A serious affair...
Since the critique of feminism didn't get many of you riled up (not that that's my purpose), let's talk about this question posted by one of my many un-named commentors*:
Anonymous said...
...how bout a discussion on what to do about the situation in Iraq? As evangelical believers, is it ok to disagree with the man on our being there at this point? Some good questions, with no easy answers.
What are your thoughts? Why do you feel/believe what you do about this topic (ie. where do you find support for your opinion/argument)?
_____________________________
*For the record, I would love for you people to post your names. You don't have to be a member of eblogger---just sign your name as a courtesy. Thanks. :)
posted by Lorie @ 10:45 AM
52 Comments:
I think it was best said a good question with no easy answer. I just wished we could send em all back home now to be with thier families as man lives have been forever changed. Yet now if we do, it could mean destroying every reason why we were over there.
We don't need to be the world police foerever...it's ok to help out, but sometimes, I think it's almost too much.
The troops over there I have a hard time understanding thier faith, at least the chrsitians. We are told not to kill and yet they are in a position to do so. We are told to turn the other cheek, yet we puch the other cheek. I don't know but I would imagine there is alot unholy goin on over there on both sides.
I just wished it were over soon.
War is a part of life, it has always been a part of life. yes God said not to kill, but he also had the Israelites wipe out every people group in the promised land.
Christians would not go into the military without some understanding that they may have to fire some shots, and they may also have to take some. Not to be insensitive, but they knew about it when they signed up.
Now the whole thing if we should have gone to Iraq in the first place. Heck NO! Sadam was a very cruel dictator, but he had too many sanctions to be any type of threat.
So I don't have THE answer, but where i stand right now, we should not have gone there, and it is now too late to back down. to leave now would create a massive political vacuum, which usually ends in chaos until some other regimine takes control.
i miss you
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"So I don't have THE answer, but where i stand right now, we should not have gone there, and it is now too late to back down. to leave now would create a massive political vacuum, which usually ends in chaos until some other regimine takes control."
My thoughts exactly, Paul.
As to the issue of whether it's okay to disagree with our leaders, I would say, "Of course." There is room for debate on many sides of the issue.
Also, we don't have kings in this country (except for our fair blog hostess). We have elected officials. In other words, they work for us. In that sense, they are not "leaders." We willingly hand them the baton for a short period of time, and we exercise our duty to hold them accountable for using their power in acceptable ways. That is not only our right, it is our duty.
Now, I would say that, as Christians, it is our responsibility to be courteous and respectful, even in areas of sharp disagreement.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul -- actually, God said "do not murder". There's a difference. Not that I'm in favour of going to war when prayer and evangelism would remove the need for taking human life, but the Bible is full of examples where God uses military force to perform His will. And that's both for and against His people.
On Christians in the military -- Interestingly, about the only group of people I can find in the Bible who received universal acclaim for their faith and understanding of the ways of God was the centurians. Seems like those in the military understand some things that the rest of Christian opinion-making could learn.
On going to war in the first place -- Saddam is a vile, horrible dictator. Freeing the people of Iraq from his cruelty is a blessing to them. The fact that America installed him, armed him to the teeth, used him to fight Iran when it suited, then left him to do as he pleased means she has a moral obligation to fix up the mess she created.
As an Australian whose forces were there before any other (our SAS was "in country" before any US forces crossed the border), a former military officer and pastor, I agree with all who consider this a very difficult issue indeed.
The one thing everyone should do--irrespective of their position on the war--is to support the men and women who are there. Let's not have another generation of suicidal, drug-dependent vets coming home to condemnation and rejection from their people. The body count from Vietnam continues to rise still ... and that could be by far the worst crime any Christian can be guilty of.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stewart soon to be free of ankle bracelet
It's time to board up the windows and douse your door in lamb's blood, because Martha Stewart will have her electronic ankle bracelet removed on Wednesday.
Discover guitar lessons - The ultimate guitar blog
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think the Iraq situation is one of those "damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't" things. Even though one of our main reasons for going there was based on faulty information (I'm speaking of course of the W.M.Ds)the brutal dictator Sadaam was way over due for removal and we did the world a favor by doing it.
On the other hand, in an area where tribal peoples have been fighting each other for centuries, It seems an impossible task to write a constitution that will satisfy all in that country. And now that we're over there it would be a total washout if we just up and left.
War is always an evil, just not necessarily the worst evil. I've yet to hear from any anti-war people on what their alternative to helping the general population of Iraq get rid of Saddam would be. Not that I think the US administration did it solely to help the people, but given a choice between going to war and doing nothing (sanctions usually punish the general populace, rarely the ruling class) I think the right choice was made. I wish everybody involved in rebuilding Iraq all the luck in the world - it isn't going to be easy...or quick...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew, you're right -- we must support the troops, and that includes love and support when they return to civilian life.
Lorie, fascinating job in promoting your blog outside of the local realm. I really do learn a lot on here about cool gadgets.
You have GOT to be kidding me! Is nothing sacred anymore? Spammers are EVERYWHERE! Good grief...
But I couldn't bring myself to delete the guitar page link that talks about Martha Stewart---so fabulously random. :)
Now that I've tidied up a bit, I can go back and read all of your illustrious posts...
Lorie, Check your email, I sent you some valuable info to rid these *ahem* spammer comments.
Let's remember folks that it was not just the Bush administration that looked at the pre-war intelligence reports and made a decision that Sadaam was too dangerous to be left alone. Do you think that we should have left him in charge of Iraq when he is known as a ruthless dictator who brutally killed the Kurdish people, and he constantly refused to let the UN weapons inspectors in to do their job from the first gulf war? Both democrats and republicans, at least a majority, made a decision based on the information they had at the time, faulty though it might have been, to protect the US and the world from future 9/11 attacks. The bastard needed to go (a little KJV language for ya). Yet I do realize that we are currently in a mess. To imagine that there will ever be a true democracy in an Islamic state is to ignore thousands of years of history. So what are we to do given the present circumstances. Support our troops, pray for them often regardless if you agree with the war or not, and support our government according to Romans 13-- even if you disagree with their decisions--for God has placed them there. This stance seems to be a reasonable response to the original post. No easy answers. My conclusion, Sadaam needed to go, but things have not turned out as quickly as we would have liked.
...and support our government according to Romans 13-- even if you disagree with their decisions--for God has placed them there.
This is key for me, Masked Person. I am so sick and tired of all of the anti-Bush propaganda. The man can't do anything right! But it bothers me especially when I see it in the Church. We live in a free country and we enjoy (?) the right to voice our opinions and dissensions. I also believe, however, that---especially as believers---we are called to support and submit to those God has placed in positions of authority. Does this mean we always have to agree with what they do? No. But it means avoiding slander and disrespect.
God is the one who ordains rulers and authorities. He decides when and who is in charge when it comes to earthly governments. And I find it quite arrogant for most people to criticize our leader's political decisions as though they themselves could have made the "better" decision based on what they "know" from the agenda-led biased crap we are fed by the media.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cheryl,
I read the same Christian Passivism article in the Leo.
It was poor reasoning and an even worse examination of Scripture.
Some highlights from the article (which will also relate to going to war or not):
Jesus' 'turn the other cheek' statement was not a passivist statement. By telling his people to turn the cheek and walk the extra mile,Jesus was not teaching his people to take a beating without fighting back, or to do more than what is expected.
In 1st century Judaism (and most of the world), people were first to use their left hand to wipe (yes, I am refering to taking a poo). This meant that this hand was seen as unclean and it would be disrespectful to touch another person with this hand, especially in the face. So when you would turn the other cheek to someone who just hit you, you were daring them to break the law and putting them into a very touching situation.
This is the same as when he taught us to walk the extra mile.
It was illegal and a punishable of sever consequences if a Roman official were to ask someone who was not a Roman citizen to carry something more than a mile. Therefore, if you were to go the extra mile, you were resisting the government without fighting.
Now I know that these two references do not neccessarily teach that we go to war. They do not, however, teach passivism, as the author of the article was attempting for them to do.
That author was writing with no other intention than giving conservatives a bad name. This is apparent with his frequent use of the term, 'fundies.'
We must remember that there is such a thing as 'just war.'
Jesus went into the temple, furiously whipping (aka beating people with a whip), who were oppressing the numerous groups, (the gentiles place of worship, the poor, and wearry.)
Lori, I apologize for the length, but I felt it appropriate.
until then...
Matthew 5:38-41
38"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
39"But* I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two."
*emphasis mine
I also meant to say it is humerous that the author of that article had such a bad feeling towards fundies who do not take the beattitudes seriously, when he is the one that failed to but these particular beattitudes into their cultural context and figure out what Jesus was actually saying.
Yes, that "other cheek" thing is one of the more misconstrued and badly applied comments in all of scripture. No balanced reading of the Gospels can show that Jesus is a pacifist.
To play devil's advocate with Little King and her masked friend, I would ask if you felt this strongly about showing respect for the president when Mr. Clinton was in office. Just curious. Very possibly you felt the same way, but I think there is a serious double-standard at work among many Christians who talk about submitting to authority when THEY LIKE AND RESPECT the authority figure.
And when I've brought this up, the response I've gotten on about three occasions was "yeah, but, but, but ... Clinton was a slime ball. He cheated on his wife. And he, he, he ... he wanted socialized medicine." To which (and I say this as a conservative Christian who voted for Bush) someone of the opposite camp could easily and rightly say, "doesn't matter. God set him in his role as authority, so you shouldn't bad-mouth him."
And although I hate to repeat myself, I will ... we don't have kings or princes. We have elected officials. THEY work for US. And we, as citizens of a democratic republic, have an obligation to hold them accountable. We should do it in civil, respectful fashion, sure ... but, going back to the original question of this post: darn-tootin' right, evangelical Christians can disagree with the president on a question like "should we go to war?" This or any president.
I've disagreed with Bush on several occasions. If the other guy had won, I'd be disagreeing even more. That's what a free republic is all about. Can I get a witness? Can I get a witness?
I am sure you speak for many Bobby. Thanks
It is interesting that those who use the literal intepretation of Jesus' saying to "turn the other cheek" would not use the same hermeneutic to interpret Jesus' saying to "cut off the right hand, or poke out the eye" which is in the same Sermon on the Mount message. It is also interesting that when Jesus was struck in the face by a Roman officer after being arrested, he did not turn the other cheek. Rather, Jesus declared, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" ( John 18: 22, 23). I like what one evangelical ethicist says, "The actions of Jesus . . . clearly indicate that the sayings on turning the other cheek are meant to promote an attitude of nonrevenge, rather than the posture of a 'doormat' for abuse in such situations."
Furthermore, those who would say that Jesus' teachings in the beautitudes brings about a pacifist position have to deal with the just and holy, righteous act of God that sent Christ to the cross i.e., God saw that evil must be punished, and he saw fit that Christ bear this sin.
One final thing, the pacifist would not sit passively by if his wife were being raped, or if his child were being kidnapped. And, neither should we as Americans sit back and allow extremists to take our friends and family members' lives without trying to do something about it.
The masked anon
One more thing, ms King, God Bless Texas.
Um, amen? :)
of course "doing something about it" doesn't mean going to war. just ask pat robertson.
Okay, THAT'S hilarious.
In a sad kind of way. :)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Talk about a serious affair....is all these spamed comments....good to see ya went to the verification.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
(Wading into the fray) I've observed that people tend to stoop to character assassination to prop up an otherwise weak argument, but it's has become such a common tactic in all argumentation that folks have started combining character attacks with with otherwise strong arguments. Then the tendency of people on the other side of the issue is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, rejecting a valid point because it's couched in childish finger-pointing.
Of course, we have to be careful to avoid this tendency, but we also have to recognize it in others. The people screaming to get our troops out of Iraq have a point. War sucks. Men and women are dying. No mother wants to sacrifice her son for a cause, no matter how justified. But those folks have to be extra careful not to stoop to that whole "Bush is a buffoon" line that's been repeated ad nauseam for years.
Conversely, those who think that we're perfectly justified in being in Iraq need to watch out that they don't dismiss the other side out of hand.
My thought on the whole issue is that there are a lot of people in charge of the military operations in Iraq who are a lot smarter than me, and have a lot more experience and expertise, and are party to a whole heck of a lot more inside information than I am. They should be the ones making the decisions, not me or the New York Times or Ted Kennedy or Al Mohler, for that matter. My job is to pray for God's protection and mercy, and that HE would glorify Christ through the spread of the Gospel that's now possible in Iraq.
(Exeunt severally: me and my opinions)
yes, mam. yes, indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home