Featured Militarily speaking

Looking at armed conflict throughout history, it seems very little was ever truly accomplished.

Certainly, nations were defined (China - tribal groups united and the territory named for the first true uniting emperor), Greek and Roman city-states united into powerful nations, the U.S. colonies united into a central government to become a world power, and so forth.

However, looking at the broad spectrum of human history, nations have remained rather static with only minor adjustments to their original boundaries.

For example: England was once an island nation in which three separatist groups struggled with each other to remain separate. It forcefully became a world empire, but now is basically back to where it was struggling with three separatist groups struggling with each other to remain separate. The same with Roman empire, Greek empire, Egyptian empire, Spanish empire, soon the US empire...

Question(s):

1) When do believers determine that armed conflict in support of the country (any country) is worthy and righteous?

2) When do believers determine that imprisonment and death are preferred in comparison to service and submission to the country (any country)?

3) Specific to the U.S., when does the BB members determine that the country is not one in which to honor with pledge and service?

 

Agreed, however, there are those who consider all things American means that which is aligned with Godliness.

As a student of history, I struggled to find just when America became so righteous. It certainly wasn't in the colonial times, the federation times, or under the constitution.

 

Countries are made up of people. And the peoples sin of this country is not merely abortion. As awful a stain as it is the pride and arogance, the haughty spirit, the lies, the promoting of evil for self advancement ... defining evil as righteous is the history of the U.S.

America has never been a Godly country.

It has been a tool of service to God, just as Babylon, just as Eygpt, just as Greece and Rome. But it is not, nor has ever been a Godly country. No claim of America being the Israel (as some have done) savior or even shelter obliges God to present the U.S. as righteous or even His freind.

Unlike the Scripture accounts of Israel and there soldiers, the U.S. can have no such claim of anointing. The U.S. was not blessed because of its righteousness. The country was blessed because God chose to make it strong for His purpose - shown typically in both world wars.

However, when the country in the early sixties purposed to remove prayer and bible reading, and embraced completely the situational ethics of expressing love, the U.S. has not been successful in completing a military campaign.

In my opinion, God removed his hand of allowing military victory from that time. For not a single conflict from Korea to the present has been completely resolved as was prior to the 60's.

So, that is the emphasis behind the question(s).

 

Look at a different view of each that you mentioned.

This is a popular opinion, but the fact is that had England not treated the colonies as little children, there would have been no revolutionary war.

Fact is that the war of independance was fought as much over power and wealth and just who would benefit from the roll of government.

IF the revolutionary war was fought over a "new nation founded on (the) moral stance" as you suggest, then there would have been no need for the indian wars, the civil wars, the treatment of aliens ... that the nation would rather ignore.

Really, are you certain?

Seems that even to this day "emancipation" was incomplete. Isn't that part of the politics that overrun the media and sports attention?

Again, relatively small border adjustments have occured throughout human history. I gave examples in the OP. However, the indigenous people remained unchanged. Even when Emperor China unified all the groups, the people remained defined by their groupings.

Remove any government, and the people are not removed. Borders may adjust, but the point in the OP is that the people of Empires such as Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon, China, U.S. Germany ... are not long lasting and all return. In the U.S. it will mean that groupings will eventually occupy territory much like central Europe and south east Asia.

Again, what is public propaganda is not usually the political policy. If it were true, the U.S. and most other power brokers would not have allowed and used the Nazi folks in developing scientific, military, and educational items and techniques.

When one considers just what nation controled Palestine, one must ask why Jews were mostly prevented from the land, what of the ship of Jews that was turned away from the U.S. and England.

No, no righteousness to be found in WWII other than that purpose of the God being used.

To what end? Did it resolve the conflict on the Korean pennesula?

Again, to what end? Did it resolve the conflict with the Cuban dictator?

So there was really no long lasting results, and the war was again a matter of economics.

Again, the questions ask in the OP were not resolved.

 

Apparently you are unaware of how the Jews have used America for support and savior.

Roots of the U.S.-Israel Relationship

Perhaps you might read what Col. Jack Mohr (U.S. Army retired) wrote about the matter.

Who is True Israel?

However, your response neglected to answer the OP questions.

 

Hank,

Is not that which appears above the ground supported by that which is unseen under the surface?

The root of the abortion issue, the removal of bibles and prayer, ... is what I posted in which God sees - the haughtiness, the situational ethics, the unfaithfulness, the lack of thankfulness ...

These are what God focuses upon. Does not the Scriptures teach that all matters come from the heart, and proceed out of the heart except for one?

 

So, mistakenly, I thought you were being honest in desiring to have proof.

Therefore, to disprove your view that "No one does this it is a ridiculous claim" I give two online sources, one from the Jews and one from an officer of the military.

Perhaps rather than making the statement that my claim is "ridiculous" you can actually contribute substance to the OP.

It is hard to carry on any intellectual conversation when all that is offered in reply is of no substance.

Beside, I made no great "claim" in the OP, rather asked the readers for their thinking.

You would rather loose the questions in a bid for what???

Perhaps you have nothing in which to offer in actually answering the questions?

That is actually excusable in comparison to your contribution to the thread thus far.

 

You are correct.

Fortunately, the rulers of the religious righteous were not rulers of the government. So, Peter and John were not obligated to obey them, for they had no rule over them.

In China, religious freedom extends to personal practice, only. That is, believers may, on their own, practice whatever religion they desire, however they are not allowed to share, instruct, or encourage others to convert. They are sort of like Daniel was when the law threw him into the lion's den.

Regardless of the ruler or the ruler views, they are the designated ruler. They are to be given respect.

The laws that such a ruler passes may not be respected, nor obeyed.

There is a slight difference. One can give respect without giving regard to the laws of who is respected.

What then would be your answer to the questions? The "When" rather than the what.