Gobalopper Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 My university newspaper had an article today talking about war and the author came to the conclusion war is just, he even used some of the same verses as you TMA. ;)http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=1015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 My university newspaper had an article today talking about war and the author came to the conclusion war is just, he even used some of the same verses as you TMA. ;)http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=1015good article Gob.I would like to ask TMA what he thinks of a Christian police officer having to shoot and kill someone in order to protect an innocent person (not self defense). I'd like to know what TMA thinks of black slaves rising up and with the help of the North, overthrowing their masters (self-defense), as well as the US invading Germany and freeing a million+ jews from torture (not self defense). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 as I said before with the gulf war, that was a good thing. We were protecting our allies in the middle east from attacks already made on them. This war is different.What if I cop shot a man who was reaching for his wallet? it happened, the guy was from outside the U.S. The cops assumed he had a gun, and shot him dozens of times. Though the profession of being a police officer is hard, (that is what I am going to go into when I am ready) there are limits. we are fighting a war of phantoms, and all that is left is interpritation of the bible. I believe that we are making a great mistake. God using us to destroy evil nations? If God is trying to destroy any nation, its probably america. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 as I said before with the gulf war, that was a good thing. We were protecting our allies in the middle east from attacks already made on them. This war is different.What if I cop shot a man who was reaching for his wallet? it happened, the guy was from outside the U.S. The cops assumed he had a gun, and shot him dozens of times. Though the profession of being a police officer is hard, (that is what I am going to go into when I am ready) there are limits. we are fighting a war of phantoms, and all that is left is interpritation of the bible. I believe that we are making a great mistake. God using us to destroy evil nations? If God is trying to destroy any nation, its probably america. there is no difference between protecting our allies (kuwait) in the middle east from attacks made on them, and protecting people (iraqi's) in the middle east from attacks made on them.God is not partial to anyone. There are no borders in God's eyes. Whether we are protecting Kuwaities or Iraqi's, blacks in colonial america, or Jews in Germany, its all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 dude, this is pointless, I am not going to bicker with somebody who has a problem arguing. You repeat everything you say, you use the bible in a distorted way, you say things like "God does not see a boarders between nations." Well no shmit sherlock.lol We do though, and God made nationalism for us as a form of protection. One of the four divine institutions.Free willMarriageFamilyNationalismNow in those rules, it shows that tyranny is a sin for many many reasons. But by nationalism though, we have every right not to attack other nations for their own sins. The iraqi people arent allies, they are in an enemy territory. It may be cold, but idealism is destroyed when reality comes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 well now you are not making sense. In one thread you said it was OK for us to attack Iraq to defend our "allies" (does it matter to God if Kuwait is a geopolitical ally or not?). You then agree that God does not see borders.So if it is OK to attack Hussein to defend people in Kuwait, how is it not OK to attack Hussein to defend people in Iraq?God sees no borders, so defending people is simply defending people...who cares WHERE they are!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 politics my friend, politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 politics my friend, politics.oh which God is not a part of. However, I have thought about your position (though you may not believe it), and I respect it because I see the logic from whence you are deriving it, therefore I propose we have a peaceful settlement: agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 sure man. You as well have a well thought opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneakgab Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 I've read through all of this and I must say that TMA's point about waiting for Iraq to attack other countries before doing something is a trite point from a political or realistic view point (This thread seems to have moved away from idealism/what is philosphecally and biblically right or wrong to what is politically/realistically right or wrong). If we are 99% sure Iraq is going to attack other countries then obviously attacking him before he does would result in less casualities. Obviously this is better from a political and realistic political. Religously though, even if we are 99% sure Iraq is going to force war, we are still fighting a war of phantoms as TMA poetically yet accurately describes itAll just IMO of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 I've read through all of this and I must say that TMA's point about waiting for Iraq to attack other countries before doing something is a trite point from a political or realistic view point (This thread seems to have moved away from idealism/what is philosphecally and biblically right or wrong to what is politically/realistically right or wrong). If we are 99% sure Iraq is going to attack other countries then obviously attacking him before he does would result in less casualities. Obviously this is better from a political and realistic political. Religously though, even if we are 99% sure Iraq is going to force war, we are still fighting a war of phantoms as TMA poetically yet accurately describes itAll just IMO of course...i would normally agree with that point, however, Hussein is already attacking Iraqi people. That is why I feel it is justified. Defending the helpless does not require borders. And secondly, he is already breaking UN resolutions, which clearly spell out he can be taken out for. This means it is not pre-emptive. But TMA can have his points, no need for me to argue him anymore, I see where he comes from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneakgab Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 I'm aware of you're points Empr, I'm really just building on them. Obviously you lack the time to mention every thing on you're mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.