US Forces fighting Chrisitian Organisation in Uganda

[Charles Darwin]

[youtube][/youtube]

How dare he!?

Funny how christians are all for killing muslim terrorists but boy when the terrorists are christians..whole nother story!

[East of Eden]

Please answer my question:

If it has nothing to do with the OT, why did you cite the OT as justification for going against the teachings of Jesus?

Where does Jesus' teachings address government foreign policy? Did He tell Pilate Rome should not be going into Gaul or Germania? He came to save individuals, not governments. That being said, Christianity is not a pacifist religion, as we see from OT examples of what God considered just wars. There is a difference between an aggressive and a defensive war, and an aggressive and a defensive act of personal self defense. The Bible seems to say the government is put in a position of authority over us to enact justice, whether against foreign or domestic criminal threats.

Like with the "turn the other cheek" teaching. Does that apply only to individuals? Does that mean that if someone strikes me when I'm alone I turn the other cheek, but if I'm with a couple friends I'm supposed to hit him back? How does this work exactly, and where does Jesus talk about these exceptions to his teachings?

Here is a good explanation of that question:

http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm

Note: "Jesus specifically mentions the right here , even though a blow from a right-handed person would normally fall on the left cheek. This probably means that the blow is delivered with the back of the hand, since then it would indeed fall on the right cheek. We know for certain that such a blow was considered particularly insulting. The injustice that is willingly accepted here is therefore not so much a matter of body injury as of shame. (H.N. Ridderbos. "Matthew": Bible Students Commentary. Zondervan. p. 113)"

I believe turn the other cheek refers to when people insult us (rather than physically attack us) we are to let it go rather than seek revenge. Not an easy thing to do. I believe in personal self-defense from criminals, and have a concealed carry permit. Take the example of the Good Samaritan, do you think if he came upon the robbed and beaten man in the act of the crime, he should have stood by until the attack was over, and then helped him? No, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' means he should have stopped the attack, as we stopped the unjust Axis powers in WWII.

No, I'm just assuming that Jesus' teachings were meant to apply in all situations, and I'm assuming that if there were massive exceptions to his teachings that he would have actually mentioned them.

The Bible is meant to answer all things necessary for salvation, not for every question that can be dreamed up.

How exactly were the Israelites provoked?

From Glenn Miller:

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" (I Sam 15.2f) The situation is thus: "The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel). They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau's twin Jacob.

They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev--a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel--had they believed the promises of God. As soon as Israel escapes Egypt--before they can even 'catch their breath'--the Amalekites make a long journey south(!) and attack Israel. Their first targets were the helpless:

Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).

Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to 'move away' themselves), and the impending attack by Saul--especially with the troop counts reported!--would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled--we KNOW all of them were not killed, since they 'lived to fight/raid again' in David's time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah's time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).

Kaiser notes in EBC: Exodus 17.8:

Amalek's assault on Israel drew the anger of God on two counts: (1) they failed to recognize the hand and plan of God in Israel's life and destiny (even the farther-removed Canaanites of Jericho had been given plenty to think about when they heard about the Exodus--Josh 2.10); and (2) the first targets of their warfare were the sick, aged, and tired of Israel who lagged behind the line of march (Deut 25:17-19).

But Amalek continues to repeatedly oppress, terrorize, and vandalize Israel for between 200 and 400 more years! And yet, Amalekites were freely accepted as immigrants to Israel during this period.

Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 400 years since Jacob and Land-promise), plus enough information about the miraculous Exodus to know where/when to attack Israel; (2) even their war conduct was cruel by current standards(!); (3) the semi-annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--and specifically gave them the opportunity to move away; (5) children living in the households of stubbornly-hostile parents (who refused to flee or join Israel earlier) died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, disease, and other raiders; or instead of being captured and sold as foreign slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?)--they are victims of their fathers' terrorist and oppressive habits toward Israel; (6) the innocent members of the community (Kenites) and any change-of-heart Amalekites who fled are delivered (along with their children of the household."


If God had a right to use the Flood as judgement, He certainly could do it to one tribe that threatened Israel. I find it interesting that some are bothered by this incident but are not by our aborting 40,000,000 infants since 1973 mainly for convenience.

I find it interesting that many Christians are apologists for genocide. Personally, I think genocide is a bad thing for which there is no justification.

That would make sense if you have no concept of sin.

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where Jesus said "when you come together as a group and elect leaders from among yourselves, the leadership no longer needs to follow my teachings."

I dispute your pacifist interpretation, but if the 'group' does not consist entirely of Christians, why would His teachings apply?

[McCulloch]

I, for one, do not deny that God has the right to do as he wills with his creation. I deny that the behavior presented in the Bible is consistent with a loving and just God.

A just God punishes sin.

But the Christian God unjustly forgives sin selectively.

There are a number of sects of Christianity (not just the Jehovah's Witnesses) who have observed the conflict between biblically recommended behavior and the roles necessary to effectively govern. They therefore eschew direct participation in various governmental bodies. Others believe that participation in governmental activity can be done in a way that is consistent with the Christian lifestyle. And still others compartmentalize their lives and exclude Christian principles from their participation in public life.

Yes, Peolsi, Biden, etc.

Thank you for that off-topic political barb. I believe that the topic we were addressing was your assertion that Jesus had nothing to say about government policy.

I think Christians should at the least make an informed vote, and for those who feel called to enter the political process, I have no problem with that. There are some issues that those Christians have a duty to speak out on such as slavery, abortion, and what people like Dietrich Bonhoffer did in response to Hitler. It is interesting that it was the theologically conservative Christians who did the most against Hitler and slavery, the liberals kind of went along to get along.

So now you are saying that the teachings of Jesus should inform and direct Christians who work in government?

[East of Eden]

But the Christian God unjustly forgives sin selectively.

Repentance precedes forgiveness. Apparently the Amelkites and the world at the time of the Flood (save Noah's family) were unrepentant. Do you know of a time where Jesus refused to forgive a repentant person? The Bible says God wills that all would come to salvation. We have freewill, many refuse that offer.

Thank you for that off-topic political barb. I believe that the topic we were addressing was your assertion that Jesus had nothing to say about government policy.

Did He?

So now you are saying that the teachings of Jesus should inform and direct Christians who work in government?

Everybody's actions are impacted by their value system, including Christians. A Christian politician has every right to oppose abortion, racial discrimination, or gay marriage because of his value system. If the voters disagree, they can use their value system and vote against him.

[GiddyUp]

[quote="East of Eden

Interesting the God-haters here have to reach into Uganda to find a group 9 out of 10 have never heard of to make some sort of bizarre point that Christianity is dangerous. If I have to explain them, you have to explain Stalin & Co.[/quote]

Actually, if atheists have to explain Stalin & Co, then you as a theist have to explain not only the LRA, but also Osama Bin Laden, Muhammad, Hong Xiuquan, Hitler and other theists who committed atrocities.

Also, how can a Christian claim to be following Christ's teaching and then elect officials who practice policies contrary to those? Jesus laid down some pretty strict rules in the Sermon on the Mount and went on to say that anyone who doesn't follow those teachings is not his follower. Yet here we see Christians coming up with all sorts of justifications for why they don't practise what Jesus preached.

[East of Eden]

Actually, if atheists have to explain Stalin & Co, then you as a theist have to explain not only the LRA, but also Osama Bin Laden, Muhammad, Hong Xiuquan, Hitler and other theists who committed atrocities.

I will be happy to explain them, they are following false doctrines other than Christianity and Jesus' teachings.

Also, how can a Christian claim to be following Christ's teaching and then elect officials who practice policies contrary to those?

Who is saying to do that?

Jesus laid down some pretty strict rules in the Sermon on the Mount and went on to say that anyone who doesn't follow those teachings is not his follower. Yet here we see Christians coming up with all sorts of justifications for why they don't practise what Jesus preached.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Even if you twist it from individuals to governments is says 'Blessed are the Peacemakers', we did that when we defeated Hitler and Japan.

[McCulloch]

Everybody's actions are impacted by their value system, including Christians. A Christian politician has every right to oppose abortion, racial discrimination, or gay marriage because of his value system. If the voters disagree, they can use their value system and vote against him.

Agreed. I wonder why it is that Christian politicians oppose abortion, racial discrimination and same sex marriage because of their value systems, but do not oppose women with short hair, men with long hair, violence as a means to solve international disputes, sabbath breaking, idolatry, blasphemy and public prayer because of the same value systems.

[East of Eden]

Everybody's actions are impacted by their value system, including Christians. A Christian politician has every right to oppose abortion, racial discrimination, or gay marriage because of his value system. If the voters disagree, they can use their value system and vote against him.

Agreed. I wonder why it is that Christian politicians oppose abortion, racial discrimination and same sex marriage because of their value systems, but do not oppose women with short hair, men with long hair, violence as a means to solve international disputes, sabbath breaking, idolatry, blasphemy and public prayer because of the same value systems.

You'd have to ask them, but I notice you have stuff intended for the OT theocracy of Israel mixed in here.

[McCulloch]

Everybody's actions are impacted by their value system, including Christians. A Christian politician has every right to oppose abortion, racial discrimination, or gay marriage because of his value system. If the voters disagree, they can use their value system and vote against him.

Agreed. I wonder why it is that Christian politicians oppose abortion, racial discrimination and same sex marriage because of their value systems, but do not oppose women with short hair, men with long hair, violence as a means to solve international disputes, sabbath breaking, idolatry, blasphemy and public prayer because of the same value systems.

You'd have to ask them, but I notice you have stuff intended for the OT theocracy of Israel mixed in here.

Really? Which ones?

1. women with short hair, men with long hair, 1 Corinthians 11
2. violence as a means to solve disputes, Matthew 5
3. sabbath breaking, The Ten Commandments (please do not tell me that Christians disregard the Ten Commandments)
4. idolatry, Acts 15, 21, Romans 2:22
5. blasphemy Luke 12:10, 1 Timothy 1:20 and
6. public prayer Matthew 6

[East of Eden]

Really? Which ones?

1. women with short hair, men with long hair, 1 Corinthians 11
2. violence as a means to solve disputes, Matthew 5

That's talking to individuals, not the police or military. Do you think a police dept. is unbiblical?

[*]sabbath breaking

This was primarily the OT one I was thinking of, I don't think the NT even specifies what day we have to worship.

The Ten Commandments (please do not tell me that Christians disregard the Ten Commandments)

None do. That is part of the moral law (as opposed to the dietary and ceremonial law) that is reinforced in the NT. Many politicians do work for public display of the commandments, but are often thwarted by activist judges. There are six depictions of the ten commandments in our Supreme Court building:

http://morallaw.org/blog/2006/08/the-te ... -building/

[*]idolatry, Acts 15, 21, Romans 2:22 [*]blasphemy Luke 12:10, 1 Timothy 1:20

If any politicians want to promote that, the voters will have to approve it. So what?

[*]public prayer Matthew 6[/list]

We already have that, complete with House and Senate chaplains.

[Autodidact]

First show me evidence the LRA is even using the Bible to justify their crimes.

“Yes, we are fighting for Ten Commandments,� he replied. “Is it bad? It is not against human rights. And that commandment was not given by Joseph (Kony). It was not given by LRA. No, that commandment was given by God.�
Joseph Kony

"Lord’s Resistance Army is just the name of the movement, because we are fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the [biblical] Ten Commandments of God. That is true – because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this."
Vincent Otii, from wiki

Formed in 1987, the group was first called the Uganda People's Democratic Christian Army but changed the name to the Lord's Resistance Army in 1991.
[Christian Science Monitor]

What does the LRA want?

The LRA wants to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and the tradition of the Acholi people, an ethnic group in northern Uganda.
--Washington Post.