WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
RT @acts29: John Calvin is still dead (~500 years) and Jesus is still alive (~2000 years). Just sayin'
Politically confused Christians
It makes perfect sense that Obama is courting, and will win the support of, many young evangelicals in November. Many Gen-Xers and Millennials are exhausted by a Christianity that does nothing but throw rocks at “da-big-bad-culture” and, for some 40 years, seems to care more about gaining power in the federal government than loving and serving their neighbor. Obama has wisely tapped into the angst of an entire generation of people who heard sermons about abortion on “Right-To-Life Sunday” but never heard sermons about Christians needing to fight for children forced into sex slavery.
Why is sex slavery not a “Right-To-Life” issue?
The religious right revolution of the 1980s was witnessed by a generation who now understand, in adulthood, that being a Republican and a Christian are not necessarily synonymous. As a matter of fact, the only political party with values consistent with Christian political thought over the centuries is the Constitution Party. Some have lamented the seemingly blind allegiance by Christians and others to a Republican party that many have argued is moving closer and closer toward big-government statism. But is there really any political party that consistently holds to the priorities of the Kingdom?
The Constitution Party has the following seven principles:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
So why aren’t Christians, en masse, joining the Constitution Party? It may have something to do with the fact that for most Christians, our theology really does not inform our politics. Politics and faith are two unrelated compartments for most of us, if we’re honest. This compartmentalization, in part, explains why so many evangelicals uncritically embrace the socialistic and Marxist visions of Jim Wallis, Wendell Berry, Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, and so on.
At least in the U.K., leftist Christians are honest about their socialism and have formed the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM). The Christian socialists have “a radical commitment to social justice, to protecting the environment and to fostering peace and reconciliation.” Sound familiar? ”We believe that ‘loving our neighbour’ in the fullest sense involves struggling for a fair and just society, one in which all can enjoy the ‘fullness of life’ Jesus came to announce,” CSM declares.
Jim Wallis’ Sojourners group, “Christians for Justice and Peace,” also has a mission “to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.” Why don’t we just call it for what it really is? Christian socialism.
Regardless of what happens in November, Christian voting trends in this election season reveal a need for more teaching about God’s desires for His world and the church’s role in building civil society. While it could be good that Christians are all over the political map in this political season, it could also be a sign that we’re all confused at the moment.
back to top122 Comments to “Politically confused Christians”
The relationship between principle and policy is rarely if ever direct. Rather, principle drives a number of different policy positions, and so in turn one would expect that differing parties may appeal legitimately to the same principles.
Given the disarray of Protestant ecclesiology, there seems to be little room for complaint about the disarray in our politics.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is doing a masterful job of talking (one must say obfuscating). He uses a lot of Christian terminology and ‘feel good’ phrases and lulls an inattentive person (or one unfamiliar with his clear and consistant record as a legislator) into thinking that he will advance the listener’s interests rather than acting contrary to them.
If he pulls this off, the people will deserve what they get.
Report comment to moderator
So why aren’t Christians, en masse, joining the Constitutional Party?
Because I didn’t know about it until you mentioned it. Thanks. Looks interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony Bradley: Why is sex slavery not a “Right-To-Life” issue?
Frank: Indeed.
And to take that a step further:
When my fellow Bible-believing Christians begin frankly to discuss aggressive war — waged against a nation that neither attacked nor threatened us — as a “Right-to-Life” issue, then I’ll begin to believe they’re sincere about the matter.
Little American babies in the womb are so helpless. So defenseless. So American.
But little Iraqi babies, whether in the womb or out of it? Not so much.
PS: Not to put too fine a point on it, but it’s the Constitution — not “Constitutional” — Party.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: I’m reading a book right now while on vacation here in the capital of the Old Confederacy (Virginia) that’s titled Half Hours In Southern History
This book should be a must-read for all American schoolchildren, as it gives a fair and balanced view of the South’s “Constitutional” part in U.S. history, from the Revolutionary War up until this book was written in 1907.
I’m a McCain support (for now, at least), but am learning more and more about how far this country has strayed from her origins.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
And just why would you say that the Constitution Party is not Constitutional?
Report comment to moderator
Anthony Bradley: But is there really any political party that consistently holds to the priorities of the Kingdom?
Frank: For what it’s worth, the very first plank in the Constitution Party’s platform reads as follows:
That doesn’t mean that they claim their perspective is the biblical perspective. But it does give Christians of goodwill a common basis upon which to start the discussions on political matters:
The lordship of Christ and the truth of the Scriptures.
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
Just correcting Mr. Bradley on the party;s name, is all. Not offering an opinion on their “constitutionality” …
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
Excellent.
I might also recommend Rev. Steve Wilkins’ audio series, “America: The First 350 Years”:
http://tinyurl.com/3zeyff
Report comment to moderator
Bradley,
I’d say YOU are the one who’s confused! It does not make “perfect sense” for Christians of any age to vote for Obama.
“Gen-Xers and Millennials are exhausted by a Christianity that does nothing but throw rocks at “da-big-bad-culture””
But unfortunately the culture IS bad, very bad. If you can’t see that, I feel sorry for you.
Report comment to moderator
There is always the possibility that Obama notwithstanding, Christians can bring the Democrats back from the far left.
Report comment to moderator
”We believe that ‘loving our neighbour’ in the fullest sense involves struggling for a fair and just society, one in which all can enjoy the ‘fullness of life’ Jesus came to announce,”
Most people on each side of the political spectrum agree with some sort of “loving our neighbor”. The difference is whose responsibility it is.
I get annoyed when socialist liberals say that conservative Christians have no compassion for the needy. It’s not a lack of compassion–it’s a lack of faith in government’s compassion. I think tending to the needy is a God-given duty, but I don’t think the government should FORCE us to do so via our tax dollars. Frankly, I don’t AGREE with how govt uses my dollars, as they have shown time and time again that they are poor handlers of money. I would much rather pour my charitable donations into the charity of my choice. With the current high taxes (thanks to social programs), the amount I can give on my own is limited.
NO CHANCE I’d vote for Obama, who wants to tell me who deserves my money. And people like Obama make it difficult for my family to donate to those organizations who are much wiser spenders.
Report comment to moderator
Point of clarification: When I wrote above that I’m a McCain support (for now, at least), I did NOT mean there’s any chance whatsoever I would vote for a socialist such as Obama.
Report comment to moderator
I like the anti-statism of the CP and I like Ron Paul (as many of them do). However, if they did get enough folks to come into power, I fear they’d replace our overly bureaucratic state, with a frighteningly theocratic state.
That’s why I am a libertarian and suggest those who believe in freedom and pluralism, but want smaller government to vote Libertarian as a protest, not CP.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, there is scant evidence for the proposition that Christians can or will bring the Democrats back from the far-left. The Christians on the left and the right just now are being taken for a shoddy ride by Obama who favors leftist positions on abortion homosexuality, taxes and trade. His whole record in the past reeks of far-left positions, notwithstanding his present faux lurch to the right.
Also, Anthony Bradley is being rhetorical with his claim that Christians are merely throwing rocks at the and for forty years have been interested only in gaining power. Pres. Bush and other conservative Christian Republicans have effective records on the issue of stem-cell research, lowering taxes, advancing international trade trade, and on judicial appointments. Both Justice s Roberts and Alito have made a real difference in Supreme Court decisions.
As to the Constitution Party, it has wonderfully high Christian ideals but has even less real political support than Ron Paul’s feckless party Christians might feel good by joining the Constitution Party, though in reality they would consign their votes to the dust. The Republican with all its warts is far more susceptible to Christian influence than any other party on the horizon.
How ironic it is that Anthony Bradley confuses support for Obama with advancing the Christian cause. He cleverly accuses the Republicans of somehow supporting sex slavery when in fact there is not a shred of evidence for the proposition.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony
“Angst” ? -
Yes we hear loud and clear about the killing of unborn infants on “Right to Life Sunday” does this bother you? Should we soft peddle it, exchange it for another problem which exists, which NO ONE would ignore, or call unimportant?
Are you aware, or has it dawned on you, that many people in Evangelical Churches do much to end “sex slavery” in other countries, to help children escape the cruel treatment they receive? Sex slavery is dealt with in this country by law. There are groups of Christians who go out and do all they can in areas that are suspect, of girls and boys, or anyone who is being made to sell their bodies.
Anthony, before you jump all over abortion vs. sex slavery you need to RESEARCH just what is being done, and then ask yourself, “if this is important to me, what am I DOING TO HELP” instead of interjecting a ‘preachy’ outburst.
Do you know what groups are doing work in ‘forced sex slavery’ either here in the USA or abroad? Check it out!
Report comment to moderator
KRM #2, wrote; “Obama is doing a masterful job of talking (one must say obfuscating).”
I don’t think so. It is simply that the mainstream media are totally in the tank for him and are refusing to challenge the huge unbridgable gap between Obama’s rhetoric and his record.
But I agree with the gist of KRM’s insightful comments at #2.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of politically confused Christians, here is a tidbit from the Obama repertory from NRO:
I hesitate to poke at Obama for offering a kind word, but in that letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Obama further muddies his position on gay marriage:
Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.
How this squares with his “I don’t believe in gay marriage” statement from March 2, 2008 is not clear.
Is his position essentially, “I don’t believe that your relationship is really a marriage, but congratulations on your marriage?”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – never better words were spoken. My prayer is that they are heard by more than the members of the choir.
Report comment to moderator
re #18 His position is “get elected” by any means necessary.
Reminds me of the Clinton campaign in ‘92.
Report comment to moderator
Bradley writes:
Many Gen-Xers and Millennials are exhausted by a Christianity that does nothing but throw rocks at “da-big-bad-culture” and, for some 40 years, seems to care more about gaining power in the federal government than loving and serving their neighbor.
This is a grossly incorrect statement and Bradley should be ashamed for mischaracterizing Christianity as nothing more than a political movement greedy for power.
I don’t know where he has been, but apparently not with the hundreds of thousands of us who have adopted children otherwise destined for death by our liberal neighbors. We have drained our savings, mortgaged our homes, and spent infinite time picking up the pieces of lives abandoned by this rotten culture of liberalism that currently infects our once honorable country.
Apparently he has not been with the churches who sponsor Christian schools where teachers work tirelessly and sacrificially to educate our children in a godly manner.
Apparently he has not been in a church where the congregation tithes and contributes enormous percentages of their personal income to send their missionary sons and daughters to places like Afghanistan where they are sometimes murdered by the very people they are attempting to help.
I could go on and on, but obviously Mr. Bradley is too busy throwing his own rocks to care about the Christians he condescendingly denigrates from his ivory tower seminary.
Report comment to moderator
#4, Frank wrote: “When my fellow Bible-believing Christians begin frankly to discuss aggressive war — waged against a nation that neither attacked nor threatened us…”
Frank, Iraq is our ALLY! We are NOT fighting against Iraq at all. We did fight against Saddam’s Iraq (who DID threaten us severely in many ways) but that yielded a quick and effective victory. This war in Iraq now of which you speak is a whole different mission and I think you need to start considering actual facts rather than false and defeatist talking points. Our mission in Iraq is just and I admire those accomplishing it at great risk to their lives and comfort.
Frank, if you are a fellow believer, then where is your honesty? It IS our incredible concern for the well being of “little Iraqi babies” (as you called them) that has us in Iraq now fighting vicious murderous cowardly terrorists who are trying to slaughter “little Iraqi babies.” And we are making serious sacrifices to stand up for the survival AND future of those Iraqi babies.
You beat everything, Frank.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible says very little on taxes and trade. I know the Christian Right derives a position from the Biblical injunctions against stealing, but no where in the Bible are taxes treated as theft. This is an association that has simply become part of the culture of the Christian Right and is assumed rather than defended. In fact, Christ pretty much dismisses as unimportant the argument about whether taxation was unfair: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
Leftists can be Christians, too, Peter. It only requires two simple propositions: (1) Abortion is not murder; (2) it is not the state’s business to enforce specifically religious statutes such as the prohibition against homosexuality. If you think that’s hard, consider that the Right has already accepted two very similar propositions: (1) Wars of aggression are not murder; (2) it is not the state’s business to enforce specifically religious statutes such as the commands to provide for the poor, the alien, the outcast, the widow, and the orphan.
You are saying that if Christians wish to wield any political influence, they must sometimes sacrifice their ideals to political expediency. If that is the case, you have no grounds from which to criticize the Christian who is willing to swallow Obama’s pro-abortion stance in order to stop the killing and brutalizing of thousands of Iraqi civilians, prevent a second aggressive war against Iran, restore fiscal responsibility lost in trillions of dollars of unsupervised war spending, and implement measures to provide for the poor.
Bradley is right. The “Christian politics” of you, Michael Martin, Llama, Victoria, and Joel Mark is a thing that is deeply unappealing to Christians of my generation. You miss that he’s not necessarily endorsing our perspective, just describing a shift that is taking place right under your feet.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony
YOU WRITE: ….
“This compartmentalization, in part, explains why so many evangelicals uncritically embrace the socialistic and Marxist visions of Jim Wallis, Wendell Berry, Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, and so on.”
These are a group of individuals who are for the most part immersed in the “Emergent Church Movement” – anyone who is associated with a strong Evangelical is not fooled.
You seem to delight in constructing criticism of Evangelicals, as though we aren’t able to think for ourselves, OR we are so ignorant we can’t see through socialistic and Marxist ‘thought’ – where do you come up with such nonsense, except through the endless survey’s you believe to be true, or the group you mingle with, sitting around making small talk, and then writing articles which have no substance?
Critical THINKING should start with YOU, when you have mastered it, then speak to those of us in a manner which is respectful, not thinking yourself to be wise and knowing that of which you have NO CLUE!
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
Where are you at? If you are in Richmond or near by for your vacation, I would like to hook up with you and buy you a nice non mass produced beer you favor and chit chat if you have time. I have been looking forward to doing so for some time – at least since you turned me onto WMB.
We Christians on the right have had it all backward for some time as the Republican Party has moved away from some of core beliefs but moving to the Constitutional Party isn’t the best answer or the less risky solution.
The ‘both and’ solution is to get the Republican Party back to where it was (and where the Constitutional party is now) by working on the inside of it to fix it. Then the Constitution Party will have no problem merging back with it since that is where they split from in the first place – and with good reason – even though doing so was wrongly ego and pride based – the split may be what gets the Republican Party back to its correct values.
Even a minor split on the right today will ensure Marxism takes firm hold in America once again.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (#23) writes:
The “Christian politics” of you, Michael Martin, Llama, Victoria, and Joel Mark is a thing that is deeply unappealing to Christians of my generation.
From your comment I take it that you consider yourself a Christian. So, before we go any further with a fruitless discussion and so we can know where you are coming from, tell me, what is a Christian?
Report comment to moderator
Anthony
YOU WRITE:…. “Obama has wisely tapped into the angst of an entire generation of people who heard sermons about abortion on “Right-To-Life Sunday” but never heard sermons about Christians needing to fight for children forced into sex slavery.”
What kinds of crappy churches are these people putting up with? My church has been active against slavery for the 30 years I’ve been there.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
I don’t think I’m coming from any place different than you are. A Christian is one who has confessed his sinful nature to God and trusted that Christ is the propitiation for his sins and reconciles him to the Father.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony Bradley wrote; “Many Gen-Xers and Millennials are exhausted by a Christianity that does nothing but throw rocks at ‘da-big-bad-culture’”
1. The phrase “does nothing but” is downright irresponsible to either aver or believe. That is shallow-minded and delusional. Michael Martin dealt with it well at #21.
2. It may well be true that many Gen-Xers and Millennials are adopting a certain disdain toward Christianity but it is because they themselves are increasingly enslaved to and addicted by the secularist cultural trends and values that genuine Christianity is called to faithfully resist. In my view, the contemporary church has been a more accommodating to culture than resistant to it. But both factors have been at play.
3. Bradley’s comment about Christianity seeming to “care more about gaining power in the federal government than loving and serving their neighbor,” is, in my view, far and away more true of the secular and religious left. They just hate it that the right has ANY influence in the political arena at all, so they disparage it constantly.
4. Victoria nailed many good points about the sexual slavery comment at #16.
5. Bradley sounds on target with his comments on rising Christian socialism.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (22): We did fight against Saddam’s Iraq (who DID threaten us severely in many ways) …
Frank: President Bush did not take the country to war in self-defense, but under false pretenses. Exihibit A:
On October 7, 2002, Bush spoke to the American people from Cincinnati, OH. He said that Saddam Hussein posed a unique and imminent threat to our nation:
Only trouble is … gee whiz … just six days prior to that, on October 1, CIA sent Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a top-secret report that represented the opinions of all sixteen US intelligence agencies re. whether or not Hussein posed an imminent threat to America.
On page 8, it clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country; that he would only be a threat to us if he feared that America was about to attack him.
(And the events following our build-up and invasion of Iraq even testify that Saddam posed no threat. Remember Saddam’s “Red Line” in the first week or two of the war? Our commanders surmised that, if/when our troops crossed that “Red Line,” Saddam would almost certainly unleash the fury of his WMDs against them. HINT: The predicted WMD attack never occurred.)
So it is beyond dispute that, when George Bush told us on October 7, 2002 that Saddam Hussein posed a uniquely imminent threat against America, he told us the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him.
Thus, our invasion of Iraq was aggressive, not defensive.
And thus, the innocent Iraqis who were killed or maimed in that invasion speak in stark testimony against the purported “pro-life” sensibilities of Pres. Bush and the GOP — and the evangelical conservatives who support their unjustified belligerence against Iraq.
In the face of our unjustified war of aggresion against Iraq, all the talk of evangelical conservatives about “pro-life” Bush, “pro-life” McCain and the “pro-life” GOP rings extremely hollow.
Report comment to moderator
no where in the Bible are taxes treated as theft.
Try “The workman is worthy of his hire,” for starters, JJF.
Llama: I’m over near Roanoke, but could meet you in Lynchburg?
Report comment to moderator
jjf (28): A Christian is one who has confessed his sinful nature to God and trusted that Christ is the propitiation for his sins and reconciles him to the Father.
Frank: Oops! Just one little problem there, friend! you forgot the final step: registering Republican. (You know … God’s Own Party?)
Report comment to moderator
“Obama has wisely tapped into the angst of an entire generation of people who heard sermons about abortion on “Right-To-Life Sunday” but never heard sermons about Christians needing to fight for children forced into sex slavery.
Why is sex slavery not a “Right-To-Life” issue?”
Because not too many people disagree that force sex slavery is wrong. Many people are in arguement over a “choice” on abortion…not forced in the least. Pretty apples and oranges. Yeah both important, but one is an actual arguement/issue and the other isnt. Therefore sex slavery gets less coverage.
However, that doesnt mean as others have mentioned that nothing is being done about it. Its just another means of deflecting the issue at hand. But just because one area may not be emphasized as much as another, it doesnt automatically give pass to avoiding the issue of abortion. You dont let a fish off the hook just cause you missed catching the next one to it.
However, I fail to see how most christian conservatives or liberals are “asleep” when it comes to the election. I even doubt many are fooled by Obama or McCain and will actually vote for whomever they feel will represent them and their country the best. I doubt Obama’s courting will end in “marriage” of many evangelicals either. Media shinanigans. Get your broom.
Report comment to moderator
“A Christian is one who has confessed his sinful nature to God and trusted that Christ is the propitiation for his sins and reconciles him to the Father.”
Actually, I’d say that’s what a Christian DOES.
Report comment to moderator
#23, JJF wrote; “The ‘Christian politics’ of you, Michael Martin, Llama, Victoria, and Joel Mark is a thing that is deeply unappealing to Christians of my generation.”
Why, JJF?
I am 53 and I want to pass a free and strong country on to you, JJF. I want you to live in a coutnry that…
* …Treasures the legacies of liberty and love of country that your forebears fought for and tried to pass down to you.
* …Upholds the rule of law with respect for each other and respect for those who uphold the law justly.
* …knows our freedoms and our rights began with our Creator and they are NOT created by a piece of paper signed by human beings.
* …Values our national motto, “In God We Trust,” or at least respects the right of others to value and express that trust in God freely.
* …Seekes to forge one (nation) out of many (E Pluribus Unum), rather than many out of one.
* …Respects the sacredness of human life.
* …Honors the joy, meaning and sacredness of human sexuality and works to channel its expressions into the honorable contect of marriage and family. No nation will ever be stronger than its families. Sexual chaos will kill us slowly.
* …Maintains the lagacy of limited government and free of the burden of oppressive taxation; a legacy intended by our Founding Fathers.
JJF, I cannot force you to take this legacy though, but I can express my desires and convictions freely and so can you. Are those free expressions of mine also unappealing to your generation?
Report comment to moderator
31,
I hesitate to enter the discussion on the Bible & taxes because the Bible can be selectively cited for almost any proposition. But, even though I’m a libertarian who wishes we had a God-given right to be free from taxes, the Bible is pretty clear that it is a Christian’s duty to pay taxes to Caesar. The Bible, at least in the NT, doesn’t say much about government; but one elementary thing it does say is pay your taxes not just to Godly governments, but to the pagan Caesar. One of the nice things about Christianity is that it’s supposed to be compatible with all sorts of forms of government, including pagan tyranny, non-Christians shouldn’t have to worry about Christians tying to “take over” because there is no Christian duty to take dominion over government, just to submit to it and pay your taxes, whomever that government may be.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I have no problem with an agressive or defensive war if they are for sensible reasons. No WMD’s…okay, but you still ousted a regime that killed tens of thousands, currently establishing a foundation for a representative government, giving greater freedom to its people, keeping terrorists busy for the most part, gaining an ally in a heavily anti american part of the world, potentially increasing the world’s oil supply which also brings wealth to the Iraqi people rather than a dictator.
Then again it could all still fall apart and fail miserably, and maybe it shouldnt have been our job. But we are there now and things are going relatively much better, might as well make the most of it we can.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
Our reasons for taking Saddam out were multi-facited and well justified. He did not comply with any of the terms of the Gulf War treaty and every major nation was convinced he had WMD. While his WMD was not found, we still know that he had every capacisty to rebuild that capaciety at will. And his history showed he did have the will to actually use WMD, which he did on his own people. He was also a supporter of global terrorism, inside and outside his own country.
Saddam was also shooting out our planes flying in a legal zone. Saddam also defied all 16 UN resolutions and 30 nations banded together with us to take him out because they all know what happens when a tyrant is allowed to defy all peace plans and terms like a bandit.
So, our actions were both defensive and pro-active (preventative) and many nations allied with us in taking Saddam out.
Then we did NOT run away and abandon Iraq to the mercy of invaders like Al Qaeda. We stayed to ally with them against those who would butcher them for evil purposes. We were the ones defending the “little Iraqi babies” you spoke of. And we were giving our lives to do it.
So again — Iraq is our ALLY! We are NOT fighting against Iraq at all. Our abiding concern for the well being of “little Iraqi babies” has us in Iraq now fighting very evil jihadists and others who don’t want Iraq to succeed or experience any measure of liberty or prosperity.
THe terrorists are killing the babies on purpose and we are sacrificing our lives to STOP them.
Please get past your apparent disdain for our side enough to admit that.
Report comment to moderator
jjf (23): … no where in the Bible are taxes treated as theft.
outkast (31): Try “The workman is worthy of his hire,” for starters, JJF.
Frank: Forgive my butting in (on a blog?!
), but this is, in fact, an area where my views are currently being challenged — by a Bible-believing (i.e., “conservative”) pastor. (See, e.g., “Gary North Still Begs-the-Question on Theft,” by Rev. Doug Jones.)
First off, the passage you cite mentions neither taxes nor theft. Jesus says it to the seventy disciples before sending them out two by two:
Secondly, while the Bible teaches that there is such a thing as unjust or burdensome taxation (1 Sam. 8, e.g.), it never teaches that taxes are simply theft.
Rather, we are taught two things (pertinent to this issue, anyways) about our money:
1) It really belongs to God, and we are but stewards of it;
2) Taxes are due to rulers for the performance of their lawful duties. In Romans 13, right after describing the task to which God ordains rulers, Paul says:
Now if God tells us that our money is really His, and that taxes are due, where in Scripture do we get the idea that taxes are inherently theft?
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I’d say that’s what a Christian DOES.
You don’t believe in salvation by works, do you Thorn?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
Blah blah blah.
At (22) you said, “We did fight against Saddam’s Iraq (who DID threaten us severely in many ways) …”
But when I bring out evidence that America was taken to war under the false pretense of national defense, then you drop back to the “multi-faceted” reasons behind the invasion.
Simply put, it cannot be denied that we did not invade Iraq for legitimate purposes of national defense.
Bush said the threat was imminent.
We’ve long since found out that there was no threat, imminent or otherwise.
“Pro-life”? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis beg to differ.
Report comment to moderator
Here are a few Bible passages that call for a respect for the worker that would mitigate against an oppressive burden of taxation on the one who honestly earns the money and produces the product.
“The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.” 2 Timothy 2:6.
“Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.” 2 Corinthians 9:6-11.
“…for each one should carry his own load.” Galatians 6:5.
“He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.” Ephesians 4:28.
“Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
“If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
“Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:12.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (38): … every major nation was convinced he had WMD …
Frank: 1) But “every major nation” didn’t see him as an imminent threat, now did they?
2) Whatever WMD we thought SH had or was trying to obtain, the fact remains: His merely having or pursuing weapons was no justification for the invasion.
Bush told America that SH posed a unique and imminent threat, when all the time, he knew better.
False.
Pretenses.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I disagree with you. You brought zero convincing evidence that America was taken to war under the false pretenses. I think that is a lie you have fallen for, though you may believe it sincerely. We had many reasons for deposing Saddam. On just one of those reasons, the universal conviction that Saddam had WMD (left and right) were sincerely held.
I stand by our mission to remove Saddam. And I resent your false and despicable implication at #4 that we don’t care for little Iraqi babies in or out of the womb. That’s certifiably false and you willingness to believe it is disconcerting!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (42): Here are a few Bible passages that call for a respect for the worker that would mitigate against an oppressive burden of taxation on the one who honestly earns the money and produces the product. …
Frank: And with every one of those verses, I agree and concur.
But none of them teach that taxation is inherently theft.
That the Bible “mitigates against an oppressive burden of taxation” (to which I conceded at (39)) is not the same thing as the Bible teaching that taxation is, by its very nature, theft.
The Bible teaches us that taxes are due. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
(BTW, Joel Mark and Outkast: I find it more than interesting that, in past discussions, you have both cited those very same words of Jesus in support of conscription, but you overlook their obvious meaning as re. taxation.)
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Your disconcertment is quite concerting to me.
!!
Report comment to moderator
Saddam was a threat at many levels. He is thus NO LONGER, thanks to President Bush and our allies who removed him for good.
He did have the capacity and will to develop WMD, and that is just one of the threats he posed.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I have never stated that taxation is inherently theft. The Bible sees 10 percent as a resonable burden in ancient Israel and beyond that, depending on many various factors in context, it may begin to approach the bar for thievery.
Frank, regarding your comment about alleged past discussions and the citing some unidentified words of Jesus in support of conscription, I have no ideawhat you are talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (47): He did have the capacity and will to develop WMD, and that is just one of the threats he posed.
Frank: “capacity” + “will” + “to develop” [future tense, duh!]≠ imminent threat.
Report comment to moderator
Dear Gentlemen,
Allow me to interject if I may, for it is both my blessing and my curse to take interest in heated conversations, and, I daresay, to allow my inflated sense of importance to override my inhibitions (I have no idea what any of that meant).
Frank, I don’t think anyone has advocated the abolition of *all* taxes for being unjust by their nature, only, as you seemed to discern, their oppresive degree. I thought I had noticed in another thread that you did, in fact, believe our current level of taxation to have exceeded the scriptural boundary. You remark to JFF, sarcastically, that a Christian is required to register Republican. I think I agree with your sentiment, but isn’t that criticism a little played, like making fun of churches that use banjos and kazoos during “praise” time, or mocking the artless Left Behind series? So we’ve mocked. Now’s the time to make an argument in the affirmative.
And Joel Mark, if you deny Frank has put forth solid evidence of GWB’s faulty pretenses to war, you’re not reading his posts.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (48): Frank, regarding your comment about alleged past discussions and the citing some unidentified words of Jesus in support of conscription, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Frank: If I am mistaken, please forgive me. For the record, here’s what I meant:
In many past discussions here on WMB re. the Bible and conscription, I have had several people claim that “Render unto Caesar” constitutes biblical support for conscription.
To which I have responded, in a nutshell:
Because the Denarius bears Caesar’s image and inscription, Jesus tells us to render it to Caesar in payment of the taxes we owe.
But since all people bear God’s image; and Christians bear His “inscription,” the sign of baptism (or perhaps even the seal of the Holy Spirt), Caesar has no legitimate claim on our lives or labor through conscription.
So this passage doesn’t support conscription, but rather opposes it.
Again, if you’ve never cited this passage in support of conscription, I’m mistaken. Forgive me.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah (50): Frank, I don’t think anyone has advocated the abolition of *all* taxes for being unjust by their nature, only, as you seemed to discern, their oppresive degree.
Frank: Thanks for your gracious interjection.
You’re right, nobody has said anything about the abolition of all taxes. I was merely responding to what I perceived to be Outkast’s implication (at (31), in response to jjf) that all taxes are theft.
Yeah (50): I thought I had noticed in another thread that you did, in fact, believe our current level of taxation to have exceeded the scriptural boundary.
Frank: Yup, I think that was me. Indeed, I called taxes “blood money,” because they are collected by coercion. (Which, I’d like to clarify, is not the same thing as saying “taxes are theft.”)
Yeah (50): You remark to JFF, sarcastically, that a Christian is required to register Republican. … So we’ve mocked. Now’s the time to make an argument in the affirmative.
Frank: On the contrary, I think jjf himself did a fine job at (28) of making an affirmative argument in answer to Michael’s Q. at (26), “What is a Christian?”
Just to be clear, my mockery was directed not at jjf, but at my fellow Bible-believers who cannot possibly fathom that another grace-saved, baptized Bible-believing brother or sister can be a registered Democrat or vote for Obama.
I was converted to Christ 27 years ago. I am not now of precisely the same exact views on things political and theological as I was then. I have changed. (Grown in sanctification, I hope.)
God saves lost liberals just like He saves lost conservatives — by grace through faith in His only Son. My whole point is merely that “voting Republican” is not a fruit of the spirit! (Although I’m sure that even I once thought it was!)
I hopes this helps clarify for you my perspective and intent. If not … grab a rebound.
Report comment to moderator
God saves lost liberals just like He saves lost conservatives — by grace through faith in His only Son. My whole point is merely that “voting Republican” is not a fruit of the spirit! (Although I’m sure that even I once thought it was!)
Amen.
Report comment to moderator
jjf, don’t kid yourself, abortion is a form of murder; marriage laws traditionally ensure the integrity of marriage and provide children with the complementary benefits of a mother and father. The Judeo-Christian tradition, also, favors hard-working people who enjoy the fruits of their labor and are not dependent on any government for their welfare.
Religious Christians and Jews are for the most part charitable, as Michael Martin explained well at #21. I happen to be one of those who tithe along with making substantial annual contributions to other charities including a Christian Academy for mainly black students in Boston
Given the present military and political trajectory, Pres. Bush and his warriors and diplomats bid fair to have liberated Iraq from a brutal dictator and set it on the path to an Arab form of democracy that will have substantial influence in the Middle East. Long before you were born America liberated Europe in WW I and II. We, also, won the Cold War against communism. You appear to suffer the illusions of the Vietnam War syndrome that regards war and military might as evil.
With your rhetoric about unappealing Christian conservatives and shifting ground, you reveal a certain arrogance. Obama might well win this election; we shall see whether in the hard of arena national and international politics he will do better than Pres. Bush. Meanwhile, I should suggest that you be rather more humble about this.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, thanks for the clarification. I, too, should clarify that I did gather your jab was at Christians who have a sacramental view of Republican membership, and not at JFF. I agree, of course. I meant to state that, in my opinion, that criticism is coming to the end of its shelf life. Maybe it used to be a slam dunk, but now the sea has changed, I think…not necessarily for the better–just changed. A significant number of Christians grumble about the poor choice they have in John McCain. They conclude (wrongly) that their only choice is to support him in lieu of his less palatable opponent, but they don’t ascribe Papal authority to him merely because he’s the Republican guy. Besides, no Christian would *really* argue Republican registration is necessary for salvation. He isn’t mistaken about soteriology, but biblical political application.
I agree with you that JFF speaks well in #28. When I say we should make a positive argument, I mean we should articulate a biblical application to the political realm. You’ve done this in some threads here, along with some sites you’ve linked to. The Constitution Party attempts it. Maybe the argument just doesn’t get enough air time.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony
YOU WRITE:….. “Regardless of what happens in November, Christian voting trends in this election season reveal a need for more teaching about God’s desires for His world and the church’s role in building civil society. While it could be good that Christians are all over the political map in this political season, it could also be a sign that we’re all confused at the moment.”
Christ was born into this world, preached/taught and died for our sins on the cross. The LORD Jesus didn’t come to build a civil society, where do you read this in the New Testament? Jesus came to die for our sins, in fact he said:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34
And he told us to:
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15
Anthony, most Evangelical Believers aren’t confused, as you seem to believe, but instead KNOW what they believe and WHY.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
Thank’s again for your gracious clarification.
I linked to Rev. Doug Jones’ blog at (39), and I have to say, he is stretching my categories quite a bit — but all, IMO, from a perspective that assumes and accepts the truth and authority of Scripture.
Jones definitely seems to cut the pie straight down the middle. Check him out:
http://scribblativeagincourting.wordpress.com/
As far as making biblical application in the political realm, I see two (at least) requirements:
1) That the church (in general) and ministers (in particular) begin to speak truth — i.e., prophetically — to powers that be. Despite all his protestations to the contrary, Caesar is not lord, and he must join all men everywhere in bending the knee to the Lord Christ.
2) The hearts of the populace/electorate/citizenry must likewise be turned to Christ, by the preaching of His Gospel and the propagation of right worship around the globe. (Biblical worship poses a real threat to both godless individualism and godless nationalism.) When the people repent and seek God, I suspect that Caesar will, also. (Though perhaps not in our lifetime …)
In the meantime, we (the body of Christ) ought to be doing all things — voting, working, playing and loving — as unto the Lord Christ, realizing that our salvation does not lie in politics.
The writers here at WMB do a good job of reminding us that Obama is not Messiah.
They do a less-than-equal job, IMHO, of pointing out the same thing re. McCain and the GOP. “Abortion! Islamofascism! The Supreme Court! EEK!!”
[sigh]
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (56): The LORD Jesus didn’t come to build a civil society, where do you read this in the New Testament? Jesus came to die for our sins …
Frank: I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. Don’t you think that the Great Commission:
… Don’t you think that obedience to that command eventually results in civil society — not through politics, but through the worldwide spread of the Gospel?
Report comment to moderator
Saddam WAS a WMD. Just ask a free and living Iraqi.
I did.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
That is a great passage of Scripture, but that isn’t “building a civil society” that is going out, preaching the Gospel so that all who believe will be saved. Christ didn’t die for a ‘civil society’ to be incorporated into this world, but that those who Believed might be saved.
We will never see a ‘civil society’ here on earth, this world doesn’t embrace what the Bible teaches for the most part.
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:14
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’m not saying that the Great Commission is all about building a civil society, of course.
But it cannot be denied that, if Christ’s bride is successful in His commission, “civil” society — Christian society — will be a result, to the glory of God.
Children will play with vipers. Sheep will lie down with wolves. Men will beat swords into plows.
Christ commands us to go and make disciples of and baptize all nations by virtue of all authority having been given Him. But you don’t think we will be successful?
Some “authority” He has, huh? Sending us out on a doomed mission.
I’m also intrigued that you think the sole purpose of Christ’s coming was that those who believe might “be saved.” Heaven when we die … great! But no effect on the lives of men and nations?
“I have come that you might have life, and that more abundantly …”
Report comment to moderator
“All authority has been given Me. Teach them to observe all I have commanded you.”
But it’s a fool’s errand.
Sad.
Report comment to moderator
Mickel (59): Saddam WAS a WMD. Just ask a free and living Iraqi.
Frank: Ohh, yeah.
No air force. No WMD. And a rag-tag army.
A real fuhrer, head of an awesome wehrmacht, that one.
Even the neighboring countries weren’t scared of him, and yet Bush tried to make us fear him.
What’s the Proverb say again? “The wicked flee when no one pursues … “
Report comment to moderator
YEAH wrote, “And Joel Mark, if you deny Frank has put forth solid evidence of GWB’s faulty pretenses to war, you’re not reading his posts.”
You are incorrect, YEAH. I have read his posts and I disagree with his claim. Of course I deny that Frank has offered evidence of President Bush’s “pretense.” That cynical charge is scurrilous and without foundation. He acted in the best interest of our country with the best light he had to follow at that moment. To proof pretense is to get into his mind and behind his judgments.
President Bush made his decisions when none of us had the hindsight we think we have now. Reaching back in time to select items of alleged “evidence” (from hundreds of thousands of communications and items of concern) that may have been unintentionally neglected or intentionally doctored since then does not constitute anything near proof of “pretense.”
The vicious, hateful and unfounded claims that President Bush actually acted on pretense to get us into a war for his political gain are nothing but cynical partisan talking points. Such things are what fuel the enormous levels of bitterness and cynicism that mark our political discourse today.
Those who say that Bush lied, are lying.
Report comment to moderator
What President Bush told us, he beleived to be true. So did most all of the world leaders at the time. Millions of different opinions may have existedf existed at the time too and some other opinions were communicated. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the world leaders who decided (along with the US congress) to act to depose Saddam were not acting on the sincere conviction, based on their best judgment from the preponderance of evidence they had, that Saddam was a serious threat. Plus, there were many other factors that added to the reasons to take him out. The world is a better place without him, no matter waht the remaining Saddam sympathizers try to twist out of a revised past.
Report comment to moderator
#32, “Frank: Oops! Just one little problem there, friend! you forgot the final step: registering Republican. (You know … God’s Own Party?)”
I have never met an American who thinks that being a Christian means registering Republican or identifying themself as such, not even to the slightest extent. For cynical sarcasm to work, it has to have a shred of truth to it, and this unkind statement lacks that.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 61
YOU WRITE:…. “Children will play with vipers. Sheep will lie down with wolves. Men will beat swords into plows.”
Yes, but WHEN WILL THIS HAPPEN FRANK? We need to keep this in context with today, and when WHAT you have posted will transpire?
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 61
YOU WRITE:…. “I’m also intrigued that you think the sole purpose of Christ’s coming was that those who believe might “be saved.” Heaven when we die … great! But no effect on the lives of men and nations?”
There will be many who have not believed, as it states in the Bible:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Mathew 7:14
Frank, those who do not believe, and the LORD tells us in Matthew that “few there be that find it” will in essence be lost — there is no greater ‘effect’ than a lost person who has turned their back on GOD Almighty, not believing that HIS Son gave HIS life for their Salvation.
Does the LORD Jesus Christ ever say that HE came to this world to do something other than save LOST SINNERS, of which we all are? — to die on the Cross for our sins, or was there another more important purpose that supersedes Salvation?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I hope you understand that my intent is not to belittle or minimize the importance of salvation.
But I don’t think the testimony of Scripture is that “salvation” — conversion of sinners from death to life — stands on its own as the “only purpose of Christ.” If it were, once we were saved, God could take us to Heaven to live with Him eternally. Or we could punch out on our own — sanctified suicide!
But no, our salvation has a purpose — to live in this place that He has provided and witness to the truth — to “preach the Gospel to all nations, commanding them to do all He has commanded us.”
God’s people — those who know Him in a saving way through the Son — are to live Christian lives. And part of those lives is to pursue Christ’s command in the Great Commission.
The world was thrust into sin and darkness at the Fall. And with the first advent of Christ, the Kingdom began to be made manifest among men. It was not complete or fulfilled or consummated, by any means, but it had definitely come among men:
Jesus teaches in Matthew 13 that His kingdom is like two things which start out small, but then grow and spread: a mustard seed, and leaven.
The Kingdom doesn’t start liftoff, but then fail to launch. The kingdom is sucessful:
The church is not a defensive edifice, holding on by the skin of its teeth until her bridegroom comes and rescues her. No, the church is out there kicking the Devil’s butt and taking names! Slowly and almost imperceptibly, like a mustart tree or leaven in dough. (You well know that “gates” are defensive, not offensive, structures. Hell is on the defense, not Christ’s bride.)
The purpose for Christ’s coming is broad and multifaceted — salvation of souls is the key part of that coming, but it is not the entire thing:
Deceiving mens’ souls into believing his lies is absolutely one of the works of the devil — but it is not the only work. When sin came into the world, death also came into the world. Christ came to destory all the Devil’s works — including by reversing the curse of death in the world.
God’s purpose is not merely to redeem souls, but to redeem all His creation. And it seems evident to me that the Great Commission is right in line with that purpose:
To conclude, it seems like my view of the purpose of Christ’s coming includes what you say His purpose was — i.e., to save mens’ souls.
But your view seems to say that the purpose of Christ’s coming is exclusively to save men’s souls, and nevermind the effects that the worldwide spread of the Gopsel may/can/ought to have on other aspects of God’s created order.
Peace …
Report comment to moderator
I have to note that the coalition that helped create the trafficking in persons act runs the gamut from hard right conservative Christian to hard left radical feminist. The fight against sex trafficking crosses political lines and that is a good thing, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Joel:
I too would like to live in the nation you describe in #35. Unfortunately, America under Republican leadership has betrayed that vision.
Yet the Republicans have worked hard to sign away one of the oldest and most firmly established of basic human rights — habeas corpus for prisoners. The Republicans have argued specifically that such a right is granted not by the Creator to all men, but by the American government to American citizens.
And their rhetoric about and treatment of prisoners is not consistent with the Christian view that “our rights begin with our Creator.” They have discarded the old noble ideal that even our enemies are treated with the respect due them as human beings. The current debates about torture betray that this ideal has been lost. Some say we do torture and we should; others say it’s not torture, it’s just rough treatment and psychological pressure. But nobody on the right is asking whether it is treatment contrary to human dignity.
And that’s not to get into the debate about the erosion of our civil liberties at home…
The party of “limited government” is the party that empowered the federal government to wiretap my phones and subject me to extraordinary rendition without any judicial process, on the sole authority of the President. They’re the party that has concentrated more power in the executive than any previous administration. They’re the party that has saddled the nation with more debt than any previous administration (the previous record holder was Reagan). They’re the party of no-bid contracts to powerful military-industrial interests.
Despite your objections earlier in this thread that the Right cares about dead Iraqis, I have seen no evidence of this whatsoever. When was the last time Fox News did a segment on civilian casualties in Iraq? In fact, I have seen a casual disregard for Iraqi civilians, a notion that they’re just an acceptable level of “collateral damage,” even a resentment of them when others like Frank raise the issue of our careless disregard for the inevitable human costs of war. In all its drum-beating for war in Iran, I hear from the Right no jot or tittle of concern for Iranian civilians. It’s not even a consideration, not even something that factors into the decision of whether or not to undertake another war.
War, Torture, and Civil Liberties are the chief issues that have driven me from the “Christian politics” of the Right. It completely baffles and disturbs me to hear Christians advocate war, defend torture, and scoff at vigilance about our liberties (because our government is good and would never use its powers for evil).
Report comment to moderator
jjf (71):
Very well put.
I would add only one observation. You said, “It completely baffles and disturbs me to hear Christians advocate war, defend torture, and scoff at vigilance about our liberties (because our government is good and would never use its powers for evil).”
They think that way so long as “our government” is helmed by a GOP POTUS and legislative majority, with 5 or 6 GOP-appointed justices on the SCOTUS.
Our GOP-enthralled fellow believers are in for a rude awakening once the Dems get ahold of the reins of the ever-bigger-gummint and “unitary executive” that the GOP has put together in the last 8 years.
I’ve got a hunch that, if Obama rolls in and the Dems widen their hold on the legislature, our GOP-fan brothers and sisters suddenly won’t think that “our government” is so good anymore.
Like Bush said, “A dictatorship ain’t so bad … long as I’m the dictator.”
Report comment to moderator
jjf, habeas corpus rights until the most recent 5-4 court decision have not been granted to enemy combatants captured in battle. They do under the Geneva Convention, if regular uniformed combatants, have rights as prisoners of war. Enemy combatants dressed as civilians have no such rights. The detainees do have a right to have their status reviewed by a military court inclding a right to appeal. Your notion that in a time of war we treat enemy combatants with Christian charity is simplistic and naive.
Also, none of the liberties of law abiding citizens at home have been violated. The Congress is in fact working on a bill that allows the NSA to continue monitoring calls from suspected terrorists abroad to America with full immunity for the phone companies. Even Obama has remarked that he will vote for the bill.
You have obviously become one of those hysterical Americans who have declared the enemy to be your own country rather the mass-casualty terrorists we are actually fighting around the world.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (73): jjf, habeas corpus rights until the most recent 5-4 court decision have not been granted to enemy combatants captured in battle.
Frank: But there’s your problem right there, Pete.
Many of the detainees were never “captured in battle.” Rather, they were handed over to US forces by their own countrymen for the fat bounty we offered for “terror suspects.”
E.g.: Ali has a grudge against Mamoud’s family going back several generations (or just to last week), and he know’s the CIA will pay him a Grand for “terror suspects.” So Ali gives up Mamoud — and gets rid of him (much to the devastation of him and his family), plus a cool Thou to boot.
Don’t you think in a situation where the detainee was identified by someone else and picked up in an other-than-combat situation, the detainee ought to have the right to face his accusers, or to hear the nature of the case against him?
You Bush-fans really need to quit regurgitating that “combatants captured in battle” mantra, as if every detainee in US custody is a POW.
You have no idea how flippin’ ignunt it makes you look.
Report comment to moderator
Incidentally, Pete, if you want to shed some of that ignunce, spend an hour or two reading the McClatchy series on their 8-month, 11-country investigation into alleged “illegal enemy combatant” detainees:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/
Read the stories of the released detainees they interviewed, and then come back and tell us about how “enemy combatants” who have been “captured in battle” shouldn’t enjoy habeas rights.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I’ve read some of the fevered McClatchy stuff which ignores the fact that any detainee can routinely ask his legal representative for the facts concerning his detention and then take the matter to a military court and even appeal it. During a war against civilian terrorists mistakes can happen. This is not a game of patty-cake that we are playing.
The hysterical anti-war folk, including you and McClatchey, salivate about the inevitable mistakes made with little understanding of the very real war we are fighting against civilian mass-casualty terrorists.
Report comment to moderator
Peter:
One more issue that rankles with me regarding “Christian politics” is the alacrity with which Christians jump to nasty personal attacks and employ all manner of illogic just to score points.
I am not hysterical, as I think a fair reading of my posts will indicate. Neither is Frank hysterical, as I think a fair reading of his posts will indicate. And to dismiss someone’s argument by attacking the person as a hysteric is an ad hominem fallacy. It proves nothing, and it serves no purpose other than to provide cover for people who believe as you do and don’t want their thinking to be challenged.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (76): … the fevered McClatchy stuff … ignores the fact that any detainee can routinely ask his legal representative for the facts concerning his detention and then take the matter to a military court and even appeal it.
Frank: 1) I’m neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar — a little help, NJL? — but I don’t think “taking the matter to” a court under the command of the Executive branch is the same thing as being able to challenge one’s detention — via habeas corpus — in a court that’s actually under the Judiciary branch.
2) Besides, true or not, your statement doesn’t apply to the unknown number of detainees who have been “disappeared” via Extraordinary Rendition to some unnamed prison in a country where US law doesn’t apply.
Indeed, some of the countries in which our “black” prisons are located are otherwise rebuked by the US as having flagrant disregard for human rights. That being the case, why the hell do we have US prisons there in the first place?
(Oops, just answred my own question … )
Of course, when US newspapers got wind of and eventually reported the “black” prisons/Extraordinary Rendition story, people like you called them treasonous.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, actually our military court system has an excellent reputation for fairness. While, of course, being a human system it’s not perfect, it is a respected part of the American rule of law. Your fevered view that America is running a system of “black prisons” is a canard.
I fear that you fall for just about every conspiracy theory afoot in the nation. I might remind you that we don’t live in a banana republic, as I assume your Polish forbears understood when they sensibly journeyed to this country of basic fairness and opportunity, however imperfect.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, jjf, I honestly regard both you and Frank rather hysterical with your ubiquitous animadversions regarding America’s war in Iraq and against the mass-casualty terrorists. Neither one of you have any decent balance on the issue; until you do, I should be glad to be severely critical of you.
I quite understand that any of Pres. Bush’s decisions are subject to reasonable criticism, though your nasty moralistic criticisms of him and Christian conservatives are rather beyond the pale.
Report comment to moderator
Wendell Berry a Marxist/Socialist??
You MUST be joking!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (79): Your fevered view that America is running a system of “black prisons” is a canard.
Frank: You deny, dodge and name-call … but Bush admits:
So do I believe, Peter?
Report comment to moderator
Tickletext (81): Wendell Berry a Marxist/Socialist?? You MUST be joking!
Frank: Dittos! A good Christian friend of mind with a strong agrarian bent has shared Berry with me over the years.
And one Berry piece to which I continually refer is his “Citizen’s Response to the National Security Strategy.” from early 2003. Very thoughtful stuff there. (’Course, it would make the Kool-Aid drinkers here recoil in absolute horror.)
According to WikiPedia:
Yup, sorta has “Marxist/socialist” written all over it, doesn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
Peter:
I’ll analyze your last post to illustrate my earlier point.
Frank makes a specific argument and you respond with a broad unqualified assertion. With whom does the military court have an excellent reputation for fairness?
For example, I have read, in both the American and foreign presses, a great many pieces critical of the way our military justice system is used with terrorism suspects. I reference these in support of my own position that our military justice system, as it is currently used, does not enjoy “an excellent reputation for fairness.” Here’s an example from the Asian Tribune:
U.N. Investigator Blasts U.S. Justice System
First you fire off a thoughtless contradiction, then you attempt to make it more palatable by granting that there may be insignificant imperfections. You’re unfairly framing the debate. In effect, you’re saying, “Sure, if you want to criticize in a non-hysterical way, maybe the urinals should be cleaned more often. But an argument that America ought not put secret prisons in countries known for human rights violations is just fevered hysteria.”
And again, respected by whom? By you and the Bush’s 25-percenters, I guess. By anyone else?
There’s the signature Peter Leavitt shot. Significant disagreement with your own opinion equals “fevered hysteria.”
America is running a system of secret prisons. This has been admitted by the Bush administration as far back as 2005:
We have secret prisons around the world, that much is known and admitted by all parties. Some of these prisons are in countries known for their inhumane prison systems, that much is known by all parties.
More personal attacks. Nothing rational to say about the subject, other than to flatly and without evidence contradict it. Throw in a few insults that question your opponent’s sanity and love of country, then finish with an appeal to patriotism…
Let me offer you a template for your responses, Peter. You could even write a program to fill it in for you. Then you could post to tons of blogs with as much intelligent contribution as you’ve shown here in this thread:
1. Deny disputed premise.
2. Dismiss opponent as irrational (key words: fevered, hysterical, Bush Hatred Syndrome).
3. Frame debate such that “all serious people” more or less agree with you, allowing disagreement on only minor issues
4. Attack opponent’s loyalty / love of country.
5. Appeal to patriotism.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, you’re confusing an MSNBC headline with the truth. Yes, the CIA kept some of the more dangerous alQuaeda terrorists in prisons around the world. This is the sort of thing that an effective intelligence agency does. As Pres. Bush remarked:
These are dangerous men, with unparalleled knowledge about terrorist networks and their plans of new attacks. The security of our nation and the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know.
When dealing with the most dangerous of the alQuaeda terrorists, one doesn’t play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. The fact that since 9/11 our country has not suffered another major attack can be directly related to the vigorous methods that the Bush administration used in questioning the worst of the terrorists. George Tenet in his memoir made clear that the tough methods of interrogation, including water-boarding four men, yielded crucial information about alQuaeda’s plans.
Report comment to moderator
jjf, you’re writing from the point of view of a fierce anti-war and Bush critic. Your citation from the Asian Tribune on the basis of a leftist human rights “investigator” and a CNN report are hardly credible sources that prove the perfidy of the American military court system.
Someday, when the passions cool on the subject of the War on Terrorism, in my view Pres. Bush will be vindicated for his unrelenting pursuit of mass-casualty terrorists and his decision to both bring down Saddam Hussein and establish an Arab form of democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Your view that America and Bush are involved in some sort of evil enterprise is hardly fair.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (86): jjf, you’re writing from the point of view of a fierce anti-war and Bush critic. Your citation from the Asian Tribune on the basis of a leftist human rights “investigator” and a CNN report are hardly credible sources that prove the perfidy of the American military court system.
Frank: How about a politically conservative US Army officer — would he be “credible” enough for you?
Lt. Col. Stephen E. Abraham, US Army Reserves intelligence officer:
A few others I learned about in about 15-20 minutes of Googling:
Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift (Navy, I presume)
Major Thomas Rougheen (Cmdr. Swift’s successor):
Swift and Rougheen are cited in this Dec 07 story at Huffpo:
Military Judge Dashes Hopes that Guantánamo Detainees Have Rights as Prisoners of War
And lastly, an unnamed Army major is at the center of this US Independent story:
Guantanamo military lawyer breaks ranks to condemn ‘unconscionable’ detention
Peter, your must realize that your osition on this matter is chock full of gaping holes. The best you can manage is to cast aspersions at your opponents or impeach their sources. It’s “liberal” this and “leftist” that and “fevered and hysterical” Bush-hatred.
Well, go on and impeach patriotic career military men who are openly critical of “the system” — sometimes to the detriment of their own careers.
(And I have the utmost confidence that you will try.)
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Frank, Iraq is our ALLY! We are NOT fighting against Iraq at all . . . Frank, if you are a fellow believer, then where is your honesty?
Actually, Gen. Petreaus’ critique of our Rambo strategy in Iraq said that Americans were killing too many civilians instead of protecting them, and that we were just killing those who kill us instead of talking with them and bribing them to not fight.
The smallest estimate of civilian casualties from violence is 100k, but the number of “excess deaths” based on demographic surveys approaches a million.
Americans raped and murdered women and children. We’ve tortured and imprisoned tens of thousands. Allies don’t treat allies like that, occupiers do. Iraqis want us gone.
Report comment to moderator
How can anyone who identifies with Christ claim to be concerned with “social justice” while ignoring and actually supporting the butchering of about 3,600 humans every single day in the U.S. in abortion clinics, ( and all of them with heartbeats, brainwaves, and 98% of them with ten fingers and ten toes)? Ever notice how concerned liberals are with moths and whales but don’t care about preborn humans?
All this talk about “social justice” is (mis)using the name of Jesus to promote left-wing secular fundamentalism and to deny the authority of Scripture. Jesus asked His followers to share but He never told us to take from the rich and give to the poor. That was Robin Hood.
Jesus Christ was not the crucifixion and Karl Marx, the resurrection.
Jesus warned us that in the last days, people would appear righteous, “but denying the power thereof.”
As a man who grew up in a liberal mainline church, show me a “liberal Christian” and I’ll show you an atheist.
Report comment to moderator
GOD bless you Lutheran1983, you made it crystal clear.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I’d have to admit that Abraham, Swift, and Rougheen raise questions about the process of military law at Guantanamo, though until I could hear a balanced discussion from those responsible for the system of justice there, I will defer judgment. Chief Justice Roberts who heard detailed evidence on the matter came to the conclusion that the process was the fairest ever accorded civilian enemy combatants.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK: just six days prior to that, on October 1, CIA sent Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a top-secret report that represented the opinions of all sixteen US intelligence agencies re. whether or not Hussein posed an imminent threat to America.
German intelligence officers recently said they were flabbergasted by Bush & Colin Powell’s performance, as they did not believed Iraq was armed with or developing WMD. Bush’s presentation of the WMD threat was culpable. For Bush to claim certainty when there was so much doubt is a lie. Bush lied through his teeth about WMD, as he lied over and over again about many small things in his life, all thoroughly documented on this blog and never refuted by Joel Mark or anybody else.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: Chief Justice Roberts who heard detailed evidence on the matter came to the conclusion that the process was the fairest ever accorded civilian enemy combatants.
No combatants have ever been held in war as long as the prisoners we have held since 2002 on the theory that we can hold them without process for the rest of their lives. No combatants in any war have ever been at greater risk for mistaken incarceration than America’s prisoners today. A former secretary of the Army says two thirds of the Guantanamo detainees were innocent.
Report comment to moderator
Moth – 92
“German intelligence officers recently said they were flabbergasted by Bush & Colin Powell’s performance”
Please give a link for your statement.
Thanks
Report comment to moderator
ScroopMoth, we’re involved in a real war on terror in which it would be hardly wise to release enemy combatants. We know of one case where someone thought to be a low-level combatant was released from Gitmo and later became a suicide bomber in Mosul.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt. We don’t release combatants of any level, hi or lo, only those whom we think are noncombatants — innocents seized in error. Your comment ignores the simple explanation that the Mosul bomber became a combatant in response to his captivity. Regardless of the details of the case, the United States holds many people today it wishes it had never picked up, but is afraid that torture has made them too dangerous to release. Regardless, your comment doesn’t redeem Justice Roberts’ wrong-headed and irrelevant remark.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, The discussion about what German intelligence knew of WMD before the war occurs in a program at the Stimson Center in Washington DC featuring former British High Commissioner Hilary Sunnott, head of the CPA in Southern Iraq from 2003-2004. He also discusses why Tony Blair supported Bush, given the culpably weak presentation of evidence .
http://www.booktv.org/Images/Common/btnWatch_hover.gif
Report comment to moderator
Scroop:
I think you meant
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9492&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No
… right?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I note that SM hasn’t yet provided the provided the German source.
Report comment to moderator
Peter – 99
I too am waiting for a link and source.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Frank.
German intelligence (BND) agents told the LATimes they watched Powell’s speech in disbelief. “”We were shocked. Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven…. It was not hard intelligence.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines
Die Zeit offers similar reporting.
http://www.zeit.de/2004/15/Geheimdienststreit
I can’t recall the name of the German intelligence officer who discussed WMD intelligence with the British commissioner at the forum shown on C-Span, and would have to listen to the audio again to retrieve it, since there’s no transcript. Hilary Synnott doesn’t dispute the information (hardly anybody does, except David Kay — see below), and he specifically calls the presentation of the WMD threat to the public was “culpable.”
Victoria/Peter Leavitt has little reason to question the German’s reported skepticism. The CIA’s Tyler Drumheller says he too was flabbergasted at the Bush-Powell case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html
He claims the CIA knew that German intelligence had figured “Curveball” as a con artist.
David Kay however has told Der Spiegel that the Germans withheld the awful truth from the Americans in order to deceive us. Counter-charges don’t work so good when you’re standing in the dock.
Report comment to moderator
ScropMoth/Frank, please read the following from Douglas Feith’s book <i.War and Decision on the subject of WMD in Iraq.
Misconception 8
IS IT TRUE that “no WMD was found” in Iraq?
IN FACT:
The Iraq Survey Group found that Saddam Hussein retained both the intention and the capability to revive bio-chemical weapons programs after sanctions were ended.
The reports we had from U.S. intelligence officials on Iraqi WMD painted essentially the same picture that those officials had presented to the Clinton Administration. The CIA declared that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The stockpiles catalogued by the UN weapons inspectors in 1999 were still unaccounted for, and were therefore presumed to exist. (p. 224)
[T]he Iraq Survey Group team concluded that Saddam had retained the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons rapidly (within a month or two). In the 1990s he had shut down factories dedicated solely to making such weapons, replacing them with “dual-use” facilities capable of producing both civilian products and chemical or biological weapons. That gave him deniability if inspections ever started up again, as Saddam evidently expected they would. (p. 327)
The Iraq Survey Group also found that Saddam had the intention to revive Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs once the sanctions were ended. He had preserved the necessary teams of technicians, who would be the key to reviving the programs quickly. (p. 327)
The public’s impression of the Duelfer Report on these matters was shaped by news media headlines to the effect that “nothing was found.” Those headlines were misleading (one might even say fundamentally false), because the ISG found substantial WMD capabilities in Iraq, including personnel, materiel, facilities, and intentions-but not the stockpiles of the weapons themselves. (p. 328)
In the end, there are only three possible explanations for the failure to find the WMD materiel that had been catalogued in detail by UNSCOM. Saddam might have destroyed it, he might have hidden it in Iraq, or he might have transferred it out of Iraq. To this day, we do not know for sure which explanation is correct. (p. 330)
The Iraq Survey Group confirmed that President Bush had grounds for viewing Iraq’s WMD capabilities as a compelling threat. The CIA’s unsupportable statements about Iraqi stockpiles and WMD activity did not justify critics in making unsupportable pronouncements of their own, to the effect that Saddam had no WMD ambitions or capabilities. (p. 330)
The Iraq Survey Group was an international group that went into Iraq after the war to study the question of WMD in Iraq before the war. Duelfer was the head U.S. representative. The ISG was independent of the Bush administration.
Report comment to moderator
Peter: I don’t think anybody’s claimed that Saddam was a friend to America. We all know he hated America, almost as much as Barack Obama does.
But when you quote facts such as: The Iraq Survey Group also found that Saddam had the intention to revive Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs once the sanctions were ended. He had preserved the necessary teams of technicians, who would be the key to reviving the programs quickly.
… you make the point we’re making. Despite whatever wishes or intentions Saddam had, he did not have the capability to act on them. The sanctions kept him contained. He posed no imminent threat.
We did not need to lessen our military efforts in Afghanistan to go after Saddam at that point in time.
Contrary to the character assassination we hear from the right, nobody objected in principle to removing Saddam from power. We just didn’t think the time was right to do it when we had a much higher priority enemy to deal with.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT If you were a senator or representative or a lawyer for a committee taking evidence about the case for war, and you asked Feith, IS IT TRUE that “no WMD was found” in Iraq?, what would you say to him about the response reproduced above?
I don’t expect you to answer, Peter. What you said to Feith would depend entirely on whether your voters wanted honesty or expected you to “support our President and our troops.” So, if you were in Congress, we know where you’d standt. Regardless, the proper answer to “IS IT TRUE?” can only be “Yes” or “No”. Granted, that’s in an ideal world — but even in our world, the answer must sound something like, “Yes, but” or “No, but.”
The Duelfer report states WMD “were not there” [transmittal message].
Besides being evasive, Douglas Feith is an opportunist whose colossal failings make him irrelevant. Peter Leavitt should cut-paste somebody who is influential on this subject, the amazingly prescient Richard Clarke.
We know why there were no WMD in Iraq. There were no places to keep WMD, no storage, no transport, no maintenance and warehouse workers. There were no places for WMD to come from, no factories, no work in progress, no factory workers. There were no places for WMD to be designed, no laboratories, no WMD technicians and WMD scientists. There were no WMD in Iraq because there had been no work on WMD since the Gulf War. All the people who could have been working on WMD were doing other things. Nothing was left from the former “WMD program” except items that escaped destruction by war, by Clinton, or by Iraq itself, and those residuals had themselves been destroyed by time, which left the ISG nothing but traces of residuals.
Saddam was crazy and old. His expressed intentions were to become a great novelist and to defend his country from Iran — probably in that order of priority. During his last years in power he repeatedly sought to become a US ally and obtain a security agreement that would obviate the need for WMD to defend against Iran. In any event, Saddam showed no efforts to restart WMD programs. Iraq had no “intentions” of its own. What Saddam’s future intentions were, were totally implicit, without plans or directives.
It was a willful moral mistake to conclude that Saddam’s possible, implicit intentions regarding future, yet unrealized circumstances were sufficient cause to compel an invasion costing 4,900 troops, 20,000 casualties, 100,000 known civilian deaths and 1 million interpolated excess deaths.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, According to the ISG analysis, Saddam had the capacity to produce biological and chemical weapons within two months from the dual lose facilities he created and nuclear weapons within a year from fissile material that he was trying to acquire.
Also, the National Intelligence Council in its Key Judgments on Iraq’s Continuing Program forWeapons of Mass provided Pres. Bsh the following:
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence:
· Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
· We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
· Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
· Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
Moderate Confidence:
· Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
Low Confidence:
· When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
· Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
· Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa’ida.
ScroopMoth, were I a Senator or Congreesman, I would listen carefully to Douglas Feith, a very bright analyst of national security matters and a man of serious integrity. I should suggest that you read his excellent book War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War Against Terrorism. This book honestly documents the decision to go to war in Iraq and is frank about the mistakes of policy and execution of that war. Having read it carefully, you would be rather disabused of your simplistic myths about the war.
Report comment to moderator
Excuse me, The National Intelligence Council link is
Here.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not the kind of response I was hoping for, but if it’s the best you can do, Peter, thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #76: Frank, I’ve read some of the fevered McClatchy stuff which ignores the fact that any detainee can routinely ask his legal representative for the facts concerning his detention and then take the matter to a military court and even appeal it. During a war against civilian terrorists mistakes can happen. This is not a game of patty-cake that we are playing.
Peter, if detainees had the right to challenge the basis for their detention in court, with legal representation, there would be no issue.
Frank is exactly right. Many of the detainees were taken based on paid-for and unverified information. They were NOT all “captured on the battlefield” as you keep repeating. (Some were, some were not.)
You are essentially defending a system of putting people away indefinitely, without charge or legal recourse, and justifying it with discredited generalizations about the circumstances of their detention.
Report comment to moderator
Peter has done a great job on this thread. His links and factual representations are irrefutable. Considering all the facts, we did the right thing going into Iraq. America and the rest of the western world are safer today because of it.
Frank, it seems, will never get beyond his vision of a proper army. It is one where every soldier is a volunteer and makes his own sovereign decisions on everything done. If, at any point he doesn’t agree, he simply packs his bags, provides his own biblical explanation, and goes home. Or, as Frank once considered, he simply goes off to New Zealand.
He once served in the AF, but that was before he became more enlightened. I doubt that there is any combat that Frank would approve of, or any realistic army that he would join today. All of his comments in regard to Iraq must be evaluated with these things in mind.
If a Mexican army were to invade California tomorrow, Frank would probably find some grounds for opposing our defense and concluding that we were in the wrong. Pity the poor soldier who would depend on Frank to back him up in battle.
Report comment to moderator
Peter has done a great job on this thread.
But I did the greatest job!
Especially the post where I said:
It was a willful moral mistake to conclude that Saddam’s possible, implicit intentions regarding future, yet unrealized circumstances were sufficient cause to compel an invasion costing 4,900 troops, 20,000 casualties, 100,000 known civilian deaths and 1 million interpolated excess deaths.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 69
Yes it does stand on its own – the portion bolded is nonsense. Your rendition as to WHAT the LORD would do if he had come only to save us from our sins isn’t true.
Yes the LORD gave us the “Great Commission” to tell others about his saving grace –
Not ALL will be saved – GOD’s kingdom are those who believed, not the entire world, not all who have ever been born and lived will be saved. Success isn’t measured by how many come to Christ as their Savior -
The bridegroom will come Frank, and we as the Church (those who are Believers) will WAIT until the LORD is ready to come. We also aren’t “out there kicking the Devil’s butt and taking names” – God doesn’t need any of us to make a list for those who haven’t believed, HE KNOWS the heart of each Believer. Notice Michael the archangel wasn’t “kicking the Devil’s butt” – and neither are you or anyone else, evil exists, it isn’t going away until the LORD returns.
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. Jude 1:9
The LORD will destroy the works of the devil when HE desires to come to this earth, until then evil exists until that day, and so do evil men.
All those who are not believers will go to hell to everlasting punishment.
Frank you confuse this passage of Scripture. NOT ALL will be redeemed, NOT ALL will have Eternity with the LORD Jesus Christ.
Again you have mixed and matched Christ’s death on the cross, and Salvation to mean something else – The world wide spread of the Gospel was taught by Jesus Christ, but it doesn’t mean that ALL will come to know Him -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Lots of capitalized “ALLs” in that last post.
You seem to think that I have argued for universalism — that “ALL” men will be saved.
I haven’t done so.
Rather, I have argued for the successful spread of the Gospel throughout the world, to men of all nations. I have argued for the church teaching all nations to keep Christ’s commands.
I don’t think that will ultimately happen in our lifetimes. Indeed, I don’t necessarily think it will ultimately happen in a hundred or a thousand years.
But I do think the testimony of Scripture is that it will ultimately happen. Christ’s church will eventually — in His good time — ultimately succeed in His Great Commission.
I don’t think that Christ will return to pluck a battered and broken bride from amidst hell-on-earth. I do think He will return to a wed bride who has been successful in His mission — whom He has made successful — and whom He has thus made glorious and without spot or wrinkle.
This is obviuosly a matter of differing eschatologies, and eschatology is not a mater of orthodoxy. So ’nuff said for now.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin,
If you really view me as you have described in (109) above — “his vision of a proper army … is one where every soldier is a volunteer and makes his own sovereign decisions on everything done” — you simply have not been paying attention all these many months.
Report comment to moderator
Frank
Do you believe that after its all said and done, every single person is going to be saved, and spend Eternity with the LORD?
Of course Christ said that we should tell all nations about Him, but that doesn’t mean that ALL will believe. Some will, and those will go to be with the LORD when he returns, those who don’t will not be spending Eternity with the LORD.
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (114): Do you believe that after its all said and done, every single person is going to be saved, and spend Eternity with the LORD?
Frank: No:
I haven’t argued that all men will be saved, because that idea isn’t biblical.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (114): Of course Christ said that we should tell all nations about Him …
Frank: Well, that’s the Great Commisson in short-hand. But He actually said more than that:
There’s a bit more there than just telling all nations about Christ, wouldn’t you agree?
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#113),
On the contrary, I have been paying close attention to what you have been saying.
In case you have forgotten, we had this discussion about military service in great detail a couple of years ago.
You emphatically held to the position that conscription was unbiblical in all cases, and that every soldier had the right to decide for himself the validity of the cause and therefore, in effect, had the right to determine the terms of his own service.
I suspect that this personal and general opposition that you seem to have to military service drives your search for reasons to oppose almost every military action. Over the years, reading your many posts, that is the general impression you leave me with.
Therefore, I take all your opposition to the war in Iraq with a grain of salt. I do not give them near as much consideration for reasonable credibility as I would otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 58
Below is your post #58, this appears to be the point at which we disagreed and then it went on from there:
Frank: I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. Don’t you think that the Great Commission:
… Don’t you think that obedience to that command eventually results in civil society — not through politics, but through the worldwide spread of the Gospel?
___________________________________________
Frank as I said later in post 60
Frank,
That is a great passage of Scripture, but that isn’t “building a civil society” that is going out, preaching the Gospel so that all who believe will be saved. Christ didn’t die for a ‘civil society’ to be incorporated into this world, but that those who Believed might be saved.
We will never see a ‘civil society’ here on earth, this world doesn’t embrace what the Bible teaches for the most part.
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:14
____________________________________________
Then you continue in post 61
But it cannot be denied that, if Christ’s bride is successful in His commission, “civil” society — Christian society — will be a result, to the glory of God.
Children will play with vipers. Sheep will lie down with wolves. Men will beat swords into plows.
____________________________________________
Civil Society will not be found before Christ’s return, the Bible doesn’t teach this. The Great Commission is to reach as many people for Christ as will listen and believe on the LORD Jesus.
Christ came to earth to save us from our sins, that was his reason for coming, we needed a Savior, and HE is our Savior -
Report comment to moderator
Victora,
To which I responded (112):
To which you responded by asking me if I believe all men will be saved.
To which I said no.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin (117): You emphatically held to the position that conscription was unbiblical in all cases …
Frank: … check …
Michael Martin (117): … and that every soldier had the right to decide for himself the validity of the cause …
Frank: … check …
Michael Martin (117): … and therefore, in effect, had the right to determine the terms of his own service.
Frank: … uhh, nope.
The first two premises do not necessitate in the conclusion. And furthermore, I simply don’t believe number three.
IOW, opposing conscription and opposing participation in a war one believes to be unjust do not in any waty add up to the supposed right to decide/determine all the terms of one’s service.
As to your supposition about how I would respond “if a Mexican army were to invade California tomorrow” … that is utterly unfounded in anything I have said.
Report comment to moderator
Frank
Mixing it up?
As you put it “So ’nuff said for now.” Yes I’m sure you feel that way, what a surprise LOL
Report comment to moderator
Frank at #112: You seem to think that I have argued for universalism — that “ALL” men will be saved.
I haven’t done so.
I have. And do.
Report comment to moderator