IRAQ A GOOD IDEA?

[Chuck Miller]

Hugh,

I’ve written out my response to your last post.  I think I have covered each of you points.

Chuck Miller

YOU WROTE: I think you missed my point. GW is the President of a nation as well as believer. As believers our weapons are not carnal as states the weapon is a "sword".

MY RESPONSE:  Paul said, “for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful  for the destruction of fortresses” ( 2 Corinthians 10:4).  And, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in  the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12).
You have to understand, Hugh, that we are in a constant battle against the wiles of Satan and can only prevail if we abide in and by the Word of God.  George Bush may very well be a believer, but he seems to be totally ignorant of biblical truth.  I trust that you are able to discern between righteousness and unrighteousness as to ascertain that Mr. Bush has made some grossly unscriptural decisions during his term of office.   

YOU WROTE: When you wear two hats it is difficult to separate but I was speaking of ANY country standing for humanity not just about the US. I stick to the statement. You are narrowing it to American politics and it is not what I meant.

MY RESPONSE:  That is the problem with a Christian being in public office. We can’t serve two masters.  Our allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ, not to the flag of ANY country - no matter in what country we reside.   We are permanent citizens of Christ’s kingdom and merely temporary residents of the U.S., Canada, Russia, China, England or wherever we may reside.  No Christian should take an oath to defend a constitution and laws of any country when some or any of those laws are in direct opposition to God’s Laws.

YOU WROTE:  We have an obligation to step in and help others like the Tsunami relief etc. We don't need biblical stand it is common sense. I am focused on the common good and the example at hand is Iraq but it could apply to any up and coming dictatorship.

MY RESPONSE:  Hugh, I disagree.  I believe we need a “biblical stand” on every issue we face today.  Common sense is based upon one's  personal feelings or convictions and is not the same for everyone. For instance, common sense should dictate that it is wasteful for  the government  to keep pouring additional billions into a failing public education system, but  the bureaucrats keep doing it - and Mr. Bush is one of the biggest spenders.  Certainly we are to help the poor and the downtrodden- that IS a biblical principle.  But there is no constututional basis for the Mr. Bush spending the taxpayers money for humanitarian causes.  Aside from the fact that when it is done through a government agency there is a great probability of it winding up in some politicians Swiss bank account,  it is a personal responsibility based upon a personal conviction. 

YOU WROTE:   As to why not China you figure it out 1.3 billion to 360 million Jesus said figure out the odds before going to war. Yes they have injustices but it would not be prudent to pick a fight with them.

MY RESPONSE:  I think you have misapplied Luke 14:31, Hugh.  I believe that if you will  read the verse in the context of the whole passage, you will see that Jesus is speaking of the cost of discipleship.  Think about it.  Is it scripturally prudent to “pick a fight” with anyone?  Besides, your reasoning falls apart when you consider Zimbabwe (12 million)  and Uzbekistan (26 million)? Mugabe and Karimov are relatively “small potatoes” compared to Saddam, but is it prudence that dictates Mr. Bush’s policy concerning these evil dictators or political expediency?

YOU WROTE:  As to abortion etc. that is not GWs fault it is the North Americans fault they voted for abortion etc.

MY RESPONSE::  No, abortion is not GW’s fault,  but he has sworn by his oath of office to uphold the Constitution which provides for Congress to make laws such as legalized abortion. And, no, the North Americans DID NOT vote for abortion,  In fact, polls show that the majority of Americans oppose abortion, but the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the  Constitution.  Judeo/Christian principles seem to have taken a back seat to the reasoning of a secular juciary. 

YOU WROTE:  You are confusing the issue. It is simply a two fold thought  - protect the Iraqis from unjustly being governed and protect the world from collapsing from insecurity.

MY RESPONSE:  Would you say that the President, the Senate, the Congress, and the Supreme Court of this country have “justly governed”?  Ask the residents of New London, Connecticut how secure their homes are from those who govern them.  And how able are they in protecting  their own country from “collapsing from insecurity?”  Ask the General Motors and United Airlines employees how secure the government has kept their pension programs.  Our economy is a house of cards, so fragile, that no amount of assurances from the government can keep it from eventually collapsing.
Secular governments can not really guarantee ANYTHING except that they will levy taxes and misspend the biggest percentage of what they collect.  So, if they don’t govern their own citizens justly, and they can’t protect their own citizens, how can we expect them to guide other countries to do so.?

YOU WROTE:  And the primary job of the Pres no matter who it is would be what? To protect the American people.  You have to start somewhere you need to see this is not a theocracy so don't think you can apply the bible to what I am talking about. Much as I agree that the best source that is not what Americans want they want the Constitution because the US and most countries are Secular.
 
MY RESPONSE:   I  haven’t the slightest illusion that this country is a theocracy, but I most certainly can, and must, apply the Bible to any moral decision that I make because it is the only standard that I can depend on.  It is not only the “best” source of  truth, it is the only source.   No, this country is not a theocracy.  It is even a stretch of the imagination to call it a Christian nation.  So, if you want to trust Mr. Bush to protect you, and you want to be guided by the Constitution instead of the infallible word of God, and you trust common sense instead of God’s wisdom, then  have at it, Hugh, but you are building your house upon sand  that won’t withstand the flood and the wind.   

YOU WROTE;  Sorry Chuck you are a wise person but I think you have taken this a new direction. We would need a thread on GWs governing to cover this one.

MY RESPONSE:  Only when I speak God’s truth, do I speak wisely and, no, I have not taken a new direction.  I’ll be happy to send you a copy of a writing that I put together some time ago concerning my opinion that this country was founded upon a false premise.  Only when we recognize our role as citizens of Christ’s kingdom shall we be able to look at the situation in the world and understand how to fulfill our role in it.
As for a GW’s governing,  I do believe he is a Christian, but one who is ignorant of God’s plan for Israel, the world, and His body.

Chuck

[Oscar]

Chuck,

While it is true that we are strangers and pilgrims in the earth, it does not logically follow that we do not owe allegiance to anything else.  Render unto Caesar...

I know of no scripture that tells us not to acknowledge citizenship or accept its duties.


I am curious as to which parts of the constitution you believe contradict the word of God.

There has always been a pacifist minority within Christianity.  It seems to me, however, that anyone who believes in calling the police, (who are essentially hired guns who enforce laws), cannot then turn around and claim to be a pacifist. 

The individual who won't defend others calls the hired guns to defend him.   

IMHO, much of the thinking you have expressed rests upon the idea that the Bible gives us direction for every aspect of our lives.   Personally, I don't believe that.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Recovering Saint]

Chuck

I don't know you Chuck but I like your manner of discussion. I don't think I totally agree with you but we agree on most points. You see my real discussion is with David and I am not focussing at all on GW as a Christian but merely as a President. How can Christians be involved in the world at that level of influence then. If I understand you Chuck we should not run in politics because it causes compromise in the values of Christians. If you understood me I am saying Presidents like GW are to carry out the role of President in integrity to the people and they are not electing a Christian President but a good leader in their minds. They don't want his beliefs to lead policy but what his beliefs have done to his character is what made him attractive to them.

I believe that if the US continues to honour the spirit of their commitment to Iraq they will suceed in stabilizing the region. As to whether they will accomplish the whole goal that may never happen because the cultural background of the region is thousands of years old and they are more comfortable with dictatorships and follow religious leaders rather than secular leaders. They seem to have this worship of spiritual leaders and that is hard to break. These leaders of course are just as if not more corrupt than the many corrupt western leaders but they have a power over their people to lead them to dangerous cliff maybe even a world war for their view of the faith.

I know the real answer is Jesus Christ but do you think they would listen to us if we start to talk about Him in Iraq. I mean the people in North America don't listen to us when we talk about Jesus so how much more will they not listen and they will be angry and may go over the deep end with a violent backlash that will make the WTC look like a picnic.

To attempt to restabilize the area and to bring the leaders in touch with their responsiblility as leaders to the other world leaders is necessary.

Chuck you are addressing a real issue but no one in the secular world will hear it and we might as well resign ourselves to a blood bath over there if they won't listen. The damage of Osama has already begun. When billions of people who are following a relgious leader rise you better know it doesn't matter any cost even a trillion dollars in Iraq is worth it to stop this from happening.

We are not that far apart in our personal views I just don't see how to practically incorporate them. We really only have one other option which is really our best that is Prayer.

Lord bless you brother
Hugh

[Chuck Miller]

Tom,

I haven’t figured out how to cut and paste on my posts, so please forgive my different format.

YOU WROTE:  While it is true that we are strangers and pilgrims in the earth, it does not logically follow that we do not owe allegiance to anything else.  Render unto Caesar...

MY RESPONSE:  I don‘t believe “rendering unto Caesar” can be equated with giving allegiance to him.   Do you,  Tom?  As a citizen of this country, I avail myself of all of the freedom and privileges that I am afforded and I obey its laws, but everything within the context of not being in violation of my conscience before God. 

YOU WROTE:  I know of no scripture that tells us not to acknowledge citizenship or accept its duties.

MY RESPONSE:  I don’t either, but that is not what I am saying.  We are to be good citizens of the country in which we reside and accept the duties of citizenship, again, unless they violate our conscience before God.  We  are to be light and salt to a dark world and being righteous citizens is a critical part of our testimony.

YOU WROTE:  I am curious as to which parts of the constitution you believe contradict the word of God.

MY RESPONSE:  Tom, you evidently misread or misunderstood what I said.  I didn’t say that the Constitution violates the word of (God (although I believe the Declaration of Independence does).  What I did say was, “No Christian should take an oath to defend a constitution and laws of any country WHEN SOME OR ANY OF THOSE LAWS are in direct opposition to God’s Laws.”  Would you not agree that many of this country’s laws oppose God’s laws?

YOU WROTE:  There has always been a pacifist minority within Christianity.  It seems to me, however, that anyone who believes in calling the police, (who are essentially hired guns who enforce laws), cannot then turn around and claim to be a pacifist. 

MY RESPONSE:  Protecting its citizens is one of the legitimate roles of government and I am happy that secular governments have police forces to protect me.   That is one of those privileges I enjoy as a citizen (albeit, a temporary one) of this country.  I don’t claim to be a “pacifist,” Tom, but I am not opposed to being called one if it means that I oppose “living by the sword” and the use of  pre-emptive strikes against other nations.   
What I do believe, is that we are told to put our trust in the Lord and not in weaponry and force of numbers.  God will defend His people.  If He is with us who can defeat us?  If He is against us, no force of numbers nor any amount weaponry will be sufficient to bring victory.
Look at the examples that we have in the scriptures. 
The Lord gave the Joshua and the Israelites victory at mighty Jericho, toppling the walls down “flat.”  Not in nor out, but straight down,  I believe it was to let all the people know that it was His hand that had caused it. (Joshua 6:20)
However, the Israelites were then defeated at Ai  because the Lord was not with them, since there was sin in the camp. Not until Joshua had dealt with the sin and had gotten before the Lord to ask for guidance did they attain the victory. (Joshua

Then we read in 2 Chronicles where the Judah was vastly outnumbered by the armies of Ammon and the Moab, but Jehoshaphat  prayed and God had the enemy destroy themselves with Judah not suffering  the loss of a single soul.

There are many more examples in scripture Tom, all of which I am sure you are aware.

And who hasn’t been stirred by the account of Israel’s re-birth as nation in 1948 and the
miraculous way in which God protected them from the Arab nations that rose up against them.  Sadly, they have since turned away from God and have even sought to appease their enemy by seeking partition and give away some of the land that God had promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

YOU WROTE:  IMHO, much of the thinking you have expressed rests upon the idea that the Bible gives us direction for every aspect of our lives.   Personally, I don't believe that.

MY RESPONSE:  Tom, I’ll be glad to listen to your thought on which aspects of our lives the Bible doesn’t give us direction.  I trust you are not suggesting that I am speaking about such mundane concerns as what color to paint my house, or whether to rent or lease a car.

[Chuck Miller]

Tom,

I don't know where the smiley face  appeared after "Joshua"    Sorry.   It was supposed to be" Joshua 8".

Chuck

[Oscar]

Folks,

I will have to pick up this discussion later.  I am leaving town for a few weeks.

I will try to drop in from time to time from places I'm staying or from libraries.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[David Mauldin]

Joe : "Hey Willy"  "Did ya year da Presidents speech?"

Willy:  "Yea!  "We is here because of 911"  "I thought it was WMD'S?"

Joe:  "No"  "It's because the terroist are coming into dis place froms all over Arabia!" "As long as they's come here to kill us
                 then weze doin our job!"


Willy: "Yea"  "We is here to keep terrorist from going to the U.S.A!"


Joe:  "Yea!"  "Youse got it!"


Willy: "Hey Joe," "You still got that bottle?"

[Chuck Miller]

Hugh,

Thanks for your post.  Below is my response

YOU WROTE:   I don't know you Chuck but I like your manner of discussion. I don't think I totally agree with you but we agree on most points. You see my real discussion is with David and I am not focusing at all on GW as a Christian but merely as a President. How can Christians be involved in the world at that level of influence then. If I understand you Chuck we should not run in politics because it causes compromise in the values of Christians. If you understood me I am saying Presidents like GW are to carry out the role of President in integrity to the people and they are not electing a Christian President but a good leader in their minds. They don't want his beliefs to lead policy but what his beliefs have done to his character is what made him attractive to them.

MY RESPONSE:  Hugh, I guess it all goes back to my contention that the United States was founded upon a false premise and consequently is trying to operating outside of the sphere of Christ’s purpose for the church and God’s purpose and plan for Israel.

YOU WROTE:  I believe that if the US continues to honour the spirit of their commitment to Iraq they will succeed in stabilizing the region. As to whether they will accomplish the whole goal that may never happen because the cultural background of the region is thousands of years old was secular leaders. They seem to have this worship of spiritual leaders and that is hard to break. These leaders of course are just as if not more corrupt than the many corrupt western leaders but they have a power over their people to lead them to dangerous cliff maybe even a world war for their view of the faith.

MY RESPONSE:  Although I wish it were true, I guess I would have to disagree that the U.S. will ever be able to stabilize the Middle East.  The true Muslim cannot separate his religion from his politics and their religion will never be compatible with a democratic form of government.  A couple of good books on the subject of Islam are “The Blood of the Moon” by George Grant and “The Crisis of Islam” by Bernard Lewis.  You might find them in the public library.  These authors understand the mentality of the Muslim and the problem of trying to establish a democratic government in their country.  Their hatred of the West, and particularly the United States,  has it’s roots in their belief that Islam is the only true religion and that all “infidels” (unbelievers) are  to be either converted (either willingly or forcibly) or killed.  There is zero tolerance for anything in between.  World domination is their ultimate goal. For the Muslim, whatever means justifies the result.  The Koran  and Hadith bear this out in many of its Suras.   


YOU WROTE:  I know the real answer is Jesus Christ but do you think they would listen to us if we start to talk about Him in Iraq. I mean the people in North America don't listen to us when we talk about Jesus so how much more will they not listen and they will be angry and may go over the deep end with a violent backlash that will make the WTC look like a picnic.

MY RESPONSE:  It is not hard to understand their animosity towards Christianity when they look upon the United States as a Christian nation and witness the wanton decadence that is not only prevalent here, but is so profusely exported around the world.  Then also, Satan has done a masterful job of  deceiving many Christians into abandoning the gospel message and focusing on such  non-essential issues as Ten Commandment monuments, school prayer,  Terry Schiavo, same-sex marriage, etc.  Don’t misunderstand, Hugh, I think Christians should voice their opinions about these issues,  but not in the context of judging unbelievers.  Those, God will judge (1 Cor 5:12).  For example - I most certainly think same-sex marriage is an abomination, but I am not going to change the behavior of homosexuals by making laws.  There has to be a transformation in the lives of these people before we will see a change.  Only a commitment to Christ can bring about a meaningful change.  We should concentrate not on judging unbelievers,  but on making sure that there is no “leaven” in our own churches that detracts or even nullifies the testimony of Christ.

YOU WROTE:  To attempt to restabilize the area and to bring the leaders in touch with their responsiblility as leaders to the other world leaders is necessary.

MY RESPONSE:  History shows us that there has never been a single solitary treaty between nations that has not been broken, nor any form of government that men won’t corrupt.  The U. N. was supposed to help bring about world order, but has failed miserably.  Only when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord shall we see peace and accord on this earth..

YOU WROTE:  Chuck you are addressing a real issue but no one in the secular world will hear it and we might as well resign ourselves to a blood bath over there if they won't listen. The damage of Osama has already begun. When billions of people who are following a relgious leader rise you better know it doesn't matter any cost even a trillion dollars in Iraq is worth it to stop this from happening.

MY RESPONSE:  Even 100 trillion dollars cannot change the hearts of those who deny the deity of our Lord and Savior and worship false gods.   'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts” (Zechariah 4:6).  It is going to happen only by the Holy Spirit witnessing to the spirit of men through the gospel.  How they respond is not our responsibility.   If we are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, our reward in heaven will be great (Matt 5:11-12)  Never lose sight of the fact that God has established kings and rulers and nations and has brought down kings and rulers and nations.  Men like Saddam, and Osama Bin Laden, and yes, George Bush,  are pawns in His hand.  And remember that He has always used evil rulers and nations to chastise His own people and bring them back to Himself, before destroying those rulers and nations.  Our concern must be that we are living our lives in obedience to Him and not lose heart.  He said,  "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"  (Luke 18:.  We must not get discouraged by circumstances but keep our eyes fixed upon Him

YOU WROTE:  We are not that far apart in our personal views I just don't see how to practically incorporate them. We really only have one other option which is really our best that is Prayer.

MY RESPONSE:  Yes, let’s encourage one another in our faith and trust in Him and not lose heart.  Let us  continue to hold up each other (and all believers) in prayer. 

God bless,    Chuck

P.S.  If you want to send me your e-mail address to chuckmiller888@yahoo.com, I will send you a copy of my dissertation on the  subject of the founding of the United States which covers some of these issues in greater depth..

[outdeep]

Will the real liars please stand up?

David Limbaugh

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20050701.shtml

July 1, 2005


Democrat leaders, preparing their rebuttal to the president's speech even before he delivered it, said he should concede he made mistakes as a means to reclaiming credibility on Iraq -- as if they actually want him to have greater credibility.

In the same breath they say he lied to get us into war -- an offense so grave that some of them are advocating he be impeached over it. While national Democrat politicians have long been confused over the distinction between intentional wrongs and mistakes -- thanks to Bill Clinton successfully depicting his pre-meditated transgressions as mistakes -- isn't it clear that if President Bush lied to get us into the war, he didn't merely make a mistake?

But let's explore this beyond semantics. As everyone should know by now, President Bush based his decision to attack on intelligence information provided to him and which he didn't pressure the intelligence agencies to exaggerate. The intelligence agencies of most other nations, including those who nevertheless refused to join us against Iraq, concurred that Saddam was amassing WMD stockpiles.

This assessment was bolstered by Saddam's intractable behavior in persistently defying U.N. weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide and repeatedly violating U.N. resolutions. He had the burden of proving he had disposed of the WMD he demonstrably had and used on his own people, but instead submitted a bogus 12,000-page document, virtually inviting us to attack.

President Bush believed -- and the evidence confirms -- that Saddam's Iraq was a safe haven for international terrorists not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban. Credible reports have emerged that some of his henchmen were present at 9-11 planning meetings.

But Democrats contend that our failure to find Saddam's WMD stockpiles after we deposed him proves that President Bush lied about their existence in the first place. President Bush's reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn't make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam's self-incriminating behavior.

As I've written before, Democrats are the ones who are lying when they say they weren't relying on the very same intelligence in supporting the Iraq war resolution. And they are lying when they falsely accuse President Bush of lying about the intelligence.

Among the worst of them is Sen. Kerry, who still pathetically clings to the fantasy that he can be president someday. In his latest lurch for relevance -- on "Larry King Live" -- he again accused President Bush of deceiving the American people, this time by constantly switching his rationale for attacking Iraq: from WMD, to spreading democracy, to suppressing a "hotbed of terrorism."

But it's Kerry who's doing the misleading. From the very beginning, President Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq was that under Saddam, she was our enemy in the global war on terror and a threat -- indirect and direct -- to our national security. The three reasons Kerry cites are not incompatible, but of a piece. President Bush believed Saddam was amassing WMD and acting in concert with Islamic terrorists. And, he's always had a vision that the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East would be a natural antidote to the proliferation of terrorism. That's not why we attacked Iraq, because we are not in the business of gratuitous nation building, but it's a potentially glorious byproduct that we shouldn't underestimate and is certainly consistent with our war aims.

No matter how incapable Kerry's Democrats are of comprehending this, 9-11 confirmed that Islamic radicals throughout the world are at war with the United States. The terrorist threat is not localized to Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Democrats' quixotic refrain that we concentrate our resources only on capturing Saddam reveals how radically they misapprehend the global scope of this war.

Saddam was begging to be removed, and President Bush neither lied nor made a mistake in removing him. But he would be making a catastrophic mistake if he acceded to the Democrats' suicidal demand that we telegraph a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq or take other action to undermine our cause -- and the cause of the Iraqi people -- there.

While I'm sure President Bush appreciates all their unsolicited advice and carping, Democrats might be well advised to clean up their own house for a change. Instead of gloating over the president's inconsistent poll numbers, they might awaken to the sobering fact that they are the ones who have been losing elections and need help in the credibility department, especially concerning national security.

But until they demonstrate some comprehension of the global reach and gravity of this war, quit exploiting every morsel of negative news flowing from Iraq for political purposes and start supporting our cause, it's hard to envision a scenario where Americans will entrust them with safeguarding our national security.


David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com

[Recovering Saint]

Hugh,

Thanks for your post. Below is my response

YOU WROTE: I don't know you Chuck but I like your manner of discussion. I don't think I totally agree with you but we agree on most points. You see my real discussion is with David and I am not focusing at all on GW as a Christian but merely as a President. How can Christians be involved in the world at that level of influence then. If I understand you Chuck we should not run in politics because it causes compromise in the values of Christians. If you understood me I am saying Presidents like GW are to carry out the role of President in integrity to the people and they are not electing a Christian President but a good leader in their minds. They don't want his beliefs to lead policy but what his beliefs have done to his character is what made him attractive to them.

MY RESPONSE: Hugh, I guess it all goes back to my contention that the United States was founded upon a false premise and consequently is trying to operating outside of the sphere of Christ’s purpose for the church and God’s purpose and plan for Israel.

YOU WROTE: I believe that if the US continues to honour the spirit of their commitment to Iraq they will succeed in stabilizing the region. As to whether they will accomplish the whole goal that may never happen because the cultural background of the region is thousands of years old was secular leaders. They seem to have this worship of spiritual leaders and that is hard to break. These leaders of course are just as if not more corrupt than the many corrupt western leaders but they have a power over their people to lead them to dangerous cliff maybe even a world war for their view of the faith.

MY RESPONSE: Although I wish it were true, I guess I would have to disagree that the U.S. will ever be able to stabilize the Middle East. The true Muslim cannot separate his religion from his politics and their religion will never be compatible with a democratic form of government. A couple of good books on the subject of Islam are “The Blood of the Moon” by George Grant and “The Crisis of Islam” by Bernard Lewis. You might find them in the public library. These authors understand the mentality of the Muslim and the problem of trying to establish a democratic government in their country. Their hatred of the West, and particularly the United States, has it’s roots in their belief that Islam is the only true religion and that all “infidels” (unbelievers) are to be either converted (either willingly or forcibly) or killed. There is zero tolerance for anything in between. World domination is their ultimate goal. For the Muslim, whatever means justifies the result. The Koran and Hadith bear this out in many of its Suras.


YOU WROTE: I know the real answer is Jesus Christ but do you think they would listen to us if we start to talk about Him in Iraq. I mean the people in North America don't listen to us when we talk about Jesus so how much more will they not listen and they will be angry and may go over the deep end with a violent backlash that will make the WTC look like a picnic.

MY RESPONSE: It is not hard to understand their animosity towards Christianity when they look upon the United States as a Christian nation and witness the wanton decadence that is not only prevalent here, but is so profusely exported around the world. Then also, Satan has done a masterful job of deceiving many Christians into abandoning the gospel message and focusing on such non-essential issues as Ten Commandment monuments, school prayer, Terry Schiavo, same-sex marriage, etc. Don’t misunderstand, Hugh, I think Christians should voice their opinions about these issues, but not in the context of judging unbelievers. Those, God will judge (1 Cor 5:12). For example - I most certainly think same-sex marriage is an abomination, but I am not going to change the behavior of homosexuals by making laws. There has to be a transformation in the lives of these people before we will see a change. Only a commitment to Christ can bring about a meaningful change. We should concentrate not on judging unbelievers, but on making sure that there is no “leaven” in our own churches that detracts or even nullifies the testimony of Christ.

YOU WROTE: To attempt to restabilize the area and to bring the leaders in touch with their responsiblility as leaders to the other world leaders is necessary.

MY RESPONSE: History shows us that there has never been a single solitary treaty between nations that has not been broken, nor any form of government that men won’t corrupt. The U. N. was supposed to help bring about world order, but has failed miserably. Only when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord shall we see peace and accord on this earth..

YOU WROTE: Chuck you are addressing a real issue but no one in the secular world will hear it and we might as well resign ourselves to a blood bath over there if they won't listen. The damage of Osama has already begun. When billions of people who are following a relgious leader rise you better know it doesn't matter any cost even a trillion dollars in Iraq is worth it to stop this from happening.

MY RESPONSE: Even 100 trillion dollars cannot change the hearts of those who deny the deity of our Lord and Savior and worship false gods. 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts” (Zechariah 4:6). It is going to happen only by the Holy Spirit witnessing to the spirit of men through the gospel. How they respond is not our responsibility. If we are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, our reward in heaven will be great (Matt 5:11-12) Never lose sight of the fact that God has established kings and rulers and nations and has brought down kings and rulers and nations. Men like Saddam, and Osama Bin Laden, and yes, George Bush, are pawns in His hand. And remember that He has always used evil rulers and nations to chastise His own people and bring them back to Himself, before destroying those rulers and nations. Our concern must be that we are living our lives in obedience to Him and not lose heart. He said, "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:. We must not get discouraged by circumstances but keep our eyes fixed upon Him

YOU WROTE: We are not that far apart in our personal views I just don't see how to practically incorporate them. We really only have one other option which is really our best that is Prayer.

MY RESPONSE: Yes, let’s encourage one another in our faith and trust in Him and not lose heart. Let us continue to hold up each other (and all believers) in prayer.

God bless, Chuck

P.S. If you want to send me your e-mail address to chuckmiller888@yahoo.com, I will send you a copy of my dissertation on the subject of the founding of the United States which covers some of these issues in greater depth..

Chuck

Thanks for a very insigtful response. It encourages me as a beliiever to have the Lord to trust. I must admit though I will be very sad to see  events get much worse. If you are right the whole mess will land on our doorstep sooner or later whether we go to Iraq or not. The only answer is to be walking with the Lord and making sure others know the Gospel message in time to turn before they are overwhelmed. Not a pretty picture but we were warned that the end would come and who knows maybe this is the time when the books of Revelation and Daniel are being played out before our eyes. True no matter what we do if God does not want something to happen the plan will fail. All the wealth of the western world or the whole world cannot stop God's plan.

Hugh

[vernecarty]

Hugh,

Thanks for your post.  Below is my response



MY RESPONSE:  Although I wish it were true, I guess I would have to disagree that the U.S. will ever be able to stabilize the Middle East. 

Thanks for your posts Chuck.
If there is one way that I would sum up the thinking of  many of our fellow American believers regarding the future oif the nation, it would be with two words: misbegotten hope...
There is only One worthy of our confidence.
I appreciate the way you have been making that critical point.
Verne

[David Mauldin]

Willy: "Hey Joe," "Hows come the Army can't get no recruits?"  "Didn't you see all the Republican college students before the election?"  "Bush, Bush, Bush!"   "What happened?"  "I guess they think it's not really worth it!"  "They think WE should be here but they don't think THEY should be here!"  "Their blood too good to spill but ours is just fine!" "De talks but de don'ts walk!"

Joe: "Willy!"  You has been listenin to that Michsel Moore!"  "You hate America!"  "You lousy lefty commie!"


http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/army.recruiting.ap/

[David Mauldin]

Actually the Army made its goal!  (That's because they dropped the goal down by 25%)  


                  It's a slam dunk!  Rumsfeld 2003!

http://www.dailyKos.com/story/2005/6/30/72514/6238

[David Mauldin]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062405H.shtml

[David Mauldin]

  What Tom keeps hoping will go unnoticed is the fact that I started this thread questioning the reasons why our president invaded Iraq. The presidents initial reasoning, WMD'S!  I pointed out that there was no evidence that Saddam had or was about to use WMD's against us or anyone else in the world for that matter! I pointed out that there was no link between Saddam and Osama!   I pointed out that innocent people would die! I pointed out that this didn't seem to jive with Christ teachings.  I pointed out that Israel having the most sophisticated operation going against guerilla warfare was unable to stop it!  I pointed out that Russia in all her glory was unable to get a hold of Afghanistan. I pointed out that the cost of the war!  I pointed out "oil" as the primary motive! (Which Tom agrees with now!)  I pointed out that Mr. Bush was using religion to dupe Americans into believing this was God's will!  Now it has been over two years! We now know that Mr. Bush lied!  We know what was asserted all along. (It didn't take a genius to know this!  Mr. Moore and hundreds of others clearly showed the workings all along) We know by their own admission, "There are no WMD'S"  "There is no link between 9/11 and Saddam" We know now that we aren't winning but only increasing the problem of the "War on Terror!"  We can see that we have spent over $200,000,000,000 on something we cannot win!  We have watched 1700 of our own military die!  also 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead and 15000 U.S. wounded!  And yet we continue to read Tom's condescending remarks about me!  "Continue to pray for Dave"   Tom?   Do I claim things that aren't substantiated? Tom it is the blind and ignorant who need prayer. Dude you bought the President's lies!!! You defended him all the way!  Dude you have a masters degree in Bible!!!  Yet you wont admit it when you are wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!!!  Dude what's that you said about a fool?  You are worse than George Geftakys! You have all the evidence right here and you say things like, "This is a liberal dream!"  Dude will you say that when Rove stands on trial for leaking the name of the CIA agent??? When Bush is impeached???  It is not a dream!  The nightmare was living through all the news this past three years!
Dude don't you see what is happening?  Don't you see that the Christian Church is loosing credability because of people like you???