Christians and defence

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:51 pm

How are we as Christians to respond to the threats from North Korea and Iran? A timely topic at this particular time.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:55 pm

Ted wrote: How are we as Christians to respond to the threats from North Korea and Iran. A timely topic at this particular time.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Firstly, stop threatening them.

Secondly, talk - not bluster and not with expectations of what you will hear but to find out what will be said and what common ground can be found

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:06 pm

Pray?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:07 pm

Oh, and turn the other cheek.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:40 pm

I have to look at the fact that both countries have totally ignored with wishes of the UN and the international community. In fact both were offered help in developing nuclear power. It seems however, that they have more than just electrical power.

Than I have to think back to the late 1930s and Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time". Appeasement does not work. In the case of Chamberlain it simply gave Hitler more time to build up his military might. If Britain had dallied any longer the world might look different today.

The leaders in both countries seem not to give a damn what anyone else thinks. Good old Kim Il gave himself a $38 M. birthday while thousands of h is people are starving to death. How many billions has he spent on weapons instead of trying to make life better for his people. He is nothing more than another sick dictator.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:25 pm

Ted wrote: How are we as Christians to respond to the threats from North Korea and Iran? A timely topic at this particular time.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Leave religion out of politics for one. No one should impose anything on anyone, they should show by example, which includes not to use "Christianity" as a primary motive for anything other than defensive action when faced with immoral threat. That's where preemptive warfare comes in, and is ridiculed as much as possible in order to show why it was needed in the first place. We shouldn't imply that our religion is better than anyone else's, which is the way others perceive when religion is the primary motive for action. People have moral values, religion is just in how it describes those values, which should then lead the person with those very same values to make rightful decision that arise within his/her governmental control.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:45 pm

K.Snyder:-6

I can agree that no one should be forcing anything on anyone else. However, that is a two way street. We did not ask for WWII but it was forced upon us by a maniac who gained enough control to upset the whole world.

Now we can see that North Korea is trying to influence the rest of the world.

I think it is also important to remember that the world is becomming smaller every day and as such what one country does may impact on another. Thus we must be cognisant of the fact that we do not adversely effect others.

If I had the answer I could be a very rich person indeed. However, I see two nations who are thumbing their noses at the rest of the human race.

Perhaps all we lack is another Neville Chamberlain who will present us with false hopes in the success of appeasment.

I certainly can't go along with the American attitude of "I'm going to make them democratically minded even if I have to kill every one of them."

Neither a simple problem nor a simple solution.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:19 pm

Ted wrote:

Now we can see that North Korea is trying to influence the rest of the world.

This is an issue of diplomacy not religion. One religion shouldn't be categorized as the only religion that harbors rational ideals until there is evidence to support that.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:21 pm

Ted wrote:

I certainly can't go along with the American attitude of "I'm going to make them democratically minded even if I have to kill every one of them."

Me either, but I do heed to "They're not going to take my freedom even if every last one of them tries to kill me".

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:24 pm

K.Snyder:-6

I sometimes wonder about diplomacy as it relates to some. Chamberlain tried diplomacy and gave old Adolf extra time to build up military might. I think there are times when deplomacy works but thee are times when the opposition simply wants it all and his/her way.

I can agree that generally it is not a religious issue but it becomes somewhat a religious issue when one is considering what steps to take.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm

Ted wrote:

I can agree that generally it is not a religious issue but it becomes somewhat a religious issue when one is considering what steps to take.

Absolutely, that was my point in my original post, stating that people should use their morale values when faced with decisions, yet keeping from imposing their religion at the same time. To kill in the name of god is wrong, to kill to preserve life in the name of god however I believe in.

An atheist doesn't have a religion, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of making correct governmental and rational decisions that benefit the peoples in question. When they do make correct decisions its based entirely on morale values. You don't have to be religious to be a good hearted person.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:59 pm

When talking about the middle east countries.......I get upset.......ACTUALLY VERY UPSET...........

They are a different religion from us....Christian/Muslim.......

I also have a basic belief that the peoples of every country were denegrated and exterminated for their religious beliefs.

I know this is correct............Every religion is correct according to their beliefs.

Go figure the strife.

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:37 pm

Ted wrote:

Than I have to think back to the late 1930s and Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time". Appeasement does not work. In the case of Chamberlain it simply gave Hitler more time to build up his military might. If Britain had dallied any longer the world might look different today.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Bingo.

sit around and wait too long and it will be too late to do anything.

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:18 am

Galbally wrote: Pray?

Galbally, I read the OP and was going to put just that:wah:

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:34 am

These are not two otherwise rational governments taking defensive measures and simply moving where technology takes them. These nations are ruled by lunatics who are making very provocative and aggressive statements. Does this world really need more nuclear nations, esp crazy ones?

But to answer Ted's question, Galbally is absolutely correct. We christians must pray for some reason in this teetering world and pray that our leaders make wise and just decisions.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:56 am

Ted wrote: How are we as Christians to respond to the threats from North Korea and Iran? A timely topic at this particular time.-6

Gosh, what threats are these?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:12 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: Gosh, what threats are these?

Everyone has to think of Nuclear armament as a threat, especially when those nation states have no reasonable motive to claim self defense.

(My opinion)

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:04 am

1. As an American I have trouble with the implication that we are the only nation with anything too lose at the hand of these goofballs. That's why the U.S. isn't holding unilateral talks with N. Korea. There are at least 6 countries with a lot to lose if N. Korea goes nuke and even more if Iran does.

2. Keeping religion out of this is impossible in my view. Even those who claim no religion are claiming an ideology that opposes it. They hold to those ideologies with a fervor equal, in many cases, to any extremest in another religion. Their disdane for religion is frightening.

3. "Pray"... absolutely! We need to pray for peace. When I say that I don't mean that we not have war, I mean that we pray that the hearts of mankind are at peace and we quit thinking about war.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:43 am

Clint wrote:

2. Keeping religion out of this is impossible in my view. Even those who claim no religion are claiming an ideology that opposes it. They hold to those ideologies with a fervor equal, in many cases, to any extremest in another religion. Their disdane for religion is frightening.

If we were to hypothetically rule out religion, in that all human beings on the face of the earth do not believe in a god or gods, the fact of the matter is, is this is a diplomatic matter and should be looked upon as dealing with it, with diplomatic strategy. Any country going Nuclear should be looked upon as a threat, especially when those countries have no legitimate claim for "self defense". (My opinion)

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:51 am

K.Snyder wrote: If we were to hypothetically rule out religion, in that all human beings on the face of the earth do not believe in a god or gods, the fact of the matter is, is this is a diplomatic matter and should be looked upon as dealing with it, with diplomatic strategy. Any country going Nuclear should be looked upon as a threat, especially when those countries have no legitimate claim for "self defense". (My opinion)
Not much here for me to argue with. What I find interesting in this hypothisis is that we would still be fighting over something. Power struggles, border disputes and differing ideologies would create the need in the minds of many to build armies and better weapons to ultimately use them to threaten or kill.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:07 pm

Clint wrote: Not much here for me to argue with. What I find interesting in this hypothisis is that we would still be fighting over something. Power struggles, border disputes and differing ideologies would create the need in the minds of many to build armies and better weapons to ultimately use them to threaten or kill.

Yeah but Ironically enough, would there be more killing and disregard for human life if no one were to fear their own religion? One can look at such a hypothesis as you put it, and wonder which group of people conducts diplomacy more rationally than the other, given such a hypothetical scenario being without a god.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:37 pm

I can agree that some folks live under a religous faith based on fear. However, not all folks do.

As for diplomacy, Anglican Bishop Hambidge of British Columbia was instrumental in bringing about a fair treaty with the Nis'ga people after years of bad faith bargaining on the part of both the federal govt. and the provincial govt. One man's fight for justice.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:53 pm

Ted wrote: I can agree that some folks live under a religous faith based on fear. However, not all folks do.

Ah, but should they?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:58 pm

K.Snyder:-6

My personal opinion is that they should not.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:10 pm

Ted wrote: K.Snyder:-6

My personal opinion is that they should not.

Shalom

Ted:-6

They shouldn't fear god's power?

Don't you think this would lead to a carelessness that renders irrational behavior?

If you don't fear the ultimate outcome of what you worship, I think this is a recipe for disaster and teaches people there are no consequences to their actions ultimately harboring bad choices.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:13 pm

K.Snyder:-6

Are people that immature that they still need their daddy to keep them on the right track. That is an awfully dim view of the human race.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:22 pm

Ted wrote: K.Snyder:-6

Are people that immature that they still need their daddy to keep them on the right track. That is an awfully dim view of the human race.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Some people don't have "daddy's", does that mean their irrational behavior can be justified?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:27 pm

K.Snyder:-6

Perhaps they need the help of a counsellor or a psychologist or a psychiatrist or maybe just their family doctor.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:32 pm

Ted wrote: K.Snyder:-6

Perhaps they need the help of a counsellor or a psychologist or a psychiatrist or maybe just their family doctor.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Yeah I would hope so....

I mean their fathers left them, I would hope they had somebody right?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:34 pm

K.Snyder:-6

Society has recourse for those who do not know how to behave. If their parents messed up generally society takes over.

Shalom

Ted:-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:38 pm

Ted wrote: K.Snyder:-6

Society has recourse for those who do not know how to behave. If their parents messed up generally society takes over.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Society responsible for instilling rational behavior in children's lives who have left them. Wow, I can sleep at night hearing that.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:42 pm

K.Snyder:-6

Unfortunately that can fall to society to deal with. I would say that basically it is called self preservation on the part of society.

Of course if society fails in that than they usuall put them in a prison somewhere under the mistaken premise they will rehabilitate them. This does not usually happen because society is not willing to spend the money to do so.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:10 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Everyone has to think of Nuclear armament as a threat, especially when those nation states have no reasonable motive to claim self defense.

(My opinion)

Firstly, prove that Iran has any intention to create nuclear weapons (apart from in US propaganda) and secondly, prove that either are a threat to the US. (Even North Korea can only deliver missiles to about 1500 KM - far short of the US)

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:06 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: Firstly, prove that Iran has any intention to create nuclear weapons (apart from in US propaganda) and secondly, prove that either are a threat to the US. (Even North Korea can only deliver missiles to about 1500 KM - far short of the US)

Honestly what gives you the impression that I am biased when it comes to the safety and well being of people. I know that N.Korea wouldn't be able to carry out a nuclear attack against the United States, atleast not in the nearest future. What about the entire country of S.Korea, whom they have been technically at war with for the last 60 years? We cannot afford to trust the simple fact that no one will use nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon doesn't expire like that of a loaf of bread. Eventually, some nutcase will use them, and by then it will be too late.

Prove that the country of Iran has a reasonable means to declare going nuclear as a means of self defense.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:31 am

It seems that many are reading the opening post as what should the US do, rather than Christians, as Ted wrote. Ted's Canadian, as I recall.

As Christians, we should do as Galbally, Adam, & Clint have already said: pray. Send out positive beams in the finest FG tradition.

Pray that Iran's and N. Korea's leadership's (or even all leaders') thoughts and goals turn from war to peace.

Pray that the American and European leaders find solutions that are more Christ-like than military attack.

Pray that scientists suddenly hit on an idea that makes nuclear power obsolete.

Pray that God give you instruction/inspiration on how to carry out your own life in such trying times.

Maybe we should all focus the power of our thoughts and prayers in one direction we can all agree on.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:55 am

Ted wrote: How are we as Christians to respond to the threats from North Korea and Iran? A timely topic at this particular time.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Not sure I get this. Do Christians alter their message or deviate from the word based on situational events ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:35 am

Nomad wrote: Not sure I get this. Do Christians alter their message or deviate from the word based on situational events ?The Word is a big thing. Shouldn't we concentrate on one part more than another, depending on the situation?

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:03 am

Accountable wrote: The Word is a big thing. Shouldn't we concentrate on one part more than another, depending on the situation?
Great point. Some would say the Word isn't valid because all of it doesn't apply to present situations. To the contrary it is always valid when applied to the situations it was intended for.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:45 pm

What is meant by the term "the word"? I think that a definition here is in order.

Thanks.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:59 pm

Ted wrote: What is meant by the term "the word"? I think that a definition here is in order.

Thanks.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I'm moving on. I recognize bait when I see it.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:05 pm

clint:-6

It was not intended as bait. Many folks put different meanings to that phrase.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:48 am

K.Snyder wrote: Yeah but Ironically enough, would there be more killing and disregard for human life if no one were to fear their own religion? One can look at such a hypothesis as you put it, and wonder which group of people conducts diplomacy more rationally than the other, given such a hypothetical scenario being without a god.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Mao, and many others...... tens of millions upon tens of millions killed by governments that banned religion.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:12 am

Adam Zapple wrote: Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Mao, and many others...... tens of millions upon tens of millions killed by governments that banned religion.

Yes, and I'm sure many would argue that this is merely a coincidence, but I beg to differ myself.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:50 am

Diuretic wrote: So what is the connection? Note - I am not baiting (getting defensive early aren't I?).

The way I see it is, moral instinct plays a vital role in diplomacy and can be contributed to a lot of rational decisions that may have at first been seen as blatant aggression from the rest of the world.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:26 pm

Diuretic:-6

How true that quote from Darwin is. As they say "ignorance is bliss."

Shalom

Ted:-6