tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post8301577067694237270..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: The Biblical Perspective of WarJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-66613141138693319582008-11-24T14:19:00.000-05:002008-11-24T14:19:00.000-05:00In the NT, soldiers are portrayed in a relatively ...In the NT, soldiers are portrayed in a relatively positive light. If participating in a war is a sin, John the Baptist would probably have asked the soldiers to quit their jobs. And Paul probably wouldn't have told us to equip the full armor of God.<BR/><BR/>When the cause is just, war is justifiable.TrueHopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08468797209411273315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-37342816392259302112008-11-22T17:40:00.000-05:002008-11-22T17:40:00.000-05:00Hi Martin, you make some good points, there will a...Hi Martin, you make some good points, there will always be dissenters.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Iraq, Congress authorized Bush to use force. They did not formally declare war. We are dealing with semantics here, but "authorizing" and "declaring" are not the same thing. A formal declaration of war is a bigger commitment than an authorization of force. A formal declaration gives the president a bigger mandate. Having said that, no doubt there would have been some dissension either way.<BR/><BR/>You are absolutely correct with Wilson, Korea, and Vietnam. I disagree with your assessment of FDR. Prior to Pearl Harbor there was a strong isolationist movement. But post Pearl Harbor the nation was quite united. Congress didn't declare war until after Pearl Harbor.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-57441657466433069982008-11-22T02:54:00.000-05:002008-11-22T02:54:00.000-05:00Actually Kevin, there are a couple of things that ...Actually Kevin, there are a couple of things that you have off in your last paragraph. First of all, the current war that we are in was declared by Congress (actually, we currently arn't in a war. The war was over in the first three months. We're in a Reconstruction period). So clearly the act of Congress declaring it won't avoid what you are talking about. <BR/><BR/>Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the Korean War weren't declared by Congress because techniquely they weren't wars. We were providing military support for an ally. In the Gulf War, we weren't the ones Iraq was principly fighting; Kuwait was. The same kind of thing is true of the other two wars. Mind you, we recognize them as wars <I>now</I> because, really, they were, but its not like those presidents just went to war without Congress's approval. That would've be Unconstitutional. Instead they used a loophole.<BR/><BR/>The Iraq War did not qualify for the loophole, but it didn't need to. Bush went to the Congress, and the Congress voted for a declaration of war. Now, certain senators are claiming that they were pressed into voting that way. However, it's a moot claim. The vote went the way it did, and the war is legal based on American precedures of such things. <BR/><BR/>The second thing is that you have off is the reason one never hears WWII referred to as "Roosevelte's War" is because we live in 2008. If we lived in 1943 that would be a different matter. Check out the movie "In Harm's Way" starring John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. There's a remark by the son who disapproved of WWII, where he calls it "Mr. Roosevelte's War". Wayne retorts that WWI was called "Wilson's War" as well. Mind you, all the evidence I have is this movie, but given it was made in 1965 and most of the viewers were around during WWII, I think it is sufficient evidence that this was done. <BR/><BR/>There will always be desenters of a war, and they will always target the president. The difference is then most of the media was behind the president, while now the reverse is true. The guy who owns the microphone gets the loudest word in.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-31458970758240311702008-11-22T02:20:00.000-05:002008-11-22T02:20:00.000-05:00Thanks bethyada for the catch. I fixed it in the p...Thanks bethyada for the catch. I fixed it in the post.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-18135768286258025942008-11-21T22:43:00.000-05:002008-11-21T22:43:00.000-05:00Second, I do believe in the strong dialectic betwe...<I>Second, I <B>do</B> believe in the strong dialectic between the Old and New Testament anyway.</I><BR/><BR/>Did you mean "do" or "don't"?bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-87342942595279162602008-11-21T20:29:00.000-05:002008-11-21T20:29:00.000-05:00Good read. I agree with you that war is sometimes...Good read. I agree with you that war is sometimes the best response. WW2 would seem to be a clear example.<BR/><BR/>War can often be understood as a form of God's judgment for a nation that has turned away from Him. In the OT, this applied both ways for the nation of Israel.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the USA, I think the nation shouldn't go to war unless it is one declared by congress. This would help avoid things like the politics of "Bush's war" or "Johnson's war". One never hears of "FDR's war" because the nation was united in purpose.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.com