OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 01:35:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Opinions wanted  (Read 10993 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2004, 10:14:02 PM »

I would not worry about being a soldier and killing in self-defense.

Just look at "Saint" Constantine  - on the way back from Nicaea he had his Son from his first marriage put to death for supposedly conspiring against him. And later when he discovers that the charges were false and were the workings of his second wife and his stepson - HE HAD THEM PUT TO DEATH!

God works in mysterious ways? Wait a minute - I thought God was "The same yesterday, today, and forever" and didn't HE say "Thou shalt not Kill (or at least not MURDER)?

So, I guess it depends on how much the Church needs you?



Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,441


« Reply #46 on: June 08, 2004, 10:16:28 PM »

Nice Avatar, Augustine.  I think that is the same one as in the Fr. Seraphim Rose book.

Country over family?  Try telling that to the Millions of immigrants who have LEFT or FLED their country due to persecution, trying to make a better life for their family, etc.
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 08, 2004, 10:40:34 PM »

TomΣ

Quote
Just look at "Saint" Constantine  - on the way back from Nicaea he had his Son from his first marriage put to death for supposedly conspiring against him. And later when he discovers that the charges were false and were the workings of his second wife and his stepson - HE HAD THEM PUT TO DEATH!

My understanding is that St.Constantine's life is much like that of St.David, ancestor of God.  Both men had highs, and lows.  Both were the rulers of Godly nations.  etc., etc.

However, besides the great things he did, it's important to remember that St.Constantine's life as a Christian was really quite brief - he was Baptized only in the time prior to his death, spending the last few days of his life in his Baptismal robe, regretting that he had put this off so long.

Do you not believe that Baptism is a new birth?  That his sins were wiped clean, however crimson they may have been?  That he was unlike King David who was man whose heart was after God, despite his great moral failings?

Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2004, 10:43:48 PM »

That he was unlike King David who was man whose heart was after God, despite his great moral failings?

That could certainly be true. My point was that for the Church to judge a soldier who is fighting for his nation state, yet make a Saint out of Constantine -- well, to me there is a little hypocrisy happening there.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 08, 2004, 10:49:13 PM »

Tom,

Quote
That could certainly be true. My point was that for the Church to judge a soldier who is fighting for his nation state, yet make a Saint out of Constantine -- well, to me there is a little hypocrisy happening there.

I don't think the Church is making such judgements - just that She doesn't have a history of being overly enthusiastic about warfare of any sort (there is no equivelent to the "Crusades" in Orthodoxy, nor could there be.)

However, I think it's safe to say that St.Constantine was glorified by the Church in spite of his more unsavory (though politically quite common) deeds, not because of them.

Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2004, 10:49:38 PM »

Tom, St. Constantine was baptized just before his death, as Augustine point out, every single sin he ever committed was wipped away. When he died he was in the state of grace and certainly was not condemened by our Lord. As Augustine said, baptism is a new birth that washes away all sins. There is a huge difference between one living a sinful life, then repenting and being baptized, and on who is already baptized and committing serious sin.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #51 on: June 08, 2004, 10:54:17 PM »

Tom, St. Constantine was baptized just before his death, as Augustine point out, every single sin he ever committed was wipped away.

And that was specifically WHY he chose to be baptized JUST before his death. Which, according to what I have read, is what most people did back then.

So what are you telling me? That I should have lived as much as a sinful life as possible and then get baptized right before my death and that would be okay? That God HAS to forgive me even though he KNOWS that I did what I did in order to TRICK Him into giving me salvation?

How can that be right - he KNEW how he was supposed to live his life, yet he chose to live it not by the teachings of the Lord?

So we have a God that can be "played"?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2004, 10:54:42 PM by Tom+ú » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #52 on: June 08, 2004, 11:05:09 PM »

From what I have read St. Constantine regretted waiting. But him putting it off was not the Christian thing to do, I am not saying that him waiting was ok, but the Church teaches that before he died he repented and was baptized, and is a Saint.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2004, 11:06:41 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2004, 11:15:48 PM »

Tom,

Quote
So what are you telling me? That I should have lived as much as a sinful life as possible and then get baptized right before my death and that would be okay? That God HAS to forgive me even though he KNOWS that I did what I did in order to TRICK Him into giving me salvation?

You're assuming that St.Constantine was being conniving about this, or at least that this is how he went to his grave...snickering at the fast one he pulled on God.  Of course, this is contrary to what we manifestly do know about him.

For the great evils that St.Constantine committed in the years leading up to his Baptism and repose, he did far greater good - he ended the persecution of the Church, placed Her in a favoured position, etc.  Frankly, he's a figure of "eschatological" significance - his gradual move from pagan ignorance, to friend of the Church, to son of the Church is not only a heartening story on a personal level, but also had significance for the entire Church.  He was a man of destiny, hence why God chose to glorify one who humanly speaking may seem (at least according to some) so unworthy.

Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2004, 11:26:11 PM »

Once again Augustine very well put.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2004, 02:06:37 AM »

And that was specifically WHY he chose to be baptized JUST before his death. Which, according to what I have read, is what most people did back then.  So what are you telling me? That I should have lived as much as a sinful life as possible and then get baptized right before my death and that would be okay?

The idea behind people's not being baptized until the time of their impending deaths was not, as you said, "to live as much of a sinful life as possible...and [that] that would be okay."  The idea behind this was the (erroneous) concept that, if we sin after we are baptized, we are beyond hope, as the baptism can't be repeated and we have crucified the Lord again.

Constantine knew from whence he came, and did not want to even give himself time enough to "backslide," as it were, into his old life.

This had nothing to do with "fooling God"; seems to me it had everything to do with being honest with himself.  Even now that the Church has come to a fuller understanding of what confession is, we would do well to learn from his example of repentance.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2004, 02:07:42 AM by Pedro » Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2004, 07:27:45 AM »

Personally, I think the Catholic idea of "just war" is common sense.

I also think it is wrong to punish soldiers returning from combat by excluding them from Holy Communion or requiring them to confess to the sin of murder.

Service in the military is honorable.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2004, 08:32:29 AM »

We can debate the current war forever, and get no where, but it isn't a just war.

Attacking a nation that hasn't attacked you is not just, and frankly not Christian. How can one justify attacking and taking over another nation, when that nation hasn't even attacked ours?
By this definition the US fighting the Nazis was not a "Just War" either...you spout "Just War" a lot...but are you familiar with what the Roman Catholc Church sets as criteria for a "Just War"...If you were you would understand why good people can have differing points of view. Self-defense is only one small part of that criteria...I don't have the literature here so I will take this mostly from memory to give you a general outline:

1.) A winnable war of self defense
2.) When more evil will be done by not going to war (i.e. innocents killed, tortured, etc.)
3.) All peaceful means have been exhausted and further peaceful attempts will most likely also be fruitless.
4.) A winnable war to repel an invader.
5.) A war where civilian populations and non-combatants are nottargetted.
6.) War must be viewed as an evil but to be just it must be a lesser evil than the consequence of not going to war.

The RCC teaches that all not all of these criteria must be met, it asks Catholics to consider these issues and then search their own conscience. Pope John Paul II declared the US war in Afghanistan as a "Just War". No such declaration has been made about Iraq, and the Pontiff has repeatedly called for Peace...but he has not condemned the US actions actions...again it is a matter for personal conscience.

Some are willing to sacrifice so that others can be liberated from brutal oppression -- we call these people heroes. They are willing to possibly lay down their very lives, and certainly disrupt their personal lives for the benefit of people they do not know.

"Envy the nation with heroes...Pity the country who needs them."
« Last Edit: June 09, 2004, 08:47:54 AM by spartacus » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2004, 04:34:40 PM »

Spartacus.......

WWII, was a just war because we were attacked by Japan, and notice we didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor. As for the Nazi's, they were attacking our allies, they were the ally of those who attacked us, and provided support for those who attacked us, there is not doubt about that, where there is serious doubt that Sadam had any connection whatsoever to the 9-11 attacks. And let us not forget that the Nazi's were trying to take over the world. England and France tried appeasement again and again and it wasn't working. Sadam was not attacking anybody, Sadam wasn't trying to take over the world, we attacked Sadam and took over his nation because there was a chance he had weapons of mass destruction, and there was a chance that if he had these weapons he might use them against us.

As for H.H. Pope John Paul II on the current Iraq War, where have you been?!

From Iraqi War I to Iraqi War II, he has echoed the voice of Paul VI, crying out before the United Nations in 1965: War No More, War Never Again!

John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.

In fact H.H. Pope John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began.

After the United States began its attacks against Iraq, FOX News actually reported the immediate comments of the Holy Father, made in an address at the Vatican to members of an Italian religious television channel, Telespace: "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society," John Paul said. "Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man."

There are numerous occasions in which the Holy Father had come out against this war and calling for peace. Has he condemned it? And excommunicated anybody who supports it? No. But he has come out against it again and again, as many Catholic Cardinals and Bishops have, esp the Catholic bishops in Iraq who have to live through the war.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2004, 05:51:13 PM »

Just more reasons why I am glad to no longer be a Roman Catholic......What really first started turning me off to Catholicism was when I was stationed at Ft. Benning and we had these "Ministry for social justice" types down there protesting saying we were training Central American Offcier Cadets to torture and all this other BS......I spent time training some of these guys at the School for the Americas and nothing could be further from the truth. It was and is all a bunch of bogus propaganda propegated by the same element within the Church who spawned "Liberation Ministries"....The Pope excommunicated the worst offending Jesuits in NIcaragua...but their sympathisers are still very active in the RCC in the US.

How many thousands more would have needed to be tortured and killed before the Vatican (afterall can we really be sure he is still calling the shots?) and the Pope would declare our invasion of Iraq "just"? After Uday and Qusay had a few years in charge maybe?

And your point about attacking Germany only after we were hit at Pearl Harbor only strengthens my argument for hitting Saddam after 9/11. No Saddam did not want to conquer the whole world...he only wanted to control the world's oil supply and tried doing this by first invading Iran and then Kuwait, using chemical weapons and subjegated millions with torture.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2004, 06:06:01 PM »

Quote
How many thousands more would have needed to be tortured and killed before the Vatican (afterall can we really be sure he is still calling the shots?) and the Pope would declare our invasion of Iraq "just"? After Uday and Qusay had a few years in charge maybe?

Let me remind you when Sadam was killing his own people we were his ally against Iran. I find it odd that we are so concerned about the Iraqi people, when not too long ago they meant nothing to us as we were suppling Sadam with weapons.

Quote
And your point about attacking Germany only after we were hit at Pearl Harbor only strengthens my argument for hitting Saddam after 9/11.

How so? There has been no proof showing any connection between Sadam and 9-11, nor is there proof that Sadam is an ally of Al-Qaida. And let us not forget Sadam never once attacked America.

Quote
No Saddam did not want to conquer the whole world...he only wanted to control the world's oil supply and tried doing this by first invading Iran and then Kuwait, using chemical weapons and subjegated millions with torture.

When he invaded Iran, we were suppling him with weapons and economic aid! It sure didn't bug us then that he was toruring millions of his own people and Iranians.


« Last Edit: June 09, 2004, 07:59:21 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2004, 08:16:56 AM »

Linus,

Quote
Personally, I think the Catholic idea of "just war" is common sense.

St.Augustine's "just war theory", while eminantly Christian, places (unbeknownst to many) a very high bar to be met, in terms of justifying military action.  Honestly, I'm at a loss to see how any of the "big wars" (including the supposedly "good ones") thoroughly qualify as "just wars".

Quote
I also think it is wrong to punish soldiers returning from combat by excluding them from Holy Communion or requiring them to confess to the sin of murder.

While I'm not quite sure it's strictly "punishment" and not also "therapy", however one wants to characterize it, the Church's tradition if applied strictly, mandates such "punishing" measures.

Quote
Service in the military is honorable.

Too sweeping a statement, imho.  The practice of the virtues, and struggling for evangelical perfection, are honourable.  If one's military service (or whatever one's occupation is) allows for the excercise of such, then it to is honourable.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2004, 08:24:00 AM »

Spartacus,

Quote
By this definition the US fighting the Nazis was not a "Just War" either...you spout "Just War" a lot...

While bringing up the "Nazis" often serves as a boogeyman able to end all conversations, I do not shrink from them being brought up.  You're right, this wasn't a "just war".

Quote
but are you familiar with what the Roman Catholc Church sets as criteria for a "Just War"...If you were you would understand why good people can have differing points of view. Self-defense is only one small part of that criteria...I don't have the literature here so I will take this mostly from memory to give you a general outline:

The Augustinian "just war theory" (thus it has relevence to the Orthodox Church as well, in so far as she chooses to heed St.Augustine's opinion on this matter) sets a very high bar for justifying military actions by Christian nations/peoples.

Quote
The RCC teaches that all not all of these criteria must be met, it asks Catholics to consider these issues and then search their own conscience. Pope John Paul II declared the US war in Afghanistan as a "Just War". No such declaration has been made about Iraq, and the Pontiff has repeatedly called for Peace...but he has not condemned the US actions actions...again it is a matter for personal conscience.

Really?  John Paul II has been one of the harshest critics of the Iraq invasion.

Quote
Some are willing to sacrifice so that others can be liberated from brutal oppression -- we call these people heroes.

While this sounds nice and falls into line with delusions of "manifest destiny" and American messianism, the truth is that what has happened in Iraq may cause a situation worse than what existed beforehand.  Without a continued military presence, the puppets put into power by the Americans will not last - there are many in Iraq who want to see it become "Iran part II", and the situation there is at least as explosive as it was in Iran in the days before the Shah (another American puppet) was thrown out of power and Iran became an Islamist theocracy.

If I remember correct, prudence is a Christian virtue - and zeal without knowledge is to be condemned.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2004, 08:49:16 AM »

Ben,

Quote
WWII, was a just war because we were attacked by Japan, and notice we didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor. As for the Nazi's, they were attacking our allies, they were the ally of those who attacked us, and provided support for those who attacked us, there is not doubt about that, where there is serious doubt that Sadam had any connection whatsoever to the 9-11 attacks.

Though I suspect I'll regret replying as I am about to, here are my honest thoughts on the examples you brought up...

- Pearl Harbour was America's "Reichstag Fire".  The Japanese attacked precisely because the U.S. had been interupting their oil supply line, and there is mounting evidence of prior awareness on the part of U.S. officials as to the planned retribution of the Japanese.  After this, it was not a hard sell in the least to get public support for a full on invasion of Japan, and by extension this helped justify engagement with Japan's allies (the Axis).

- While it is true that the Germans were at war with the Brits and had conquered the French (as well as trying to claim all Germanic territories, both those lost after the first world war, and others besides these), what is less known is that they had little interest in engaging the Brits - if anything they hard earlier desired them to be allies.  This becomes even easier to understand, when you consider that the house of "Windsor" itself is actually of very recent German extraction.  The current monarch for example (Queen Elizabeth II, coronated in '52)  is only the fourth monarch in this line, the "Windsor" name being adopted in the earlier part of the 20th century for obvious reasons (the hostile climate between Britain and Germany would hardly have tolerated obviously German rulers in the U.K.)  The original name of this line was Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha.

Further evidence of this tie to Germany, is the relatively recent controversy involving the late Queen Mother, when it became known that she was opposed to warring with Germany.  While in another context such misgivings over war would not seem so controversial, given that the Nazis have replaced satan and the demons in the popular/secular cosmology, it was a very controversial revelation.

As for the fruits of that war, consider that it resulted in the increase of Soviet power, including the subjegation of about 10 Christian nations, and allowed for the expansion of communism around the world (most conspicuously it's export to China which is still a menace.)  However noxious Hitler's brand of latently pagan nationalism was, it's hard for us to not agree with Churchill's oft repeated post-war regret that we "killed the wrong pig" (speaking of the Soviets.)

- As for 9-11/Iraq, you are right but I would state it even more emphatically; there is no credible evidence of an Iraq-9-11 connection.  However, those who say that Iraq sponsored terrorism would be correct if they qualified this by saying that Iraq was known to have sponsored guerilla groups like Hizbollah and Hamas; groups whose operations are limited to Israel, and not the United States.  This (and the power of the Israel lobby in the United States, and organized Zionists in general), as well as other vested interests explain the situation in Iraq, not the tragedy of New York some 2 + years ago.

Logged
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2004, 03:39:59 PM »

I am certainly grateful that most of the opinions expressed are the minority opinion in the US.

I do not want my children to live in a country that shirks its responsibility. God had blessed the United States with much. And that includes a wilingness to sacrifice its sons so that people in other nations might breathe free and have the opportunity to worship God without fear. The U.S. might not always get it right....but we try.... and more than any other nation in the world today are willing to sacrifice for people in other nations.

One can argue we were to back Saddam in his war against Iran...we were however engaged in a larger struggle against a greater evil -- The USSR. When that struggle ceased we opposed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and rather than finish the job properly -- we relented to international pressure and allowed him to remain in power.

Our efforts and sacrifices in Iraq today are "pennance" to correct for those past mistakes....and anyone who thinks Iraq's new government is going to be US puppet, just is not reading the news....or has their head and thinking still stuck in the Cold War days.

I seem to be the only veteran on this board....what a blessed and peaceful time we live in that that is so....The US must be doing something right.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2004, 03:53:46 PM »


Quote
One can argue we were to back Saddam in his war against Iran...we were however engaged in a larger struggle against a greater evil -- The USSR. When that struggle ceased we opposed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and rather than finish the job properly -- we relented to international pressure and allowed him to remain in power.

Exactly my point. When Sadam wasn't threating our oil interests, and could be used in some way to help us against the USSR, we didn't care he was torturing and murdering his own people. But as soon as Sadam becomes a threat, we act as if we are in this war to save the Iraqi people, whom meant nothing to us 20 years ago.

Quote
Our efforts and sacrifices in Iraq today are "pennance" to correct for those past mistakes....

Really? I haven't heard this from the Bush administration.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2004, 08:04:22 PM »

'I do not want my children to live in a country that shirks its responsibility."

But the underlying assumption to this is that it is our responsibility to fight wars of our own choosing, when and against whom we want to, and the rest of the world can jump in a lake for all we care.  That is a frightening way of viewing responsibility.

I believe that the United States, due to the unique situation it finds itself in today as a more or less unipolar hegemon, has the responsibility to use that power wisely.  Yes, we have the responsibility to lead, but the question on the table is how is that leadership to be exercised.  It is the opinion of many, both inside and outside the United States, that our responsibility to lead is something that, if we wish our goals to be met, must be done in the context of a broader global community and not virtually unilaterally.  To the extent that we act unilaterally (and acting in a way that major allies like France and Germany do not approve is tantamount to that), all we do in the end is diminish our own power and influence internationally, and thereby make those laudable goals that much harder to attain ... in short it is akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face.  Yes, we have some responsibility to lead, but we also have a responsibility to lead wisely lest we squander the unique position we have been given at this point in history.  In my opinion, the current administration has done much to undermine American power and influence around the world by its choices relating to Iraq.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 08:05:53 PM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 11, 2004, 07:20:24 AM »

Spartacus,

Quote
I do not want my children to live in a country that shirks its responsibility. God had blessed the United States with much.

Do you think He has blessed America with ownership of the nations of the world, that they implicitly have an obligation to their American masters or else?  Your whole line of reasoning implies that America has a right to police the world.

However, let us forgive this assumption for a moment, and even say it is legitimate - that America has not only the right, but obligation to impliment it's own version of the "Roman peace" (perhaps Pax Americana) around the globe.  Is that what is happening?  Only the most naive would agree.

Why have not the Americans landed in Rwanda and stayed?  Why are they not becoming aggressive with the Chinese?  Why has the U.S. had the distinction of being such good friends to so many anti-democratic, dictatorial regimes (Saddam included!  It was the Saddam who gassed his own people who was America's friend, after all!)?  It is so sad that so many good, idealistic Americans (though shameless naive as well) actually buy the idea being sold to them, that this is about "truth, justice and the American way".  How can it be so, when your country's whole engagement in this affair came about by lies and innuendo?

Weapons of Mass Destruction - where?!
Connection between Al-Queda and Iraqi Regime - where?!

The latter is particularly lamentable, since it betrays a grotesque ignorance on the part of most American civilians of the realities of the Middle East.  Saddam was a secularist, a Baathist.  Iraq was not an Islamic regime of any sort.  In fact of all of the Arab countries (including America's "allies", like Egypt and most notoriously Saudi Arabia) it was the only one to allow any real measure of religious freedom to it's resident Christians.  You cannot even bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia, Spartacus!  In Egypt, the persecution and murder of Copts is a regular (and unpunished) occurence, even implicitly encouraged by officials.  Yet these are "allies".

The likes of Al-Queda on the other hand, are hard core Islamists - the kind of "un-Islamic" regime that reigned in Iraq is precisely the kind of thing they despise existing in the heart of "Islamic territory".

I think the reality is, American officials were betting on the ignorance (and sadly, bigotry) of simple Americans - betting on the hope that they'd lump all of the "sand niggers" together, and that is precisely what happened.

Quote
And that includes a wilingness to sacrifice its sons so that people in other nations might breathe free and have the opportunity to worship God without fear.

You honestly believe that is what this has been about?

Consider that now, in Iraq, Islam is constitutionally recognized as the "official religion" - Christianity has no standing whatsoever.  Now Christians are beginning to emigrate in droves from Iraq, and understandably so.  Iraq is well on it's way to becoming "Iran Part II", at least in the south of the country.

Even from a relativistic, "all religions are ok" point of view this is not religious freedom.  And it certainly is not allowing for the worship of the true God without fear, the All-Holy Trinity.

Quote
The U.S. might not always get it right....but we try.... and more than any other nation in the world today are willing to sacrifice for people in other nations.

No, your government is willing to sacrifice your life for it's interests, but it is sold to you and your peers as a holy crusade.  It's despicable.  But I guess it's easy for draft dodging, arm-chair warriors to engage in such jingoistic statecraft.

Quote
One can argue we were to back Saddam in his war against Iran...we were however engaged in a larger struggle against a greater evil -- The USSR. When that struggle ceased we opposed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and rather than finish the job properly -- we relented to international pressure and allowed him to remain in power.

The first Gulf War was engaged in to protect Ameircan interests, not human rights or democratic freedom.  Kuwait is not a "free nation" in the sense you speak of.  Once the status quo was restored, the Americans left.  Bush Sr., for all of his faults, realized (and if you read his thoughts on the current war carefully, still realizes) that going further than this would create a worse situation than what currently existed.

As for your remark about a "larger war" with the USSR, etc. etc...what happened to all of that mom and apple pie baloney?   Pragmaticism allows the saviour of the world (sic) to make alliances with the devil?

Quote
Our efforts and sacrifices in Iraq today are "pennance" to correct for those past mistakes....and anyone who thinks Iraq's new government is going to be US puppet, just is not reading the news....or has their head and thinking still stuck in the Cold War days.

I agree with you here - it will not remain a puppet for long, since it will either be forced to accomodate radical Islam, or will be desposed of and replaced outright with an Islamist regime.  A wonderful improvement, and worth all of the body bags coming back home!  Round aboutly, American sons were fighting a jihad against Arab Secularism.

Logged
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #68 on: June 11, 2004, 09:49:38 AM »

Spartacus,Do you think He has blessed America with ownership of the nations of the world, that they implicitly have an obligation to their American masters or else?  Your whole line of reasoning implies that America has a right to police the world.
Only someone who has never served as one of the "policemen" would consider this a "right". It is a duty...a sacrifice for those serving.

We all have a duty to help our fellow man. The United States with its wealth and power has a collective duty to help the world where it can.

1.)That is why we give more in foreign aid than all other nations combined.

2.)That is why we stood up to and defeated the Soviet Union.

3.)That is why the US military is consatntly called on by the UN and peoples all over the world to try to bring peace and stability to regions where war, oppression and abuses reign.

The US regualrly deploys to countries most Americans can not even find on a map. To think that US military power should be exercised only under the guidance of the UN given the history of the UN and the fact that it is usually the US providing most of the militarty power to the major UN deployments -- is ludicrous given the fact that most UN members countries are run by dictatorial regimes. The US has a right to act independantly to defend itself, liberate the opressed and correct wrongs where we find them and deem it practicable for us to act.

American masters?...quite the opposite.... American servants...servants of God and servants of the people of the world.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 09:52:10 AM by spartacus » Logged
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #69 on: June 11, 2004, 09:59:09 AM »

In my opinion, the current administration has done much to undermine American power and influence around the world by its choices relating to Iraq.
I quite disagree.
The US has shown the world that the current administartion means what it says and says what it means and is not afraid to act -- even if the whole world disagrees.....and look they are now start8ng to come around...The UN security Council, embarassed at the succes the US has achieved with only Britain as a major ally after the UN refused to back up its 14 resolutions with any action, is now endorsing the newly installed provisional government in Iraq.....Look ahead ten years and imagine how, if we remain committed, Iraq will be so improved over where it was and where it is even today.

The same negative things were said about Reagan in the 80s....now Gorbachev, his opponent, hails Reagan's approach. Today we have Putin condemning the Democrats as "two faced" given their support for US actions in the Balkans.
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2004, 11:59:31 AM »

and look they are now start8ng to come around...The UN security Council, embarassed at the succes the US has achieved with only Britain as a major ally after the UN refused to back up its 14 resolutions with any action, is now endorsing the newly installed provisional government in Iraq

Actually what is happening is that the American administration is desparately looking for an exit strategy relating to the debacle in Iraq, and  clearly the UN was the only feasible way, and so it started to engage the UN again.  And because the administration *needed* the UN this time to help it disengage from Iraq, it was showing flexibility to the other Security Council members, and that is why we have a new resolution ... the Americans showed flexibility because they desparately wanted a certain result, thanks to the foolhardiness of this needless war of choice.  

Noone can predict the future with any degree of certitude, but if we expect Iraq to become like Germany and Japan we are engaging in a deliberate excercise of self-delusion.  Best case, a fractured, oligarchal state that kowtows to Islamic fundamentalists.  Worst case, another Yugoslavia in the Middle East, complete with another mini Iran in the south, A kurdish statelet in the North that only serves to antagonize our Turkish allies and a shrunken, yet angry and well-armed, mass of Sunni Arabs in the middle who arent going to put up with it.  And, of course, a substantial growth in the level of terrorist influence throughout Iraq.  So much for the war on terror.

But alas maybe we are just marking time in any case, waiting for the next disaster to happen in Saudi Arabia, our ill-chosen ally.  The Saudi monarchy will collapse at some point, and unless we change our policies toward Saudi and try to get the country to change into something we would like it to look like, we are really looking at Iran Part II.    Bah!  Our policies have nada to do with freedom.  Look at Saudi, it is an oppressive regime, a true monarchy, rife with nepotism and completely oppresssive to women ... and what do we give them?  Privileged access to our Secretary of Defense and the President, and as many weapons as they would like to buy.  So much for freedom.

We need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to our Middle Eastern policy, and the current situation is not helping to advance our objectives in this region.
Logged

B
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #71 on: June 11, 2004, 03:06:50 PM »

We need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to our Middle Eastern policy, and the current situation is not helping to advance our objectives in this region.

Iraq is perfectly situated for basing miliatry assets possibly required to confront Syria, Iran and or even Saudi Arabia if that Kingdom goes down...which is quite beneficial given how people in that region are only cooperative when one has a side by one's side when negotiating.

George Bush always wanted the UN with us in Iraq...it was the UN lead by nations like France, Germany and Russia, whose companies had very lucrative but illegal contracts with Saddam, that were satisfied just to pass resolutions and never back them up. I would not be at all surprised to learn some years from now, the most recent UN vote came about along with a US promise not to divluge Iraqi documents that would have been very embarassing to certain governments in France, Germany and Russia. Oh and by the way -- Russians, French and Germans are not well liked amongst most Iraqis. The Iraqi people know all too well how those nations propped Saddam up and helped keep him afloat. American presence on the other hand is in fact welcomed by the majority. Yes they have complaints....but most of the anti-American rhetoric -- when one talks to Iraqis personally -- is born out of shame. Shame they needed the US to oust Saddam. Shame they did not do it themsleves. Shame their Arab "brothers" allowed them to suffer under his rule.

In that part of the wolrd the only thing respected is military might and the willingness to use it. Muslims have long thought they could count on Christians to sell them our own mothers for the right price....they have long thought we could be terrorized into submission. Let's pray we hold the course and don't go the way of the Spaniards who were cowared by terrorism.
Logged
Historynut
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


OC.net


« Reply #72 on: June 11, 2004, 04:01:54 PM »

I didnt read all the posts so i am going to reply only to the original question. I am joining the army in august and will be guaranteed an armor slot 19kilo this is a combat arms slot obviously and i discussed the issue with my priest. Essentially what he said is that what you need to avoid as a soldier is a desire to kill the enemy but do it only with reluctance and as a necessity. We didnt address the issue of what will happen if i were to kill someone in combat but he did say i had to confess to murder if i did.
Logged

NULL
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #73 on: June 11, 2004, 04:14:29 PM »

I didnt read all the posts so i am going to reply only to the original question. I am joining the army in august and will be guaranteed an armor slot 19kilo this is a combat arms slot obviously and i discussed the issue with my priest. Essentially what he said is that what you need to avoid as a soldier is a desire to kill the enemy but do it only with reluctance and as a necessity. We didnt address the issue of what will happen if i were to kill someone in combat but he did say i had to confess to murder if i did.

Might I advise that one enter into service not with a desire to kill but with a desire to serve. And if killing should be necessary you view it as just that -- necessary -- whether it be in cold blood or hot. There are always one or two goof balls in every unit though who get off on the killing aspect...and that is what is to be avoided...Those goof balls often turn out to be cowards when the metal hits the meat though.

While training, get into it with everything you have -- body and soul, allow yourslef to be formed first into a doldier and then as part of a unit. You will become a better man and a better Christian as a result.

May God Bless you and keep you and bring you home safely.

And don't be standing in the loader's hatch when you go over rough terrain.
Logged
Fotina02
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



« Reply #74 on: June 13, 2004, 02:29:08 AM »

Quote from: spartacus
While training, get into it with everything you have -- body and soul, allow yourslef to be formed first into a doldier and then as part of a unit. [b
You will become a better man and a better Christian as a result.[/b]
Quote

Military training is just that--it creates military personnel ready to carry out military missions. The military is all about the Mission.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #75 on: June 13, 2004, 02:32:08 AM »

I agree with Fotina.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #76 on: June 14, 2004, 06:53:39 PM »

Military training is just that--it creates military personnel ready to carry out military missions. The military is all about the Mission.


Yes, but one learns much about oneslef and his fellow man...at least one used to before the days of the mamby pamby co-ed basic training...But Armor is still all-male and I suspect at its core it has remained true.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #77 on: June 14, 2004, 06:57:48 PM »

You know, I have men in my family who are in the army, marines, and the navy, some of them are actually in Iraq. Many of the them are good Christians, but they all have the same feelings about war and about the chance of them having to kill someone; "kill, or be killed", "better them than me".

I have also heard this same mentality from other soliders and veterans in person and on television.

How is such a mentality compatible with Christianity?
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #78 on: June 15, 2004, 12:38:08 PM »


How is such a mentality compatible with Christianity?

Would Christianity have survived to this day without this menatlity?

Did Christ not teach to give Caesar what is Caesar's? Yes he was referring to money but one can reasonably interpret this to mean service as well.

Christ ministered to the Roman Centurians. He did not admonish them or tell them to stop serving Caesar. In fact he even pointed out one Roman officer as having more faith than all those in Israel. In the Jewish tradition, killing an enemy in combat is nowhere near equal to comitting murder. Christ tells us to love our enemies...so what happens when we shower them with food and medical services and other aid...and they attack innocents? What happens when we continue to give them aid even after the first attack, the second, the third, the fourth....when does one run out of cheeks to turn and feel the compulsion to act in defense of his country and family? When is being a conscious objector (co) really mean being a coward? Many highly decorated and brave medics and corpsmen have been COs.

Yes one can be a consciencous objector and that can be respectable...but a nation of such people would not long last.

 
If powerful Armies are to exist, I much prefer they be populated by Christian men rather than Muslims or Aetheists. Don't you?
« Last Edit: June 15, 2004, 12:41:32 PM by spartacus » Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #79 on: June 15, 2004, 01:04:00 PM »

Would Christianity have survived to this day without this menatlity?

Did Christ not teach to give Caesar what is Caesar's? Yes he was referring to money but one can reasonably interpret this to mean service as well.

Christ ministered to the Roman Centurians. He did not admonish them or tell them to stop serving Caesar. In fact he even pointed out one Roman officer as having more faith than all those in Israel. In the Jewish tradition, killing an enemy in combat is nowhere near equal to comitting murder. Christ tells us to love our enemies...so what happens when we shower them with food and medical services and other aid...and they attack innocents? What happens when we continue to give them aid even after the first attack, the second, the third, the fourth....when does one run out of cheeks to turn and feel the compulsion to act in defense of his country and family? When is being a conscious objector (co) really mean being a coward? Many highly decorated and brave medics and corpsmen have been COs.

Yes one can be a consciencous objector and that can be respectable...but a nation of such people would not long last.

 
If powerful Armies are to exist, I much prefer they be populated by Christian men rather than Muslims or Aetheists. Don't you?

One of my great-uncles was a conscientious (sp?) objector during WWII.  He was a medic in Italy.  He saw things that you and I can't even imagine.  

I suppose since you are in the military (I'm assuming) that you feel the very strong need to turn the conflict in Iraq into a 'good vs. evil' conflict.  I can understand psychologically why that's important to you.  I'm sure that if I were in your position I probably would feel the same need.  However, the facts aren't quite as neat and tidy as you make them appear.  

In law we have the idea of 'unclean hands,' meaning that if you are not totally innocent you can't get an equitable remedy against your opponent.  The US does not have 'clean hands' so has no right to get on a high horse and talk about the death of innocents.  We know that Saddam murdered his own people while he was an ally of the US.  Our intelligence services knew what he was up to and didn't care.  Where was the outrage about the death of innocents then?  

Moreover the US has caused the death of innocents itself so has no moral right to be superior.  What about the Dresden bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  IMHO the latter two are morally defensible while the former is not.

Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #80 on: June 15, 2004, 01:29:00 PM »

"The US does not have 'clean hands' so has no right to get on a high horse and talk about the death of innocents."

Yes, very true.  Iran was our pariah-du-jour at the time, to be sure, but our support for Saddam's regime, in fact our facilitation of its power consolidation, seriously undermines our ability to claim the high moral ground here.

We also have no right to be preaching about democracy and human rights in the Middle East when our strongest Arab ally is the most notiriously anti-democratic and repressive regime in the region ... namely Saudi Arabia.  How can we talk about the importance of democracy in Iraq while everyone knows that we are cosy with a true mideval monarchy who has more oppressive and restrictive religiously-inspired laws than Iran does?  Our whole Middle Eastern policy is built on a foundation of sand (pun intended) and needs to be reconsidered from the ground up.
Logged

B
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #81 on: June 15, 2004, 02:38:26 PM »

Would Christianity have survived to this day without this menatlity?

Did Christ not teach to give Caesar what is Caesar's? Yes he was referring to money but one can reasonably interpret this to mean service as well.

Christ ministered to the Roman Centurians. He did not admonish them or tell them to stop serving Caesar. In fact he even pointed out one Roman officer as having more faith than all those in Israel. In the Jewish tradition, killing an enemy in combat is nowhere near equal to comitting murder. Christ tells us to love our enemies...so what happens when we shower them with food and medical services and other aid...and they attack innocents? What happens when we continue to give them aid even after the first attack, the second, the third, the fourth....when does one run out of cheeks to turn and feel the compulsion to act in defense of his country and family? When is being a conscious objector (co) really mean being a coward? Many highly decorated and brave medics and corpsmen have been COs.

Yes one can be a consciencous objector and that can be respectable...but a nation of such people would not long last.

 
If powerful Armies are to exist, I much prefer they be populated by Christian men rather than Muslims or Aetheists. Don't you?

I understand that such a mentality has helped many nations and peoples survive, but that wasn't my question.

Regardless of how this mentality has been so much apart of human beings and our history of survival, is such a mentality Christian? If one examines the teachings of Jesus the answer is simply no.

The whole point of being a Christian is overcoming our passions and temptations and giving our lives to Christ and striving to be more and more like Him everyday, and I don't see how one can do that in an environment that teaches you to hate your enemy, to want to kill you enemy, and to leave as the winner.

When it comes down to it war is simply about you winning, about you killing, about you surviving by means of destroying lives and even whole civilizations, and that is hardly compatible with the message of Christ.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #82 on: June 15, 2004, 02:57:18 PM »

Ben,

All one needs to do is count the number of saints venerated, in both east and west, that were soldiers of war.

I need not list them, as a google search will undoubtly come up with a load of them.

Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #83 on: June 15, 2004, 03:05:25 PM »

Yes very true, but aren't most of those Saints ones that died fighting for Christ? For the Church? Whether they were or not, it still remains that the battlefield is not a place to advance in Christian morals and virtues, in my opinion.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #84 on: June 15, 2004, 05:31:31 PM »

"The US does not have 'clean hands' so has no right to get on a high horse and talk about the death of innocents."

Yes, very true.  Iran was our pariah-du-jour at the time, to be sure, but our support for Saddam's regime, in fact our facilitation of its power consolidation, seriously undermines our ability to claim the high moral ground here.

We also have no right to be preaching about democracy and human rights in the Middle East when our strongest Arab ally is the most notiriously anti-democratic and repressive regime in the region ... namely Saudi Arabia.  How can we talk about the importance of democracy in Iraq while everyone knows that we are cosy with a true mideval monarchy who has more oppressive and restrictive religiously-inspired laws than Iran does?  Our whole Middle Eastern policy is built on a foundation of sand (pun intended) and needs to be reconsidered from the ground up.

I totally agree.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2004, 09:30:42 AM »

What about the Dresden bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  IMHO the latter two are morally defensible while the former is not.

Dresden was an entirely British affair...planned and carried out entirely by the British.

Taken on the whole, in the last 100 years the US has done much more good than evil with its military force. The world is a better place because we wield military might. It degenerates when we shrink from using it when it is appropriate....or run due to a lack of resolve.
Logged
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2004, 09:33:15 AM »

Yes very true, but aren't most of those Saints ones that died fighting for Christ? For the Church? .

OK so you are willing to kill for Christ or your Church -- but not your fellow man who lives in bondage and opression, or to protect innocents from terror and murder -- sounds real Christian to me.
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2004, 10:00:40 AM »

Dresden was an entirely British affair...planned and carried out entirely by the British.

Sorry but that's not true.  The US Air Force participated in the bombing.  See the attached link (btw, one that calls opinions like mine "anti-american").  http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm

Quote
Taken on the whole, in the last 100 years the US has done much more good than evil with its military force. The world is a better place because we wield military might. It degenerates when we shrink from using it when it is appropriate....or run due to a lack of resolve.

How can you make such a sweeping statement when you don't even know the history?
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2004, 10:06:20 AM »

OK so you are willing to kill for Christ or your Church -- but not your fellow man who lives in bondage and opression, or to protect innocents from terror and murder -- sounds real Christian to me.

"Lives in bomdage and oppression?"  What does this mean exactly?  That they don't have democracy?  Does the Church teach that democracy is the only valid form of government?  No.  The pre-revolution Russian peasants were living in "bondage and oppression" (no democracy, no freedom of religion, etc.) but their tsar was Orthodox and probably a saint.  Was it "real Christian" to support the overthrow of the tsar?  What about the French revolution?  

"Protect innocents from terror and murder..."  This could be an argument for overthrowing the US government.  Our government has support "terror and murder."  We supported Saddam.  He murdered innocents while he was an ally of ours.  He probably carried out his terror with weapons supplied by the US or by US funds.  The US itself has killed innocents and has sat by and allowed other dictators to kill innocents.  

It seems to me that if protecting innocents is the primary concern the US ought to be overthrown.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2004, 10:44:20 AM »

Quote
OK so you are willing to kill for Christ or your Church -- but not your fellow man who lives in bondage and opression, or to protect innocents from terror and murder -- sounds real Christian to me.


Ah, the foundation of Liberation Theology.  Are you sure you're not a Jesuit?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.147 seconds with 72 queries.