Obama: Ambassador of Hope?
Blog — By Jordan Green on March 12, 2007 at 12:00 am“I’m not comparing him to Jesus Christ, but
Blog
-
Being There
May 16, 2012 10:05
-
Cultural Disobedience
May 15, 2012 09:05
-
A Story for Bella
May 15, 2012 09:05
-
Contentment
May 14, 2012 08:05
-
Do We Annoy God By Using the Bible To Solve All Our Problems?
May 13, 2012 04:05
-
Larry Shallenberger: Before I was a pastor, I was a caseworker at a MH RTF for children and adolescents. That's where I fell into the idea of...
-
Nathan Bubna: Yep. Because while 99.5% of pastors are unqualified to counsel a couple with serious problems, the reality is that many ...
-
Matthew: Excellent piece... but I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm currently in seminary and it's been stressed in...
-
Stacy: Thanks for this article. These things do need to be said. I see the issue from various angles, I think. Having been to a...
-
Carole Smith Turner: No apology needed, I love this comment. I worked for 13 Christian counselors for 9 years, and still fill in sometime whe...
72 Comments
Chris,
Many apologies for putting words in your mouth. I realize you didn’t mean Jesus is a warmonger, and I regret making that statement.
Chris, you’re picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you like. You’ve decided to take one verse in Isaiah about Jesus suffering (what this has to do with war, I have no idea), and you’ve ignored all but one of the verses I mentioned.
Theologically, we are on different ground, so I don’t see where it goes from here. I’ve appreciated the discussion, though.
Okay, “victory in Iraq”—
Given that when this war began, it was ostensibly about Osama and then became about Saddam, it seems to me that we’re hurting for concrete objectives here. At this point, we’re looking for a “secure” Iraq, but I think what most people mean by that is an Iraqi government effectively propped up by the U.S. and supportive of her economic interests. Tell me I’m wrong.
I think some people operate on the idea that the world will be a better, freer, more Christian place if the U.S. controls everything. But could that goal ever possibly justify such extreme violence?
And if protecting the U.S. against terrorism is our war objective, I would argue that we’re going about it all wrong. I think a strong case could be made that the longer we’re there as an occupying force, the less rapport we’ll have in that part of the world, and the more vulnerable we’ll become to terrorism.
Actually Jessica, you are wrong about our objective in Iraq. Iraq doesn’t need us to support them economically. They have all the oil they need to stand on their own. The problem there is security to get that oil flowing. From the beginning, this was not about oil. If you look back at what was said about this war, the President was hit pretty hard from alot of people because he wouldn’t use the Iraqi oil to fund the war, etc.
2nd, it’s not about making the world more Christian through war, that is definitely not what God teaches in the Bible. Nor is it about the US “controlling everything”, because we are fallible. It is about giving democracy a chance to people who don’t enjoy the same freedoms that we do.
I’m not sure what you calling extreme violence when you look at the record of Saddam Hussein and the heinous ways he tortured and killed his own people.
Your last paragraph was the best I’ve seen on this whole discourse, because your disagreeing with the means with which we are trying to achieve security and peace. That’s exactly what I am advocating, I just have a different view of how to get there.
Hey, okay. Maybe we’re not there for economic reasons. You can see where I might make that mistake, though, given our usual economics-first foreign policy. Never mind that Dictator X is slaughtering people; we’ll support him with troops and money because he cooperates with our monopolies.
One of the things I didn’t like about the movie 300 was that it drew this dramatic black-white dichotomy between the good guys and the bad guys, so extreme that I kept thinking it was farcical. It’s ridiculous to me, in the Iraq situation and life in general, to think of ourselves as all good and the other side as all bad. Look at Abu Ghraib and tell me that this war we’re waging is all-good, fighting against the all-bad.
Jordan,
I mean that God has used violence to bring peace. He did this on the cross.
2 Timothy 3:16 says “All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” All scripture is God breathed, not just the red letter version of your Bible. You are trying to paint of a picture of sweet little weak Jesus and that is not the saviour I know.
Good stuff though.
Thank you friends. Each and all. Stimulating and edifying (for the most part) discussion all around. Grateful a few of you have the time (and the guts) you do to give to something like this. It is conversation that must be had, and had again.
Thank you Caleb for the serve.
Thank you Jordan, Patrick, Chris, and others for playing the game.
Keep on.
God help us all.
Chris,
Yeah, yeah…I get it. You’re right, God DID use war in the Old Testament. In fact, he gave explicit orders at times to God’s people.
Wem as Americans, Chris, are not God’s people. The American agenda is not Christ’s agenda…God’s agenda is not democracy or capitalism. His agenda is not ‘freedom’ in a human sense.
And I get that I can’t just take the red-letter stuff in the Bible, but you’re THROWING IT OUT THE WINDOW.
I’m going to ask you for the third time: WHAT DOES ‘TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK’ MEAN? I don’t see Jesus as a sweet, little or weak, just like you don’t see him as a warmonger. I just can’t blow off His words because they don’t appeal to my thirst for earthly justice. You keep saying I’m taking it out of context (a common kiss-off when debating Scripture). Well, Chris, put it into context.
Scripture-wise, you’ve given me no reason to support your side. The Laws of the Old Testament were fulfilled by the coming of Christ, so, for instance, we are permitted to eat ham now. Do you eat ham? Do all the women in your church cover their heads? Do you offer up burnt offerings? Do you send the women in your city out of town when they’re menstruating? Do you wear wool/linen blends?
And God sacrificing His Son, giving him over to an evil world, is not in my wildest imagination a justification for war. We, as humans, did that. Because we’re evil, and because we kill people who don’t deserve to be killed.
I just want to echo what Jordan said about America not being God’s chosen people, because it’s definitely a point worth repeating.
Here goes:
Because of the blood of Jesus, the Holy Spirit binds all of us followers of Christ together as brothers and sisters. (In a very real way, we are siblings because it is the same blood that gives us life.)
Now, God calls this body of followers “his people”, his adopted children through the sacrifice of Jesus. ( Rom. 8:15,23 Gal. 4:5 Eph. 1:5)
“His people” are no longer united
under a flag, or a nation; His people are united by Christ. And Jesus is with the poor, the persecuted, the abhorred, and the blessed all over the world… essentially, Jesus is with those who need Him.(see: The all of scripture)
We are called as His followers to go into those places as well, the places where people need Jesus, and be the hands of Him to those suffering. We are called to bring peace, not just earthly peace, but I think existential and eternal peace as well in Jesus.
I agree (kind of) with Chris and Patrick Sexton that war can bring about peace, but only sometimes, and rarely in a post-nuclear world.
(Sidenote: yes, the end of WWII brought about something like peace generally throughout the world, just not in Hiroshima or Nagasaki… they felt that so-called “peace” in a very different way.)
But I also think that we who are now called “sons and daughters” of God cannot support a bringing about of peace by that means. We should rather weep at the loss of life, especially the lives of those who do not yet know Jesus.
One need only look at Jesus as an example: He did not set out to establish an earthly kingdom (which he could have, given that He is God) but rather established a kingdom, or nation, that is above the laws and practices of man. His Kingdom is spread out all over the earth, in China, Iraq, Vietnam, Russia, Korea (N. and S.), America and everyplace else where Jesus is known to a people. None of those nation’s flags embody or represent God’s Kingdom. So when we as God’s children support a bringing about of (earthly) peace, by way of the death of others, I think we are contradicting ourselves. War has NEVER brought about the peace that God, and we in Christ offer.
Actually quite the opposite has -self sacrifice and humility, a giving up of one’s self to those who would kill you, a laying down of arms and the arming of ones’ self with love.
Only Jesus brings real peace, and that peace is never packaged in a cartridge or bomb.
I admit that I am not the best writer, and I just pray that the Spirit that unites us as siblings also helps you to understand the heart of what I have tried to say. As He is helping me to understand the heart of what you have each said.
Bless you all, and thank you for your vulnerability in the sharing of your convictions. I look forward with you to the Glorious Day when all of this becomes irrelevant, when Truth can be found by simply looking into the eyes of our Lord and Saviour.
Amen.
Jordan,
Let me put “turn the other cheek” in context. That passage is written in Matthew 5-7 which is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount. That sermon is about teaching Christians how to live with each other. When Christ talks about turn the other cheek in that passage, you have to take it in the large context of the whole sermon, which is more about morals, ethics and interpersonal relationships, not nations. Christ says that if someone strikes you on the right cheek. As this is read, it means someone hit/slapping you with an open hand on the right cheek which would mean a back hand across the face for the majority of people. That was a major insult to Jews in that time period. So what He was saying is that when someone insults you, let it go, you don’t start a fight over it or insult them back. This is the view of 99% of New Testament scholars.
I would also recommend you read Matthew 5:17-20. Christ says that HE did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He also says that not one word of the Law and the prophets will disappear until “everything has been accomplished’” meaning His return. He finishes that passage saying that their (Christians at that time) righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees meaning that you should still live in accordance with the Law, but your salvation is not in the works of following the law and all of the various sacrifices, but in the ultimate sacrifice of Christ being the one time perfect Lamb of God.
I would like to point out that you still haven’t showed me a passage in the scripture where “war is sin.”
The commandment in the Ten Commandments says “Thou shall not murder” which is the taking of innocent life. This does not include war, self defense, or capital punishment. Christ’s further teachings on this subject in the Sermon on the Mount deal with not only murder, but the hate underneath that can lead to such.
I think you have missed both Chris’ and my points on this. We are not saying that God is in Heaven watching what’s going on and pulling for one team over the other like a football game. What we’re trying to point out is that there is nothing in the Bible that says war is never justified and sometimes a necessary evil. You seem to want to selectively pull out scriptures and say that the Bible says that war is sin and that is just not the case.
Jessica,
I’m not going to let you get off with calling our foreign policy “economy first without backing that up with some concrete examples. Secondly, remind me which dictators we’re backing while their people are suffering. That would be the French who were going behind the back of the UN to make money off of Sadam when it was supposed to be going to food and medicine for his people. We are the largest giver of charitable aid both as a national government, and as individuals, to the impoverished nations of the world. So just exactly what dictators are we propping up?
To your second paragraph, I’ll let you in on a secret, we’re all bad. We are all sinners who need Jesus Christ to save us. The difference is I’m better off because I know I’m going to Heaven because of my relationship to Christ. However, it’s not hard to see that there are some things that are inherently immoral like torturing your own people and gassing your own people. As for Abu Ghraib, while I don’t condone the way that a few bad apples treated those prisoners, it was hardly torture. Humiliating for sure but no where near torture. I’ve heard of worse incidents than that on college campuses with Fraternities hazing their pledges. If you want to know what torture is, ask someone who spent time in one of Hitler’s concentration camps or Stalin’s gulags or suffered through being a POW to the Japanese or a POW camp in Vietnam or spent time in one of Sadam’s torture rooms.
What I’m beginning to realize is that most of you I’m discussing this with don’t believe in black and white and absolute truth. I hate to tell you, but Jesus Christ was extremely black and white. There’s not a lot of gray in the Ten Commandments or in Christ’s teachings.
Patrick and Chris,
Thanks for the responses.
I’ve been hoping to hear something new, but I haven’t. The “thou shalt not murder/kill” argument, the argument that Jesus is only talking about literal slaps, the world is black and white…all I can say is I believed these things at one point, but they seem hollow now.
This debate will get us nowhere. We’re reading Scripture from two different mindsets, and I don’t see that changing.
You guys obviously care deeply about faith and following Jesus. It was great talking to you.
Jordan
I used to think that “sin” was easy to wrap my mind around. I thought that there was a few lists, and a few things Jesus pointed out about those lists, giving depth of meaning to what each sin was. An example of that is that he He equated murder with hatred, or adultery with lust in your heart.
I thought that way for a really long time. It was easier because I was able to focus on a list of things not to do. As well as focus on a list of things to try to manifest in myself, the “fruits of the spirit”.
I coupled that do/don’t do approach to living with a daily prayer and “quite time” routine. I still try to stick with that, but my concept of sin has simplified a bit, with the help of a wonderful, Godly pastor. Well, it either simplified, or exploded, you tell me.
He basically taught that sin was DOING anything God WOULDN’T say, do, or think. I was with him on that. But He then went on to argue that sin was also NOT doing, saying, or thinking something that God would do say or think.
This concept of sin makes it less about what we DO, and more about who we ARE. Sin is the state of our existence without Jesus , it is not just a list of scriptural references. The issue is not that we commit sin’s, but that we are sinner’s to the core. That is why Jesus promises to make us new creations and give us a new heart and mind.
So I’m not saying, and I don’t think anyone has said that war is a sin. Meaning, I know it’s not on the list. Rather, I think we’ve tried to say that it is not our prerogative, as followers of Jesus, to defend a war as perfectly wright or perfectly wrong. There are positives to war and negatives, but I would rather try to focus my attention on those who are suffering as a result of our fallen and sinful state. And I think you would agree, Patrick and Chris Sexton, that the presence of war is one of many results of our broken world.
SO war is not particularly a “sin”, but it would not exist in a sinless world.
So you pick whether or not to care about defending a war… as well as whether or not to try to defend and promote peace. And by that I mean the Peace of God.
I pray anyone who reads this seeks out and fosters that peace, through a relationship with Jesus our Lord.
Susan,
I know this might surprise you, but I agree with your cynicism of James Dobson and Newt. That was ridiculous. James Dobson is not my spokesperson. I really think the main stream media gives people like him more power than true reality.
Susan,
It’s funny that you bring up the Dobson/Gingrich interview. Chris and I discussed that very topic this morning. For one, Dobson didn’t support or endorse Newt for President. However, Chris and I both that it looked like nothing more than politics. I’ll be honest with you, when it comes to someone communicating ideas and being able to articulate what he believes, there is no one that comes close on the Republican side of the aisle. When it comes to government policy and ideals, Newt and I very much agree. Let me further say that I see my self and a born again christian first, a conservative second and a republican only because that party is most closely aligned with my view points. It doesn’t mean that I am in 100% agreement on everything Republican. As I stated below, I’m also not naive enough to think that every conservative or every republican is a Christian either.
Your comments about the Libby/Plame affair are typical of someone who doesn’t do a lot of research into the actual facts of what went on. As Abraham Lincoln said–”Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Okay, had to retrieve my Latin American Civ textbook. The dictator I had in mind was Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua). He ruled with an iron fist, amassing wealth for himself and essentially sentencing the rest of his people to abject poverty. And for some reason I remember my professor saying he was terrible to indigenous groups, which is perhaps where I had the word “slaughter” in my memory, because a lot of Latin American leaders are cruel to indigenous groups. So to be fair, I could have that wrong. Anyway, the U.S. took their precious effing time to withdraw their support of Somoza, because, to quote “Inevitable Revolutions” by Walter LaFeber, “he propped Nicaragua open to private capital, allowed minimal state controls, and kept maximum order–even as he ruthlessly looted the country himself.”
Look, I plead guilty to armchair political theory. And I do believe in absolute truth. But I believe that God is the only absolute good; we as humans are a mixture of good and bad. None of us gets it right all the time–clearly not us, as the “humiliation” of Abu Ghraib points out.
I do think war is sin, in the sense that it’s an extension of the fallenness and sin that plagues the world. I know you’re arguing that it’s an essential part of a fallen world, and I respect that. But I think war usually plays the role of merely multiplying of sin, injustice, and corruption.
A final word: I know it sounds like I think America is a horrible nation who does horrible things, but I don’t. I actually have this naive faith in the American people to try to do what’s best for others, even if we’re sometimes (often) too individualistic to even know what’s best. But, like I said, we’re all part bad, and sometimes we make horrible mistakes.
I guess I’m done.
So….
Where did Senator Obama go? I haven’t seen his name referenced in these words for quite awhile.
**reads the article through again**
Oh! There he is. I guess he got lost. I’m glad his smiling picture still graces the top of this page.
BTW — Dictators we’ve propped up during the 20th century (and then often turned against when they wouldn’t play the game the way WE wanted them to play it) include: Somoza, Pinochet, the oppressors in El Salvador, the Shah of Iran, General Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein, and more.
Are you sure we don’t have an economy-first foreign policy? How would YOU describe our foreign policy patterns/plans/trends? Just curious….
Adam,
We weren’t discussing foreign policy of the 20th century, we’re discussing the current foreign policy of the US. I’m not sure who Somoza is but from the context I assume he is someone we backed in South or Central America in the ’80s as well as the “oppressors in El Salvador”. If you’ll remember, at that time foreign policy was about preventing communism from spreading into our hemisphere. I’m not sure how propping them up or Pinochet was beneficial to our economy. The one place I would be willing to concede a probable economic reason for our relationship is China.
The primary focus of our foreign policy is to keep America secure, sometimes this is through economics. That pattern for the most has held true over the years. I’m not fully informed on what happened with the Shah of Iran as I was only 5 or 6 yrs old at the time, but I do know that it was Jimmy Carter who removed US support and that is what led to the current Islamic Radical government that is in place today. That was “smart” foreign policy and served us well, don’t you think? Why did we support Sadam Hussein? Don’t think it had anything to do with economics, but the fact that he was fighting the radicals in Iran. An argument could be made against that philosphy of foreign policy (sharing a common enemy makes us allies), however that worked well for us in WWII. Any way, my point is that we don’t have an economics first foreign policy, but we do use our economy, which is a huge asset for us on the global stage, to try and make our country more secure.
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-William Blake (1757 – 1827)
The Everlasting Gospel, 1818
“When you are reading a book in a dark room, and come to a difficult part, you take it to a window to get more light. So take your Bibles to Christ.”
-Robert Murray M’Cheyne
I can’t believe I took the time to read all the posts. But I read with bated breath to see if anyone would get the heart of God in the Bible. I think Patrick (not Sexton, 3/15, 9:24) got the closest. (Caveat: My tone will probably sound like I think I’ve got it all together. Not true. I reflect in a very small space without benefit of embodiment my current understanding of God’s word and his world.)
This whole discussion comes back to the gospel of Jesus for me. What was it? First, why was there a need for good news (or hope as Caleb’s article mentioned)? God created a good world and appointed stewards to wisely oversee it. Such wisdom is found through the Bible in both descriptive and prescriptive ways, but mainly the former. See Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and James for example. God’s stewards, humans, screwed it all up by doing their job unwisely, their own way.
To get things back on track, God chose redemptive characters (themselves quite flawed) throughout the Bible. Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and the nation of Israel as a whole. The nation of Israel was God’s son. They were to restore his creation to its original glory. (And the whole First Testament war thing seems to be more rooted in God’s direct command to bring order and purity to the land he was giving them. No nation has that benefit today. Besides, I’m not going to risk killing a brother or sister–in Christ or in humanity–from another nation.) Israel screwed up, though. We got ourselves a theme. Exile resulted.
When Jesus came, Israel was back in their land and temple worship was going full tilt. But to a person, they knew they were still in exile. Their constant cry was for God to come rule them wisely, unlike the Romans.
So Jesus comes with his gospel to subvert Caesar’s gospel. Different caesars sent gospels to their colonial outposts saying things like, “Finally, the prince of peace has come to the throne. If ever you have trouble, I, your savior, will come to your aid. Etc.” Jesus used the exact same language, but never the same means.
The Roman historian Tacitus (according to some sources) said referring to Roman methods, “They make a desert and call it peace.” Jordan’s list above very effectively outlines what Jesus said about our relationship to the people we hate most. Love and serve. Love and serve.
War does not bring peace. I will note that the people who were liberated as a result of the Civil War (thank God!) have millions of descendents (or people who share the same skin color) who still feel like they are still in exile. Like the Jews of Jesus’ day, they are waiting for a return to good order–in this case, for someone to come and get us all enlightened so we stop treating each other with suspicion and contempt.
Until we all reach “enlightenment,” wars will continue with the oppressed becoming the oppressor every so often. Meanwhile bloodshed flows upon bloodshed, grieving the heart of God.
Jesus is the one who is trying to restore his creation. At the resurrection, those who attempt to bring his peace his way will join in the eternal project of being wise stewards in the new heaven and new earth. Perhaps a few thousand or billion years late (depending on your cosmology), but it will be for the eternal glory of the Creating and Redeeming God.
Patrick Sexton
Follow me on this if you will, I didn’t say if you can because you are bright and well spoken. I do not want you to think I am being insulting. Jesus was not an American and America is not God’s hammer on the planet. Some one once said to me they thought it was impossible for a person to be a Christian and not be a republican. As I read Acts 2:44 I wonder if that early church had the slightest notion they were not being good republicans.
I get the feeling that you believe we are in Iraq because we are on the side of justice, I think that would be awesome. but I can’t see it. I think we are there for a couple of other reasons. Saddam tried to kill George Sr, I think W. was arrogant from the start and thought it would be an easy war to win as did alot of other people and that isnt the case. I think the fact that we have oilmen in power is a factor. Price of oil goes up and a bunch of American oilmen get rich er.
Hasnt the oil companies profits been in the record range for a while now?
I know you will say I’m making it too simple.
Consider this audacious hope, if we (America) would spend the same amount of money supporting missionaries to the Middle East and not war do you think it is possible for God to do what man has failed to do? I know, it really isnt going to happen but I have to believe in things that are only doable by the God of heaven. Otherwise my faith is in man and that really only leads to dissapointment.
The attractiveness of Obama is that he is not arrogant he brings the idea that we should be doing better, taking care of the widows and the orphans. That we do have social responsibilities to live up to, those are scriptural.
The problem with W. is that he keeps insisting he is right and there really is no good way to tell and it is hard to trust his words after the way this whole war started, I am not calling him a liar I truly believe that W. wanted all the things about Bin Laden and Saddam to be real as well as the WMD. Sadly they are not real so it is hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry I was a bit all over the map but there are soooo many ideas floating around on this site that it is hard to keep a tight focus. Thanks for the exchange of ideas. Keep thinking critically and filter all this thru the scripture. I wish it were black and white then it would be easy to see who is right and wrong. As it is we get practice at getting over ourselves and loving each other as brothers in Christ and letting that unify us instead of divide us. Rage On.
Wow, this si still going! Of course is was about something (or someone) different than it is now. But I digress
So, can a Christian go to war or even support his or her nation going to war? Guess what, you all are not the first to ask this question, nor will you be the last. Personally, I don’t believe that every war America chooses to fight is a just war. We should have never been in Vietnam for instance. They were not a threat. They didn’t have Nukes pointed at us. They weren’t sending spies or terrorists. But I also believe that not every war America fights is unjust. Who can argue that we were not right to fight Hitler’s Germany? Sure, our beginning reasons were not all that good. Mostly just didn’t want England to get swallowed up by the Nazis. But in the end, we liberated millions of Jews and other ethnic groups targeted by Hitler for extermination. Surely that makes WWII a just war. Is Irag a just war. Maybe yes, maybe no. We went with one reason, and once we had driven Sadam out, had to change the reason. Oddly enough, we found out that he was no better than Hitler. Yes he allowed the small Christian community ot exist, but he also murdered millions of his own people, because they were of a different ethnic or religious background than him. His and his son’s crimes against women were incredible. He deserved to be overthrown. Should America be the one to do that, I don’t really know. But we did.
BTW, if all war is wrong, then why fight the Revolution, why fight the Cival War, why fight Hitler? And if all war is wrong, then all memebers of the military are evil as well. You can’t say war is wrong and then not say that the soldiers who by nature of their possitions must fight the war are not also worng. To be intelectually honest, you have to say that being a soldier is also a sin. Because if you cast a blanket over all war as sin then you have to say that those who make wara are also sinning and sin is evil.
Greg,
In every instance you named, there were ways around that war.
Take Hitler, for instance.
The Nazi party didn’t just magically rise to power. German nationalism was allowed to blossom because of the horrible depression Germany was facing. Most historians say World War II was a direct consequence of how the Allies treated Germany and the Central Powers after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles put the entire cost of the war on the back of the German people, effectively crushing the country for many years and giving rise to an angry form of nationalism.
Similarly, slavery could’ve been ended without the Civil War. In fact, over 20 countries had banned slavery before the United States, including Great Britain, Sweden, France, Peru, Mexico, Argentina and Canada. Japan outlawed slavery almost 300 years prior to the US. Most of these countries accomplished abolition without bloodshed, let alone the most deadly war in American history.
The Revolutionary War is certainly looked upon proudly by Americans. Another worldly empire was established. As Christians, though, why is that important? If we didn’t have freedom to worship, would that stop us from worshiping?
I can’t believe this is still going either. It has been extremely stimulating. I don’t know where to begin, so I’ll start with John.
John,
I don’t know what Bible you’ve been reading, but you need to go back to the basics. I’m not trying to insult you, but you are extremely off-base with some of the things you said.
1. All of those person’s you listed were not redemptive persons nor was the nation of Israel and they weren’t brought in to restore creation to its original glory. God created the world perfect and it was corrupted when Adam and Eve sinned. Restoration to original glory will not occur until Christ returns. Israel was not God’s son. Jesus Christ is God’s Son, His only begotten Son. Israel was God’s chosen people, 2 very different things. Your whole paragraph makes it sound like God tried and failed with the children of Israel, so then He decided to try Jesus. Jesus was present at the beginning with God created the perfect world. The nation of Israel was to spread the word of God to a fallen world, and then would be nation from whom the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ would come. The plan was in place from the beginning and worked out exactly like God planned it.
2. War does bring peace, you can try to argue it doesn’t, but history has proven different. I’ve said all I can about that subject, and you can stick your head in the sand if you want, but it’s true.
Now, to the whole “enlightenment” nonsense. What translation of the Bible did you read that in? We will never reach enlightenment. That’s some eastern mysticism idea that is nowhere in the scripture. We will never have true peace until Christ’s return at the 2nd coming. The resurrection has already occurred (remember Easter?)
The rest of what you had to say was so far out of line with the whole Bible, that I’m really not sure how to respond.
Greg,
I just wanted to comment on one thing you said and that was that we shouldn’t have been in Vietnam. I disagree with that assessment. We were on the verge of winning that war until people lost the will to fight back home. Our reason for being there was to contain communism which was a direct threat to us (remember the cold war). US policy at that time was aimed at trying to prevent the spread of communism anywhere else on the globe.
Jordan,
Do you remember why there was a Treaty of Versailles in the 1st place? Oh yeah, it was because the Germans had invaded France and started a world war. The French bear some of the blame since they were sabre rattling as well. When I think about it, it was what you call freedom land that was helpful in starting most of the conflicts of the 20th Century. Them and Germany. Something worth noting.
Explain to me how slavery could have been ended without the Civil War? Should Lincoln just have let the Confederate States secede from the Union? It was a war that was necessary to hold the Country together. The south was not going to outlaw slavery under any other condition. Only after being beaten soundly was peace attained.
Would you rather not have the United States of America? What kind of statement is that? Do you think that we would be better off if were still a British Colony (or technically colonies of numerous European countries?) Have you noticed the restrictions placed on religion in general and more specifically Christianity in European countries? Our country is the only country whose founding document says that our freedoms and rights come from God.
Give me a break.
Patrick,
The Germans also started World War II, but when they were defeated, the United States instituted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, loaning money to all of the nations, not just putting the bill on Germany. Things worked out pretty well. Europe was rebuilt. You know why they did this? Because the Treaty of Versaille directly lead to the rise of the Nazi party and World War II, and we learned from that mistake. In a sense, the Marshall Plan was a level of forgiveness. Additionally, World War II was more the fault of Germany than World War I (WWI being more related to alliances than an insane warlord).
As for the Civil War, I referenced a few nations that abolished slavery without bloodshed, so as to the question ‘could slavery have ended without the Civil War’, i say yes. It had already happened in other countries already. Over 20 times, in fact.
But the South did cede from the Union, and I say this abject support of slavery was another sin. Of course, the Old Testament doesn’t call slavery a sin, either, but wouldn’t we all agree it is at this point?
As for America, my response is this: the Kingdom of God exists either way. If we were British citizens (as Canadians and Australians and many others were for centuries after we received independence), would that have changed our faith? Would the church be dead? I think God is bigger than that?
Have you ever met members of the Ukrainian church, forced to live under a regime where their belief was illegal? Those folks are as strong or stronger in their faith than American believers are.
What restrictions have European countries placed on Christianity? I can’t think of a single European nation where practicing Christianity is illegal. But I might be wrong. It’s happened before.
Patrick and Jordan have a good volley going, so I don’t want to interrupt that. BUT I wanted to address the statement about Vietnam:
Yeah, it was about communism (i.e. economics, but that’s neither here nor there). But all the rhetoric at the time focused on helping those poor South Vietnamese people—the same people whose villages we eventually bombed the crap out of. Yeah, we really gave a rat’s ass about the Vietnamese. Maybe the American people lost the will to support the war because they saw a discrepancy between what we said and what we did, and they didn’t see any favorable result of us losing our soldiers. Can’t imagine that going on today.
Carry on. (My wayward son.)
Actually Jessica, Communism doesn’t equal economics. It was a threat to our way of life and a totalitarian/dictator run type of government. And exactly what villages did in South Vietnam did we bomb the crap out of? If you remember, we were on the same side as the South Vietnamese. The ones who didn’t care about the vietnamese, are the members of congress at the time who voted to stop funding the war. What happened then? Oh yeah, it was overrun by the communist north. So what happens when we pull out of Iraq before the job is finished? Radical Islam takes over another country and breeds more terrorism.
Nice try Jessica, but you need to go back to history class. (by the way, I’m not your son). And I’m very impressed with your vocabulary as well.
I don’t think Jessica was being condescending…she was just referencing “Carry On (My Wayward Son”, the classic rock hit from Kansas (the band, not the state).