Should Christains support the war in Afghanistan?

gaynorvader

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

AFAIK, the OP is an atheist. Whatever about hygienic benefits to circumcision there are medical benefits to circumcision. But this is well off topic.

I did not realise that the OP was not Christian, rather changes things. I disagree that there are medical benefits to circumcision, but agree that this is not the place to discuss it.

irishconvert

seawolf145 wrote: »

Ok fair enough i am not a religious man myself,but back to the conflict in Afghanistan.
The war against terror should really be a matter for the hole world though.
Doesnt matter if you are Christian,Buddist or Muslim or Atheist for that matter.
Its a thing that concerns us all isnt it?if its not stopped now its going to effect us sooner or later!!!

If it's really a "War on terror", why are they in Afghanistan then? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi. Please wake up and stop believing everything the media tell you.

drifting

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh yeah? I'll grant you the Vatican as an example of a Christian nation but can you name others?

I think that was a grant much too far. The Vatican was built with, and is now sustained with, money taken from the poor by priestcraft on threat of eternal damantion. I was even once induced myself to part with large sums of money. Now if you could show that the Vatican had been honestly built through the hard labours of the clerics, I would change my mind.

It was only yesterday, that I read in the paper that the "church" - not the RCC this time - is still trying to lay their hands on the savings and houses of the poor. Enough of this. It takes more than outward shows of piety to be labelled a "Christian nation."

wolfsbane

Puck wrote: »

Arguing that a nation is Christian because it mentions God in its constitution is like arguing that a person is Christian because they were baptised as a baby.

If they were subsequently raised to observe Christian morality and sent to church occasionally, that would be analogous to the U.K. and the U.S.A. until well into the 20th C. Neither the person nor these nations were actually Christian, but lived under at least a nominal commitment to Christian truth.

That's why I think we can use the term 'Islamic' to describe a nation that has the code of Islam underlying its laws, even if it is motivated more by greed or whatever. Same for any religion/ideology, including Christianity.

_________________________________________________________________
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Abraham Lincoln

Second Inaugural Address

Saturday, March 4, 1865

Genghiz Cohen

wolfsbane wrote: »

If they were subsequently raised to observe Christian morality and sent to church occasionally, that would be analogous to the U.K. and the U.S.A. until well into the 20th C. Neither the person nor these nations were actually Christian, but lived under at least a nominal commitment to Christian truth.

I'm pretty sure Christian morality is very similar to Jewish morality, apart from some eating habits.
Christian morality is very similar to my own actually, apart from some short list of things what I do.

wonderfulname

“Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.”

“Do not use force against an evil man.”

“Do not resist evil with evil.”

“Forgive and you will be forgiven.”

“He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.”

“do to others as you would have them do to you.”

Regardless of whether the ten commandments specify murder or general killing the new testament lays out pretty strongly that Christianity is a peaceful religion and as such, in my opinion, nobody should use Christianity to validate their support of the war in Afghanistan.

wolfsbane

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Christian morality is very similar to Jewish morality, apart from some eating habits.
Christian morality is very similar to my own actually, apart from some short list of things what I do.

I agree, as far as public morality is concerned. But wonderfulname points to individual morality, and the command of God is not the same for individuals and the State.

I'm certainly not saying the U.K. or America lived consistently be either, just that it was their law-code, the standard they were supposed to aim at. And that the State formally acknowledged its submission to God.
_________________________________________________________________
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.
O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.
Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen

wolfsbane

wonderfulname wrote: »

“Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.”

“Do not use force against an evil man.”

“Do not resist evil with evil.”

“Forgive and you will be forgiven.”

“He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.”

“do to others as you would have them do to you.”

Regardless of whether the ten commandments specify murder or general killing the new testament lays out pretty strongly that Christianity is a peaceful religion and as such, in my opinion, nobody should use Christianity to validate their support of the war in Afghanistan.

The above refers to the individual's responsibilities. But God has given the State additional duties and powers. It has the duty to restrain evil citizens and to reward good ones. It has also the duty to protect the nation from outside attack. In all this it acts as God's minister, on His behalf.

Individuals do not have that duty as of right, but they may be called on to act on behalf of the State.

So has the State the right to oppress its people or wage unjust wars? No. So our stance on Afghanistan has to be thought out on the basis of complex realities, not misapplying God's commands. Was my State unjust in invading Afghanistan - maybe, but not because it is never right to go to war. Was my State just in invading Afghanistan - maybe, but not because it is allowed to do what it likes.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 13: 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

wonderfulname

wolfsbane wrote: »

So has the State the right to oppress its people or wage unjust wars? No. So our stance on Afghanistan has to be thought out on the basis of complex realities, not misapplying God's commands. Was my State unjust in invading Afghanistan - maybe, but not because it is never right to go to war. Was my State just in invading Afghanistan - maybe, but not because it is allowed to do what it likes.

This is a valid point, I did approach the issue from a personal stance, however I still believe Christians should advocate the highest possible levels of peace in any situation.

But anyway back to the larger scale, we do have the Just War Theory and the RC church has come to the conclusion that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq can not be supported by the church as they do not fit its model for a just war. I know the papacy doesn't speak for all Christians but I did find this article charting The Papacy's Response to the War in Iraq since 2003 which may clear up the issue for some.

wolfsbane

wonderfulname wrote: »

This is a valid point, I did approach the issue from a personal stance, however I still believe Christians should advocate the highest possible levels of peace in any situation.

But anyway back to the larger scale, we do have the Just War Theory and the RC church has come to the conclusion that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq can not be supported by the church as they do not fit its model for a just war. I know the papacy doesn't speak for all Christians but I did find this article charting The Papacy's Response to the War in Iraq since 2003 which may clear up the issue for some.

Thanks for the link.

Yes, the Iraq War seems very doubtful to say the least. Afghanistan is another matter. It seemed to be a leading element in permitting the strikes on the West. So the initial war to remove the militants and hunt the terrorists has credibility in a Just War model (if we ignore the various Conspiracy theories, for sake of the argument).

Anything from Rome on that?
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 13: 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

wonderfulname

wolfsbane wrote: »

So the initial war to remove the militants and hunt the terrorists has credibility in a Just War model (if we ignore the various Conspiracy theories, for sake of the argument).

Anything from Rome on that?

Well you can easily argue that it does not fit the Just War model as the west had not exhausted all means of possible peaceful resolution, instead jumping straight into battle, a war can only be deemed just if it is the only option.

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

Well you can easily argue that it does not fit the Just War model as the west had not exhausted all means of possible peaceful resolution, instead jumping straight into battle, a war can only be deemed just if it is the only option.

You can easily argue it, but I'm not sure you can argue it convincingly.

What means of peaceful resolution would you suggest? Going to Al Quaeda and the Taliban and saying, "Let's all be friends"?

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

You can easily argue it, but I'm not sure you can argue it convincingly.

What means of peaceful resolution would you suggest? Going to Al Quaeda and the Taliban and saying, "Let's all be friends"?

Pulling western troops out of their country would be a start. In fact I'd say you would have no more problems with terrorists (except for Al-CIAeda perhaps, stirring the **** up)

JimiTime

irishconvert wrote: »

Pulling western troops out of their country would be a start. In fact I'd say you would have no more problems with terrorists (except for Al-CIAeda perhaps, stirring the **** up)

Will everything be better for the Afghans then? Will the Taliban simply p!ss off back to the caves like the primitive goons they are?

PDN

irishconvert wrote: »

Pulling western troops out of their country would be a start. In fact I'd say you would have no more problems with terrorists (except for Al-CIAeda perhaps, stirring the **** up)

That didn't work very well last time, did it?

There were no western troops in their country of Afghanistan. The Taliban turned the place into a fundamentalist hellhole. The western nations did nothing as long as the barbarism was being directed at their own people. Then the nation became a giant training camp for Al Quaeda to launch attacks on other countries - slaughtering Christians, Jews, Muslims and others.

Don't get me wrong, I hate violence and get profoundly upset at any war (I spend a good bit of my time counselling victims of war). And I think some of the stuff that has gone on in Israel and elsewhere has been appalling. But if you were to look at one war in my lifetime that could be described as 'just' - then the invasion of the running scab that was Taliban-Afghanistan would be the prime candidate.

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

That didn't work very well last time, did it?

There were no western troops in their country of Afghanistan. The Taliban turned the place into a fundamentalist hellhole. The western nations did nothing as long as the barbarism was being directed at their own people. Then the nation became a giant training camp for Al Quaeda to launch attacks on other countries - slaughtering Christians, Jews, Muslims and others.

Don't get me wrong, I hate violence and get profoundly upset at any war (I spend a good bit of my time counselling victims of war). And I think some of the stuff that has gone on in Israel and elsewhere has been appalling. But if you were to look at one war in my lifetime that could be described as 'just' - then the invasion of the running scab that was Taliban-Afghanistan would be the prime candidate.

The US bankrolled the Taliban and gave them weapons. They set the Taliban up in power!!

PDN

irishconvert wrote: »

The US bankrolled the Taliban and gave them weapons. They set the Taliban up in power!!

I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise.

I'm no supporter of the US's foreign policy either 25 years ago or today. Nevertheless, that doesn't alter the fact that Afghanistan, prior to the invasion, was a fundamentalist hellhole that represented a real threat to every society that didn't share their mypoic worldview.

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise.

I'm no supporter of the US's foreign policy either 25 years ago or today. Nevertheless, that doesn't alter the fact that Afghanistan, prior to the invasion, was a fundamentalist hellhole that represented a real threat to every society that didn't share their mypoic worldview.

Yes but there are lots of crackpot rulers over the world. Funny how we pick and choose only the oil rich ones to liberate (I saw we because Ireland allowed US war planes to use our airports on their way to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq).

OS119

irishconvert wrote: »

Yes but there are lots of crackpot rulers over the world. Funny how we pick and choose only the oil rich ones to liberate (I saw we because Ireland allowed US war planes to use our airports on their way to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq).

sorry, was just following the thread for interests sake, but i'd be very grateful if you could clear up one point: what are Afghanistans natural resourses?

i can see a correlation between Iraq and a desire to control access to oil, but i'm somewhat puzzled by why you think the US would risk war to control Afghanistans carpet and date industries...

PDN

OS119 wrote: »

sorry, was just following the thread for interests sake, but i'd be very grateful if you could clear up one point: what are Afghanistans natural resourses?

Poppies?

Baggio1

we should deffo NOT support this war,, its a total scam,,, natural recourses like minerals and a new oil.gas pipeline is where its at,, obama and crew are a bunch of war mongers and theyll go for iran and syria next, coz those 2 places are the only ones in the region NOT run by puppets of the USA,
look at karzai in afganistan?...his brother is a a major drug lord, and the poppy fields where the heroine comes from,,,guess who's guarding it?? yeah the good ol marines , the russians wanted those fields destroyed,,,but uncle sam wont let them be destroyed its unbelievable whats going on with soo many people duped by hilly clinton and co... a bunch of arogant, war mongerers is all they are - putting a criminal enterprize in power to run the scam,,, karzai's big speech about his ministries!?.. what a laugh ministries?? - how about a bunch of crooks in a rooom

i tell ya the whole business over there stinks to high heaven and all these attacks into pakistan and yemen trhat are also happening? their gonna come back and bite uncle sam hard in the ass,,

so noooo we should in now way support these clowns running "their" war

osama bin larden remember him? dead or alive?, drones attacking "suspected terrorists" ya think people living in the usa who have family wiped out in pakistan/afganistan are going to be a tad angry?? its a recipe for home grown terror in the usa yu watch and see,
and since when is it a crime punishable by death to be a "suspected terrorist" and being attacked by a drone piloted by some clown hundreds of miles away with a camera view thats not too clear at best?! people need to wake up and wise up to whats going on over there

PDN

Baggio1 wrote: »

look at karzai in afganistan?...his brother is a a major drug lord, and the poppy fields where the heroine comes from,

That's an improvement over the Taliban then? Equal opportunities and all that. Under the Taliban only heroes would have been allowed - no heroines.

Baggio1

pdn hahaha i see my gafff well spotted hahah:p

wonderfulname

PDN wrote: »

You can easily argue it, but I'm not sure you can argue it convincingly.

What means of peaceful resolution would you suggest? Going to Al Quaeda and the Taliban and saying, "Let's all be friends"?

Did any western leader attempt to talk to the leaders of Al Quaeda and the Taliban? If they had attempted negotiations and they failed that would be different, but who are we to say they would have?

wolfsbane

wonderfulname wrote: »

Did any western leader attempt to talk to the leaders of Al Quaeda and the Taliban? If they had attempted negotiations and they failed that would be different, but who are we to say they would have?

Don't you think 9/11 required more than talk?

I'm all for negotiations, even in war, but allowing one side to wage war while you restrict yourself to talk is being irresponsible to the nation you have sworn to protect.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 13: 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

caseyann

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

I think so. We in the west need to fight to protect our devine Christian values against eastern extremism. If we had a proper Christain government we would send troops to serve with NATO and other western/christain nations.

While i agree with it i think no point in it and close the flights in and out of there and leave them to themselves.Only trade wise keep channels open.
War is never going to be over there and no point in them staying when they arent wanted there.

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

Yes, the Iraq War seems very doubtful to say the least. Afghanistan is another matter. It seemed to be a leading element in permitting the strikes on the West. So the initial war to remove the militants and hunt the terrorists has credibility in a Just War model (if we ignore the various Conspiracy theories, for sake of the argument).

Anything from Rome on that?

While I don't speak for Rome or any such thing, just have a personal opinion. I am kinda dubious about the guy they brought in to take over in Afghanistan, and his acceptability to the people..

..and the whole legality of the way the 'war' was waged will live with us for a very very long time. There are normal people who are suffering, lets never forget..

As for 'Just War', I think it needs to be 'necessary' and not provoked - Terrorism is born of having no 'voice' no 'choice'...and they call that a 'just war' too....

Give me 'talks' and peacemakers any day of the week over war mongering for 'any' reason...that kills innocents..

wonderfulname

wolfsbane wrote: »

Don't you think 9/11 required more than talk?

Yea now that you mention it the Brits really should have nuked belfast back in the day.. all that "agreement" crap was never gonna fly..

oh wait..

Face it, America over-reacted.

Torakx

Didnt Jesus Christ turn the other cheek?
Im also curious is this a bit of a wind up or something?
Apologies if im off track here as i have stumbled in here and zoned in a bit early on this topic
I ask about the windup because surely any christian would be against killing...it just doesnt look pretty to be killing fellow humans or involved in any way while proclaiming to be a follower of Christs teachings.
Thats like being the anti christian surely.

Subtle Troll

I love the typo in the OP, 'Christ Stains' would be a brilliant term for followers of Jesus :pac:

I am glad to see the old 'christian country' term shot down quickly by the posters. Christians (I wanna use my own term, lol) should no more support a war because of their religion than they should support Man U or something, the war is over some bizarre political reasons, not religion.

lmaopml

Subtle Troll, hate to break the news but your about as subtle as a sledge hammer.....if it were a digital sledge hammer with radio frequency for entertainment value, it would be tuned into idiot permanently cause it's looped on reload...

Bye!

wolfsbane

Torakx wrote: »

Didnt Jesus Christ turn the other cheek?
Im also curious is this a bit of a wind up or something?
Apologies if im off track here as i have stumbled in here and zoned in a bit early on this topic
I ask about the windup because surely any christian would be against killing...it just doesnt look pretty to be killing fellow humans or involved in any way while proclaiming to be a follower of Christs teachings.
Thats like being the anti christian surely.

You imply killing of humans is always wrong - but that is not Christian doctrine. Some Christians feel they could not participate in doing so as policemen or soldiers, but usually they agree that the State is permitted to use lethal force if needed. The rest of us Christians feel free to be part of a police force or army of the State and to use lethal force if necessary.

Pacifism is a common caricature of Christianity.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 13:4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

wolfsbane

wonderfulname wrote: »

Yea now that you mention it the Brits really should have nuked belfast back in the day.. all that "agreement" crap was never gonna fly..

oh wait..

Face it, America over-reacted.

Are you saying the Brits only talked with the terrorists? No, they imprisoned or killed many of them, even as they talked.

As to over-reaction by America, remember that almost as many were killed on 9/11 as in the 40 years of the Troubles. That called for a big reaction.

Now I'm not saying America had been innocent of all the Militant Muslims accused them of - far from it, I suspect America used its power to corruptly advance its elites' goals for generations. But I'm saying IF a war is just in its origins, then it cannot be conducted by talk alone in the face of violence.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 13:4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

wolfsbane

lmaopml wrote: »

While I don't speak for Rome or any such thing, just have a personal opinion. I am kinda dubious about the guy they brought in to take over in Afghanistan, and his acceptability to the people..

..and the whole legality of the way the 'war' was waged will live with us for a very very long time. There are normal people who are suffering, lets never forget..

As for 'Just War', I think it needs to be 'necessary' and not provoked - Terrorism is born of having no 'voice' no 'choice'...and they call that a 'just war' too....

Give me 'talks' and peacemakers any day of the week over war mongering for 'any' reason...that kills innocents..

Was the Afghan War legally dubious? I thought that applied to the Iraq War only? But I could be mistaken.

I agree too that terrorism may be the (unjustified) response to oppression, so the justness of an ensuing war must factor that in.

Of course, many wars are fought with right and wrong on both sides.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Torakx

Arent all christians asked to follow in the footsteps of Jesus?
To kill a person or imo be part of an organisation that is involved in killing is not really following in his footsteps and not really showing much respect for life.
However i may have misquoted that verse as i dont remember where i read it in the bible exactly.

wolfsbane

Torakx wrote: »

Arent all christians asked to follow in the footsteps of Jesus?
To kill a person or imo be part of an organisation that is involved in killing is not really following in his footsteps and not really showing much respect for life.
However i may have misquoted that verse as i dont remember where i read it in the bible exactly.

You are certainly right about Christians following in His footsteps:
1 Peter 2:20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 “ Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;


The point I make is that we must distinguish the individual's proper response from that of the State (and its officers). The latter have a duty given by God to punish evil on His behalf.

Respect for life manifests itself in both justice and mercy, not mercy alone.

_________________________________________________________________
1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

Torakx

I was brought up to believe that something like this would happen to those i turned the other cheek to.
And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. …From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty (Revelation 19:11, 15).
Firstly i think most if not all wars are political.Its debateable as to if the war in afghanistan is actually protecting anyones freedom.I would consider it murder from my christian standpoint.
I think popes and bishops have been known to bless armies and killing machines which possibly were used against other christians which i also dont agree with, so i guess if you want to follow the examples of religious leaders instead of jesus who was supposed to be the ultimate example then in that light i can see why.

It does say in the bible "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s"
But for me Gods would of had first priority.

At the moment ceasar wants us to go and kill "terrorists".
God wants us to spread the good word amongst the nations and follow Jesus example doing good works.
So for me who doesnt believe in God as i knew it,i would consider violence only ok in defence of another or self.
If i was forced to join the army i would choose imprisonment or whatever the punishment instead.
I know in the old testament there were alot of wars written about and God sometimes favoured a side.
Im not sure however about other christian religions and if they follow the whole bible book to book or just the old or new testament.

One thing you mentioned.The state has a duty given by God to punish on his behalf.
Is there a scripture that shows this.It goes against alot of what i was taught and it could be something ive been searching for a long time.

wolfsbane

Torakx said:

Firstly i think most if not all wars are political.

Sure. But that does not make them all unjust. The war against the Nazis, for example, became inevitable and just - but if the Germans had been treated more justly before and after WW1 it can be argued Nazism would not have arisen.

Its debateable as to if the war in afghanistan is actually protecting anyones freedom.

Yes, it is indeed debatable. But a case can be made that it is at least about freedom from terror in the West.

I would consider it murder from my christian standpoint.

OK. But you have to indicate the alternatives.

I think popes and bishops have been known to bless armies and killing machines which possibly were used against other christians which i also dont agree with, so i guess if you want to follow the examples of religious leaders instead of jesus who was supposed to be the ultimate example then in that light i can see why.

The RCC is a false church, but I take your point - no church should be waging wars.

It does say in the bible "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s"
But for me Gods would of had first priority.

Agreed!

At the moment ceasar wants us to go and kill "terrorists".
God wants us to spread the good word amongst the nations and follow Jesus example doing good works.

It can be argued one can do both - eg., be a Christian who evangelises and a policeman/soldier. One does not evangelise as a policeman, nor wage war as a Christian evangelist.

So for me who doesnt believe in God as i knew it,i would consider violence only ok in defence of another or self.

But that is the argument of the Western governments - that it is in defence of their people.

If i was forced to join the army i would choose imprisonment or whatever the punishment instead.

Conscious Objection is an honourable course.

I know in the old testament there were alot of wars written about and God sometimes favoured a side.
Im not sure however about other christian religions and if they follow the whole bible book to book or just the old or new testament.

Authentic Christianity holds both OT and NT to be the Word of God. It points out, however, that some of the OT commandments to the nation of Israel do not apply to the Church.

One thing you mentioned.The state has a duty given by God to punish on his behalf.
Is there a scripture that shows this.It goes against alot of what i was taught and it could be something ive been searching for a long time.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

I hope that helps.
_________________________________________________________________
The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1865

Torakx

Thanks for that romans scripture i didnt know about that one.
I guess if you believe that terrorists really do exist in the fashion being presented on the news it could be seen that you would be defending your country from more "terrorist" attacks.
But if there is so much doubt about its legitimacy would a christian risk not going to heaven/paradise just for the sake of a war that possibly is a sham?
Considering people only have one life on earth in the christian viewpoint, i think it wiser not to risk your eternal life on one tiny war when looking at all the wars that have gone on through history.
There so much speculation about weapons manufacturers,cia terrorist orgs,oil and rebuilding states etc it seems a very risky war to chose to join.
I dont expect to convince anyone not to join btw.I just find this interesting to ponder.
I stopped being a christian because i could not follow all the rules laid down in the bible.I decided to accept i would die by gods hand or naturally instead.All or nothing for me lol

PDN

Torakx wrote: »

I guess if you believe that terrorists really do exist in the fashion being presented on the news it could be seen that you would be defending your country from more "terrorist" attacks.

There's a big hole at Ground Zero that might encourage us to believe such a thing.

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

There's a big hole at Ground Zero that might encourage us to believe such a thing.

And who are the real terrorists responsible for that hole? 6 of the people who wrote the official 9/11 report have come out and said they do not believe the official story.

JimiTime

irishconvert wrote: »

And who are the real terrorists responsible for that hole? 6 of the people who wrote the official 9/11 report have come out and said they do not believe the official story.

Would you like to enlighten us?

irishconvert

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you like to enlighten us?

No. You can come to your own conclusions. People just need to wake up to the fact that the official story is not the full story.

EDIT: Here's some links to get you started

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/09/anniversary-of-911.html

JimiTime

irishconvert wrote: »

No. You can come to your own conclusions. People just need to wake up to the fact that the official story is not the full story.

EDIT: Here's some links to get you started

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/09/anniversary-of-911.html

I was looking for your input, not a conspiracy website. So I'll stay with Al Queda being the source of the murders. Similar muderous folk being the source of the 7/7 bombings, various murders in Pakistan, India and Iraq.

If you have input other than 'Wake up to the facts' I'd like to hear them. From you. Provide the facts maybe, and use links to your sources If you wish. I really could not be @rsed thrawling though someones website only to find them wearing a tin foil hat. If you have a reasoning process which took you to conclude that it wasn't some Al Queda extremists then I'd be happy to listen.

irishconvert

JimiTime wrote: »

I was looking for your input, not a conspiracy website. So I'll stay with Al Queda being the source of the murders. Similar muderous folk being the source of the 7/7 bombings, various murders in Pakistan, India and Iraq.

If you have input other than 'Wake up to the facts' I'd like to hear them. From you. Provide the facts maybe, and use links to your sources If you wish. I really could not be @rsed thrawling though someones website only to find them wearing a tin foil hat. If you have a reasoning process which took you to conclude that it wasn't some Al Queda extremists then I'd be happy to listen.

You didn't even open the link before you replied did you?

I didn't give you any conspiracy websites. I gave you links to articles from western media outlets such as Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new)

Washington Post wrote:

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Or this from CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html)

CNN wrote:

"We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN.

JimiTime

irishconvert wrote: »

You didn't even open the link before you replied did you?

I did indeed, but it doesn't really matter, I'm not interested in thrawling through links. If you wish to discuss, then discuss and use links to back up. I know how to use google if I just want to look up stuff. This is a place to engage others in discussion though. If you wish to put forward your view, using links, I'd be happy to engage.

irishconvert

JimiTime wrote: »

I did indeed, but it doesn't really matter, I'm not interested in thrawling through links. If you wish to discuss, then discuss and use links to back up. I know how to use google if I just want to look up stuff. This is a place to engage others in discussion though. If you wish to put forward your view, using links, I'd be happy to engage.

Cop out reply

PDN

irishconvert wrote: »

Cop out reply

So who do you think really did it then? The CIA, aliens, or Elvis?

wolfsbane

Torakx wrote: »

Thanks for that romans scripture i didnt know about that one.
I guess if you believe that terrorists really do exist in the fashion being presented on the news it could be seen that you would be defending your country from more "terrorist" attacks.
But if there is so much doubt about its legitimacy would a christian risk not going to heaven/paradise just for the sake of a war that possibly is a sham?
Considering people only have one life on earth in the christian viewpoint, i think it wiser not to risk your eternal life on one tiny war when looking at all the wars that have gone on through history.
There so much speculation about weapons manufacturers,cia terrorist orgs,oil and rebuilding states etc it seems a very risky war to chose to join.
I dont expect to convince anyone not to join btw.I just find this interesting to ponder.
I stopped being a christian because i could not follow all the rules laid down in the bible.I decided to accept i would die by gods hand or naturally instead.All or nothing for me lol

Where it is clear the war is unjust, then it would be a sin to participate.

Problem is, both sides in a war may have valid grievances and the justness of each side must be weighed - but when one side moves militarily, introspection is over. And God does not expect us to know all the facts in every situation - just to go on the best we can get. Otherwise we would do very little about restraining criminals and helping the needy in this life.

I'm sorry you gave up seeking the Lord. Maybe you misunderstood what being a Christian means - it is not doing all the commandments in your own strength, to merit heaven. It is turning from your sin to the Saviour, depending on His righteousness to merit your salvation, and on His power by the Holy Spirit to enable you to live for God and war against sin's pull on your life.

But maybe you did know this, and consciously decided you loved your sin more than Christ.

I'd like to know, if you'd care to tell.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.

caseyann

PDN wrote: »

So who do you think really did it then? The CIA, aliens, or Elvis?

lol
I think seriously low brow when people start to try take the blame off those murderers to pass the buck.They should be condemned for what they did and people should stop trying to fake it as inside job.
Governments are capable of alot of things barr that.Someone would squeal.