KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 18:17:11 GMT -5
The greater themes of this entire thread are not only unfinished, but appear to be willingly abandoned: I am still waiting on a moral and biblical defense for torture. The US military has repeatedly and deliberately attacked innocent civilians over a span of more than 150 years. When repeated historical incidents were specifically outlined, you retreated to nationalistic generalities unrelated to the evidence presented and then dropped the subject entirely rather than permit historical fact to bring the light of truth to the predetermined views that you refuse to reconsider. Osama Bin Laden repeatedly attempted, both before and after 9/11, to open diplomatic negotiations with the USA on multiple occasions. Specific instances were offered but rather than address them, once again the subject was quickly changed rather than allow historical facts to alter your predetermined views. Every time you ask a question and a clear, specific answer is given, you ignore the very evidence you yourself demanded and move a new argument and then repeat the process. This is not the practice of someone who is genuinely seeking truth. This is the practice of one who is defending his position. I'll tell you both again - I have no interest in arguing. I do have a great interest in seeking truth as scripture commands us to do. If you have any interest whatsoever in seeking truth, applying it, and allowing it to change our views, I am very interested in joining you and doing the same. If you don't want truth, that's fine, but I have no interest in endless arguing. Stephen you are doing the very things you are accusing us of doing. I'm serious. I responded about the various attacks you mentioned. There is a difference of opinions on the necessity and means used on every instance you mentioned. And you can find good people on both sides of the fence. Who are you to say that the attacks on Japan weren't necessary to finally put an end to WWII? Fact: We offered the Japanese the opportunity to surrender. Fact: We didn't attack Japan they attacked Pearl Harbor. In your arguments to defend the psychos who blew up the World Trade Center you say it is justified supposedly by our actions in the Middle East. Well BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, the attacks on Japan by way of nuclear bombs was justified because the Japanese attacked us first. My guess is your absolute hatred of the USA leads you to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor. Maybe not.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 18:19:34 GMT -5
You have determined "truth" according to the way you think, not the way Christ thinks. What do you base your "truth" on? You are guilty of the same thing. You think that what Christ thinks is absolute truth. Which is why you will never be able to effectively evangelize to someone who does not see the world exactly as you do. Jesus: "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life."
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 18:20:50 GMT -5
I think this thread might honestly be getting to the place where it's going to be counter-productive.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 18:22:13 GMT -5
I'm not. Your entire theory on the meaning of Paul's writing is based solely on the six words immediately preceding the text I quoted. Otherwise, the word "prophecy" is not even mentioned in the entire book of I Thessalonians and there are no grounds whatsoever for the restricted meaning you suggest. In fact, Paul was issuing instructions to the Thessalonians for over a chapter by this point on all sorts of daily habits including self control, work and labor habits, responding to wrongs done to you, prayer, living peaceably, and much more. And all of these instructions were very brief in nature, even only one or two words at times. So textual criticism supports my contention that the words "test everything" do, in fact, mean that Christians are to make a constant habit of testing their entire belief system, and that this was written as a stand-alone statement as was much of the entire chapter. So while I respect your point of view, your selection of applicable text is far more narrow than mine, and your theory on what Paul meant could be just as out of context as you claim mine to be. Stephen, your exegesis of this text is way off my friend. No scripture is given for private interpretation Stephen. It all has meaning and relevance as it relates to the context of Scripture as a whole, the book, the chapter, and the immediate verses preceding and following. You did not obviously read my response thoroughly, instead only choosing a portion of it to respond to. The statements in this wonderful chapter of Scripture are often quoted as stand-alone, but care and caution must always be exercised when doing this. You didn't even quote the entire verse only 2 words form it, which in essence was the Greek word that I provided you some info on. My statement was not just that the verse applies to prophecy, although that was CERTAINLY part of Paul's meaning, and that is proven by the IMMEDIATE context. My statement was that it applies to all teaching and that all teaching and preaching should be examined in light of Scripture. Remember just earlier he was talking about how we should view those who teach and labor for us in the Gospel (pastors, elders, and teachers of the Word). 12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves. This is just a few verses before the one you quoted. Something else needs to be stated as it relates to the word "prophecy". When the Bible talks about prophecy, there are a couple of different meanings: FOREtelling (as in predicting the future), and FORTHtelling (speaking forth the truth). So which is it? The amazing thing about this passage of Scripture is that not only did Paul throw in the ones who FORTHtell, but he also at the beginning of chapter five talks about some actual prophecy and the coming of the Day of the Lord. It's amazing that you deny this wonderful chapter didn't say anything about prophecy and rather is about daily behavior. While I agree there is teaching about daily behavior, look at the early part of chapter 5. What do you find? PROPHECY! (forthtelling) Paul COMFORTS them and tells them to COMFORT one another. Later on in the chapter when he tells them to test everything and hold fast to what is good, he is telling them to be sure that what they hear as it relates to the coming of the Lord (or ANY OTHER TEACHING) lines up with Scripture. Why? Because many false prophets were going out and saying many different things. Some were saying Christ has already come. Some were saying He would never come. Paul gives them very clear instructions on His coming and how they should behave IN LIGHT of His coming. For verse 6 of chapter 5 says: "6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. "Thanks for giving this a good hearing.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 18:26:15 GMT -5
I mean this in all sincerity: If this country is so bad why live here.
The fact of the matter remains that you take for granted the very freedoms that allow you to speak out about your views. In so many countries in the world you could be killed. I agree with Michael. We aren't perfect. Our government is definitely in bad shape and needs change. Those are things we can agree upon. But this is still the best country in the world. If you know of a better one then why not move there? (Not that I wanna see you go, it's an honest question.)
|
|
Mike Morgan
Infantry Private First Class
Ride the Thunder
Posts: 1
|
Post by Mike Morgan on Feb 26, 2010 19:49:24 GMT -5
Gentlemen, I have followed this "thread" from the beginning. I have found the posts educational, enlightening and some provocative. (and a few somewhat boorish). I even took some time to review some previous "threads", and they proved to be very interesting as well. Michael continues to impress me, and I encourage his participation, although he knows my requirement for civility, integrity and respectfulness. It goes both ways. Kevin, Thanks for the shout out Brother. Godspeed to All, Mike
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 20:41:29 GMT -5
Hey good to see you Brother Mike. I think you can offer a unique perspective to this discussion being a man who served our country in the military. How many times were you ordered to waste civilians?
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 20:43:24 GMT -5
In all seriousness, Mike can you tell us what the official policy or training you had as it relates to if attacks and avoiding civilian casualties during you time in the military?
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 20:44:27 GMT -5
The reason that I ask this is that we are being told in this very debate that the US military has no regard for civilians and is no better than Al Queda in that respect.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 20:46:43 GMT -5
Yes, and we have a long and verifiable history of doing so. The Norden bomb sight used in WWII placed less than 7% of its bombs within 300 yards of the intended target, yet we bombed highly populated areas - on THOUSANDS of occasions - deliberately with the full knowledge that more than 93% of them would fall on innocent women and children. The bombing of both Hiroshima alone killed more than 100,000 innocent civilians with a blast that scorched the earth for dozens of miles in every direction, wildly beyond anything remotely related to a "military" target. Same with Nagasaki. Same with Tokyo. Same with 35,000 innocent civilians incinerated by US bombs at Dresden. The actual military facilities north of Dresden, BTW, were totally untouched and stand to this day. Same with Wounded Knee. Same with dozens of American Indian tribes. Same with Fallujah. Same with Baghdad. The list is endless. The United States of America does indeed consistently disregard the safety of civilians and regularly attack non-combatants and has done so repeatedly and deliberately for over 150 years. So then it is your position that all of these attacks were deliberate attacks on civilians purely with the intention to waste as many innocent civilians as possible? I am sorry but our military is honorable and just. I know this for a fact. The many millions of people who DIED....DIED......DIED.....gave their LIVES so that you and I can sit here fat and happy at our computers CRY OUT from their graves when you make these kinds of wild accusations against the US military. The military is an efficient war machine, that much is true. But we do not act to waste innocent civilians purely for the purpose of wasting innocent civilians. All of the incidents above you can find varying opinions on what happened and why. Why do you seem to ALWAYS choose the views that you think MOST makes the US government look guilty of evil? Again, do what you ask Michael to do. Stop and think. Mike as a veteran I'd really appreciate your 2 cents on the above portion of this discussion.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 26, 2010 20:53:31 GMT -5
The whole discussion on the US military came from the discussion Stephen and I were having about the US being no better than Al Queda during our discussion of the definition of a terrorist. I gave this as part of my definition of terrorism: Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. That led to the following exchange: Feb 23, 2010, 11:59pm, KevinR wrote:Stephen, is it your position that the US military DELIBERATELY disregards the safety of non-combatants or civilians? Feb 24, 2010, 12:27am, Stephen wrote:Yes, and we have a long and verifiable history of doing so.
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2010 21:17:35 GMT -5
Do you have any evidence, about before 9/11? And even if he wanted diplomatic negotiations it was on his terms only. No, but you do. You already have truth! So please tell me about both the negotiation attempts by Bin Laden, and throw in details about Saddam as well. Thank you. I'm not omniscient, sheesh, I never said that. And you openly admit that you have no evidence that bin laden ever tried to solve the problem with diplomacy before 9/11. He's only trying now because he knows that he might have made a huge mistake upsetting the greatest superpower ever to grace God's earth. Of course he's going to try to talk his way out, now. If he agrees to an unconditional surrender I've got no problem with discussing that. Because he's dead either way, if he surrenders he gets a death row shot, but he avoids the senseless deaths of more of our Boys in Blue and his al-qaeda recruits. It's his choice. But if we let him go that just shows weakness on our part. Wait a minute... you just said that you wanted them to initiate negotiations, but now you say that you won't discuss anything other than unconditional surrender. You said that the USA was not unreasonable, but now you want to dictate all the terms of negotiation and kill anyone who resists. That moaning sound you hear is the Prince of Peace burying his head in his hands. Geez, you sound as if, given the chance, you'd defend any moster to try to prove a point. And yet you have no problem with him having his buddies go kamikaze on us left and right. "Sure come on over and bomb us, we're just a big fuzzy fuzzy, we're to nice to fight back." If you think we're gonna let him off the hook, think again. You're defending your worldview as much as Pastor Kevin and I are defending ours. No, I am seeking truth. Really? So the fact that you think the government is just a big mean bully would have nothing to do with it? If the US military has not deliberately attacked citizens, I want to know so that I can adjust my belief system accordingly. If the Bible teaches that Christians already have all truth and don't need anymore, I want to know so I can adjust my belief system accordingly. If Jesus, the Prince of Peace, is pleased at the righteousness and justice of torturing our fellow human beings, I want to know so that I can adjust my beliefs accordingly. I am willing to alter my views. I have said so many times. You are not. And you have said so many times. So no, Michael, I am not defending my position, and yes, you are. If you are than see things through our eyes for just a millisecond, throw your preconceived notions to the wind and try to see things our way. Or are you not willing to? And the sole fact that you are arguing proves that you have something to defend. And don't say that you're not arguing. I don't define words. Words are defined by dictionaries. So "my" definition of truth, or any other English word, is irrelevant. Truth is defined as reality, concrete existence not subject to concepts or ideas. What you or I "think" the definition of truth might be is inconsequential. Ok then what is your definition of reality? And every one's "truth" is subject to one's concepts or ideas. Except God's. And I am interested in truth, God's Truth. Not your's. The light outside my barn door has been flashing off and on for months and its driving me nuts. I thought it was an electrical short, but that's apparently not true because I checked and that didn't fix it. What is wrong with my barn light? Please tell me God's Truth because I absolutely can't figure this out. Since you have God's Truth and that's the only truth there is, and you already have it, I'm begging you to tell me... what's wrong with my barn light? Again I'm not omniscient, gosh. But if its making you that crazy I suggest hiring a professional electrician.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Feb 27, 2010 0:57:12 GMT -5
SMACK! Now that was funny! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 27, 2010 9:44:38 GMT -5
Except your statements here and for the past 8 years or so indicate that you have already made up your minds. We have now achieved a total reversal of reality. It was me asking you (not the other way around) to join me in a search for truth over and over again. It is me (not you) researching, reading and studying these topics for years at a time to seek truth over and over again. I am telling you (not the other way around) yet again that my mind is open, I am willing to change my views, and I offer to seek truth with you RIGHT NOW. It is a very simple process and I am willing to start it with you, and if at any time you disagree with the methodology employed I will be happy to change it. You have never once spoken those words to me. You continually refuse to take me up on any of the above, yet somehow I am the one who refuses to reconsider my views. Congratulations. Black is now white. Up is down. Forwards is now backwards. You have achieved a total inversion of reality.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 27, 2010 9:45:32 GMT -5
This whole thing about your barn light is just silly Stephen. Then it should be very easy to answer.
|
|