« "24" & Forgiveness | Main | "The Last Full Measure of Devotion" »

May 22, 2009

Comments

If you had good German Lutherans and good American Lutherans killing each other in WWI & WWII, which side would Jesus take?

How does one satanic kingdom waring against another satanic kingdom have anything to do with Christ who said His servants do not fight because his kingdom is not of this world?

Shouldn't we be praising the truly heroic Conscientious Objectors who were imprisoned for not dragging Christ's name through the mud of war instead?

Of course, Lt. Murphy refers to Audie Murphy, the American Actor and most-decorated soldier of WW2 (33, including his Medal of Honor).

My husband's Armchair General magazine this month has a feature on Medal of Honor winners. Very impressive bunch. You Americans have much to be proud about.

Pro Life,

Jesus is against genocide and thus would oppose the 3rd Reich.

Because Christians live in this world now.

No, the true heroes were the ones who fought against the genocide.

>David Blain

Are you sure it was about genocide? Isn't that a kind of after the fact reason, the same way Bush's (Lies) reasons for the Iraq war kept changing?

The Apostle James says war is about money.

Again I ask, what business is it of Christians to meddle in wars between satanic kingdoms?

Although Christians are part of a heavenly kingdom, we are also members of earthly kingdoms/nations.

You’re not actually suggesting we should have let Germany and Japan go wild on the rest of Europe and the pacific theater are you?

Where does the Apostle James say war is about money?

>Although Christians are part of a heavenly kingdom, we are also members of earthly kingdoms/nations.

Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world.

Satan offered all of the kingdoms of the world to Jesus if he would worship the him.

Since this was a real test and Jesus knows the truth, we must conclude that all of the kingdoms are under the immediate control of Satan.

We are in the world but not part of it. Even patriotism is sin.
1John 2:15 Love not the world (Greek; political social order of the nations), neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

>You’re not actually suggesting we should have let Germany and Japan go wild on the rest of Europe and the pacific theater are you?

You are a liberal for saying this. Our founding American fathers shunned all alliances with other nations. They even shunned having a standing army knowing that it would be used in the fashion that it is being used today.

Ample evidence suggests the reason we fought WWI & WWII was for the purpose of collecting the loans and interest the Federal Reserve and the Global Bankers had invested in Europe. If Germany prevailed they would not collect.

Had Germany won, there is no way they could over take the US from that distance had we kept up with the original gorilla force our founding fathers called for in the Bill of Rights.

>James 4:1-3 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

People all lust for something but the big one is money. It's why we go to college, go to work, rob, kill, cheat, and war. When nations go to war it's about power=money. Check the Neoconservative Defense Planning Guidance if you don't think this is true.

Notice we never seek to go to war with impoverished nations for moral reasons, like preventing genocide etc., that is unless they have profitable natural resources. Or unless our military industrial complex can profit by selling arms and rebuilding infrastructures.

1 Tim. 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Yeah, I'm sure it was about genocide.

Not every war is about money and James makes no such point. War can be justified.

We are living in a world in which war is a reality. Christ never called us to pacifism, and, in fact, God is not a pacifist.

Enjoy your freedom to voice your opinion of pacifism as many have died fighting for your right to do so.

I am glad people like you are not responsible for anything related to defending our freedoms. Otherwise we would be screwed.

>Yeah, I'm sure it was about genocide.

The only time it was about genocide was when the US wiped out the Native Americans and Mexicans in a land grab. Possibly Nagasaki & Hiroshima too?

>Not every war is about money and James makes no such point. War can be justified.

Money is the chief resource for acquiring things and is equal to power. The thrust of James anti war verse is about acquiring things (money & power)through war.

Can you think of any American wars not about money? Any that didn't revolve around either the acquisition of someones land and natural resources, or the acquisition of wealth for the Military Industrial Complex?

>Enjoy your freedom to voice your opinion of pacifism as many have died fighting for your right to do so.

This is the blatant lie we've all bought into at one time or another.

The fact remains that War destroys freedom. It requires tighter restrictions and grows the government.

Those who think they are fighting to protect our freedom are in fact destroying it.

Look at the destruction of the Bill of Rights since the Iraq war and the Military Commissions Act.

BTW, wasn't the US entry into WWII about Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and the genocide thing conveniently came along later?

I can think of a war not about money: WWII. The 6 million dead Jews is a pretty good clue. Open your eyes.

Your just another one of those people who uses the freedom and liberties of this nation to bash this nation. People like you make me sick.

BTW, God is not a Pacifist. Ever heard of the Canaanites? Was that about money or power?

I don't think Christ is a Pacifist either. In fact, he is going to exercise his wrath against those who do not believe in him and cause eternal death. That is worth than physical death.


Finally, respond however you would like but I am done with this discussion. I just get too frustrated with people who argue what you do. It's better that I stop here.

I'm going to have to reluctantly side with Pro Life here. There's abundant evidence that non-defensive force not directly prescribed by God Himself (ala Canaanites) tends to be in service of wordly desires. God has the right to use force, obviously, but Jesus also pretty obviously recommended "turning the other cheek" and "carrying no sword" to humans in most normative cases. He only recommended carrying swords when it was clear defense would be needed against capital-level force.

Since we've been taught to pledge our allegiance to the state since childhood, it will be hard for most people to come to this perspective. Nonetheless, it's worth questioning our assumptions.

Pro Life-

Masking your Leftist views behind Christianity and Christ.

Next you'll be branding the brave Americans who have fought and died in WWII as 'war criminals'...

I don't pretend to know all the answers,but Prolife,quite frankly you're full of **!

"Even The Devil Can Quote Scripture", 'Prolife'
You are a clever-worded deceiver.

Wow, Kenton.

>Masking your Leftist views behind Christianity and Christ.

Since when are conservative US Constitutionalists, and conservative Christians leftists?

Anyone who supports US foreign policy is a Liberal, since our founding fathers repudiated maintaining a standing army and making alliances with other nations.

If you say times have changed and we need that now, it only underscores my point.

>Next you'll be branding the brave Americans who have fought and died in WWII as 'war criminals'...

When U.S. military forces dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 275,000 men, women, and children were killed.

This was technically a War Crime since it involved civilian targets. The bombing of Dresden was another involving the British. The carpet bombing of Vietnam and Iraq are more examples.

Pro Life, I wonder if any of the 6 million Jews who died in WWII (and many more had you had your way), would say that you were actually pro life? Standing by the bloodshed of your neighbor does not seem to indicate that you value life (even those who are not your own).

I guess our response to the attack on Pearl Harbor could be considered self defense (as defined by other pacifists), so I don't get the argument. Is America spotless in its war past? Surely not.

Aside from the Native Americans (whom were attacked under the very people whom you defended as being against a standing army, go figure), have you ever known this country to initiate any war/conflict that was not a response to atrocities that were already being committed (either nation v nation, or nation v it's citizens)?

I understand that you will not buy any reason given for a just war, so when a foreign army knocks on your door please do not seek the assistance of the armed forces of this nation.

A nice defense of Christians celebrating Memorial Day

http://www.revkevindeyoung.com/

>Pro Life, I wonder if any of the 6 million Jews who died in WWII (and many more had you had your way), would say that you were actually pro life? Standing by the bloodshed of your neighbor does not seem to indicate that you value life (even those who are not your own).

The death of 6 million Jews was truly a holocaust, but so were the deaths of the innocents in Nagasaki & Hiroshima as well as Dresden and other places. What business is it of Christians to feed the fires of Hitler’s ovens or to drop the bombs that incinerated untold thousands at the hands of the US military since then?

>I guess our response to the attack on Pearl Harbor could be considered self defense (as defined by other pacifists), so I don't get the argument. Is America spotless in its war past? Surely not.

Did it ever occur to you that the US provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in order to rally public support for entrance into WWII? There is more than ample evidence for this conclusion if you care to Google it.

>Aside from the Native Americans (whom were attacked under the very people whom you defended as being against a standing army, go figure), have you ever known this country to initiate any war/conflict that was not a response to atrocities that were already being committed (either nation v nation, or nation v it's citizens)?

So the NON standing army of the US left their homes and businesses, formed a Calvary apart from government approval and killed off most of the Native Americans?

>I understand that you will not buy any reason given for a just war, so when a foreign army knocks on your door please do not seek the assistance of the armed forces of this nation.

How would your life change if another government supplanted the present one?

There seems no doubt that the larger part of the cheese has slid off 'prolife's' cracker.

"The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole
Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press
coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:
Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have
been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other
defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone. I have always believed America is different."
Mark Steyn, 'A Culture of Passivity', NRO

'prolife' would be one of those passive 'men', and tries to convince us to join him. Shame

Im glad the United States decided to put hitler out! so many precious lives lost. Big mess. But what an even bigger one had it could have been. And we are still feeling the effects of it today!

>'prolife' would be one of those passive 'men', and tries to convince us to join him. Shame

Michael, who do you identity most with in the massacre scenario?

The Shooter?

The women?

or the guys in the hallway?

I think Pro Life does not know about the "X day" invasion plans for the island of Japan.

100,000's of allied forces invading the home island of Japan defended by forces preparing to fight to the last man.

This would have cost millions of Japanese lives including women, and children. The invading forces would have lost 100'000's also.

President Truman believed the atomic bomb would force Japan to surrender saving the lives of millions of people; Japanese and allied soldiers both.

>President Truman believed the atomic bomb would force Japan to surrender saving the lives of millions of people; Japanese and allied soldiers both.

Why did Japan attack the US at Pearl Harbor? Answer this and you will see that all subsequent US actions might not have been defensive or justifiable.

>How would your life change if another government supplanted the present one? <

If the Chinese gov't took over our country I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even be having this back and forth right now. One or both of us would possibly be apprehended for openly dissenting the the gov't and also speaking openly about Christianity.

So..um...yeah...things could be a lot worse. I'm not sure many of us know how good we have it (including myself).

Yes, I think things would change if another gov't supplanted ours.

No, I don't think Christians should expect an un-persecuted life.

>Im glad the United States decided to put hitler out! so many precious lives lost. Big mess. But what an even bigger one had it could have been. And we are still feeling the effects of it today!

How would a cold war be any different with Germany than with Russia, had Germany prevailed?

The Bush family might have been wealthier from the loans they made to Hitler, but beyond this, I doubt if much would have changed.

No pro life...you answer.

Given the two choices President Truman had...which one saved more lives?

"How would your life change if another government supplanted the present one? "

My grandfather did not have to ask that question. He saw first hand what the Japanese did to its defeated enemies in the Philippines.

He did not want that to happen to his family in California.

>Given the two choices President Truman had...which one saved more lives?

How was his killing of innocent civilians any different from Hitler's killing of innocent civilians? Both are war crimes.

Did FDR attack Japan first by cutting off 80% of their oil?

>My grandfather did not have to ask that question. He saw first hand what the Japanese did to its defeated enemies in the Philippines.

What was the probability that Japan could overtake the US from that distance especially on her limited resources?

>If the Chinese gov't took over our country I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even be having this back and forth right now. One or both of us would possibly be apprehended for openly dissenting the the gov't and also speaking openly about Christianity.

Given the differences between Communist China and the USA today, and especially the direction we are now going, there might not be too noticeable a difference in the near future.

Hate crimes legislation will soon take care of the Christian free speech problem.

>What was the probability that Japan could overtake the US from that distance especially on her limited resources?

I bet that argument makes the Phillipinos feel better.

The point is the US is a neutral nation by design. Interventionism is the product of liberalism and progressive thinking. We had no "business" in WWI or WWII.

Concerning the Philippines, they didn't need Japan to kill them off, they already had us.

Major-General Smedley Butler (1881-1940)Who at the time of his death was the most highly decorated Marine in US History, said:

"Our exploits against the American Indian, the Filipinos, the Mexicans, and against Spain are on a par with the campaigns of Genghis Khan, the Japanese in Manchuria and the African attack of Mussolini. No country has ever declared war on us before we first obliged them with that gesture. Our whole history shows we have never fought a defensive war."

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/butler.html

I have a hard time believing the Revolutionary soldiers felt neutral in any sense of the word.

The 'difference' it would make:

"...At what exact point, then, should one resist...? ...How we
burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would have things been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? ...If...If... We didn't love freedom enough.
...We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"

'prolife' - if we were out in public, and you were attacked by a mugger, should I consider 'intervention', or say to myself, 'as long as the mugger doesn't attack me, why should I care?'

Pro-life says "What was the probability that Japan could overtake the US from that distance especially on her limited resources?"

My grandfather was not going to play a probability game with his family.


Once again you have avoided the question....I will ask again...given the choices president Truman had which one saved the most lives?

Many believe the A-Bombs were unnecessary since the war was winding down anyway. Historians are more apt to think it was a show of strength meant to send a signal to Russia at the expense of innocent civilians.

So I would have to say sending in the troops would result in fewer casualties.

Michael Kilpatrick, VERY informative comment. I don't like Steyn's often imperialist and neocon views but people like him are key to waking up and saving Western culture.

>>'prolife' - if we were out in public, and you were attacked by a mugger, should I consider 'intervention'..?

Absolutely! And I would do the same for you as a matter of conscience. But this is not an accurate analogy for war.

Most of my arguments against war are already mentioned above and in the other thread so I'll pass on them for now.

There are many reasons Christians should not be in the military even in time of peace.

One reason overlooked by all is Paul's admonition for us not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14.)

We wouldn't think of marrying an unbeliever.

But we have no problem laying aside the principles of Christ, rendering unswerving, cult like obedience to totally depraved commanding officers in the military.

How much more severe are the consequences when your conscience regroups and you disobey while in the military?

If your commanding officer gives a command to commit a war crime, you are supposed to refuse.

But how many "friendly fire" casualties had their graves decorated today because of this?

If the officer demands an illegal act and you decline will you live to tell about it at his Court Marshal?

Wise up Christian.

Kenton, you sure sound like a Christian.

David Blain, no country went to war to stop genocide. In regard to the Jews, Canada and the US STRONGLY discouraged accepting refugees from Europe fully knowing about the butchery being perpetrated.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/treasrep.html

http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/non2many.html

Amazing what myths Americans believe. Pathetic education system you guys have in the US. You should try HOME SCHOOLING, a movement that might save the country.

>I have a hard time believing the Revolutionary soldiers felt neutral in any sense of the word.

Study Thomas Jefferson, (He was the third President) and grasp what he says about central banks and standing armies.

The framers of the Constitution repudiated the idea of having a central bank like the Federal Reserve and a standing army.

They also repudiated making alliances with other nations (Neutrality).

They knew full well that what we see happening to our country today would surely occur.

By no means am I a pacifist and God is no pacifist either but Pro Life definitely makes many well informed points.

Something to keep in mind to those Americans educated in the public education system and PBS; WWII was about Germany and Russia. Everything else was a sideshow, including the Pacific. By the time the US entered the war in Europe the war had already turned against Germany on the eastern front which was the most important front by far. D-Day was an attempt by the western Allies to grab a piece of Europe before Russia took all of it.

Some stats to wake you all up:

- Germany used ~85% of her military resources fighting against Russia.

- Germany lost ~88% of her men fighting against Russia.

Shocked into reality yet from the stupor imposed by watching too much of the "History" Channel?

Of course, Lend Lease was important to the Russian victory. I wish the Canadian Merchant Marine was recognized much more for their achievements.

I agree with Chris to an extent...the war was all about Hitler.

After failing to capture Britain, Hitler knew America and other allies would use the island nation as a staging ground to retake fortress Europe.

Hitler wanted to conquer the Bolshevik/Red Army regime.

So...Hitler invaded Russia a year or two earlier than planned figuring it would take the allies a couple years to preparing their invasion. The idea was to avoid fighting on two fronts. He would take care of the Russians while the allies prepared, then fight the allies.

To dilute the strength of the United States he took advantage of 1)economic rivalries between the Empire of Japan, Australia, and the US and 2) The anger Japan had against the US over its Flying Tigers volunteer airforce who were helping the Chinese fight against the invading Japanese Armies.

The Japanese were a tool Hitler used to ensure his Eurasian domination was successful.

He went wrong in 1942-1943 when he ordered his 2 million man army to divide into 2 parts with one part ordered to capture the rich oil fields along the Volga, and the other to secure the Volga by taking Stalingrad. The soviets prevailed and Stalingrad was a disaster for the Reich.

The western allies invaded Europe in 1944. It took at least 2 years to plan that invasion. So the charge that "D-Day was an attempt by the western Allies to grab a piece of Europe before Russia took all of it." is wrong. The invasion was being planned before Russia had the upper hand.

Chris must also not know about the invasion of Dieppe, France by the Allies in 1942. This allied disaster did involve UR rangers who were gaining battle experience in preparation for a much bigger invasion.

The US was planning invasion long before Russia had victory in the east.

supposed to say "US Rangers"

"Many believe the A-Bombs were unnecessary since the war was winding down anyway."

The X-Day invasion was the Allies plan to end the war. The A-Bomb was an opportunity that presented an alternative to that invasion.

Your comment makes no sense in light of the plans for X-day.

>>"They also repudiated making alliances with other nations (Neutrality)."


'Neutrality' here, as used, is incorrect.

Consider Jefferson:
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

This in no way suggests neutrality. Neutrality (much like anonymity)is the coward's blanket and pillow.

"True peace is not merely the absence of conflict...it is the presence of justice."
Harrison Ford (Air Force One) ;)

Also Jefferson:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

This "silence" is the neutrality you seem to propose (I could be wrong.)

"As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Yes, I'm getting a little "quote-happy" but the point is if you are going to refer to this nation's founders to perpetuate the notion that they were "neutral"...that's simply an error. Sovereign, yes...but never neutral.

If the founding fathers were really neutral, then why would they have taken a stand opposing English rule in America?

The comments to this entry are closed.