious that it is murder to shoot someone who is shooting back at you, just because it is someone’s evil use of authority that has put you there in the first place [my italics - Frank].
Frank: Excuse me, but I think that it is completely, entirely and glaringly obvious.
Using your words: Somebody’s evil use of authority has put you (a free moral agent) in a situation where somebody is shooting back at you because you are there shooting at them justification.
Scenario A: A corrupt police officer compels a subordinate to participate with him in a bank robbery. In the course of the robbery, a bank guard fires at the robbers. The subordinate returns fire, killing the guard. Is he guilty of murder? Or, since he “is shooting at someone who is shooting back him, just because someone’s evil use of authority has put him there in the first place,” is only the corrupt superior culpable?
Scenario B: America is invaded by another country without just cause. American soldiers and civilians shoot back at the invaders. Now explain to me, why aren’t members of the invading force guilty of murder for the deaths of any Americans they kill?
Oh, that’s right, Romans 13:1 — they were subjecting themselves to the higher powers!
It seems to me that your overbroad misapplication of Romans 13:1 negates the prosecutions of German war criminals at Nuremberg. (You remember, the guys who were “only following orders”?)
So, which is it, pentamom?
Does Romans 13:1 require citizens and soldiers to submit themselves to the higher powers, always and in every circumsatnce?
Or, was the judgment at Nuremberg — that “I was only following orders” does not absolve an individual from responsibility for their criminal acts — just?
I am not an anarchist. I believe Romans 13:1. But I also believe that the whole counsel of Scripture teaches us that there are times when, in order to obey God, we must disobey the powers that be.
And in the context of this thread, I’m discussing two possible scenarios when a Christian’s conscience could compel him to disobey “the powers that be” in order to obey God:
1) Conscription: The Christian bears God’s image and inscription, not Caesar’s. Which is to say, we belong to God, not Caesar. Thus, in order to obey Christ’s command to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto God the things that are God’s,” a Christian could very well make the argment that his life is not Caesar’s, and that he is not available to Caesar to kill for him.
2) Conscientious Objection to Unjust War: When a nation’s military is used for what a person’s conscience convinces him is an unjust war, he ought to refuse to fight in it. Killing others — most notably, non-combatants — in an unjust war constitutes unjust killing, and a person who opposes unjust killing should obey God (”Do no murder”) rather than Caesar (”kill our enemies”).
Incidentally, I’m still mulling ovver your questions at (130) and (141) re. the apparent lack of advice to newly-believing Roman soldiers to leave the soldiery. I hope to reply to them shortly.
Grace and peace …
Report comment to moderator
Correction to (147):
Report comment to moderator
One of the many ways in which we understand ourselves is to allow others to ask us clarifying questions. Today I had that experience and then had the additional frustrating experience of forgetting the responses and questions…. Oh for a tape recorder at times….
Nevertheless I shall attempt to revise my question again; What is the proper basis for true Christian faith?
In a previous explanation, I attempted to define what I meant by certain terms. I neglected to define “faith”.
Faith, in the Christian sense, is a twofold proposition. Simply put, it is belief and trust. It is first, a belief in the truth of Christianity (or Christ), and secondly it is trust in the work of Christ. The demons reportedly have the first part of this, which is belief in God (or Christ). In order to have saving faith, you must also have trust in Christ.
In view of this, I will attest that I struggle with both parts of this, but mostly with the first aspect. I struggle with the second primarily because of the first.
So let me revise my question a bit.
What is the proper biblical approach to arriving at an assurance that Christianity is true?
In wording my question this way, I assume that there is a rational approach that is biblical, of course… you may challenge that if you wish.
I also assume that you must first come to an assurance that Christianity is true in order to trust in it’s truth claims. I also realize that this method, or approach, can be challenged. I’m also asking in part whether this approach is correct. Is this the correct biblical approach, or is it, as I think Lesslie Newbigin seems to suggest, that in order to come to an assurance of the truth of Christianity, one must first trust unprovable (by finite imperfect beings at least) assumptions or beliefs, and simultaneously act upon them, in order to know the truth of them?
I think two slogans of some early Christians are worth contemplating…
St. Augustine used this as his slogan: Credo ut intelligam. (I believe in order that I may understand.)
St. Anselm put it this way: Fides quaerens intellectum. (Faith seeking understanding.)
I think I shall post this in tomorrow’s whirled views…
Report comment to moderator
Great comments on this thread, pentamom!
Report comment to moderator
mmmmmwah!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!