Militarily speaking

Oh well, I tried.

 

As a response to pompous pedantic moralizing from the place of safety providing the protection to make the pompous pedantic moralizing pronouncements.

Try it in Venezuela, Mexico,China, N. Korea, etc, etc, ...

America - Love it or leave. A right provided by the Bill of Rights (freedom of association).

HankD (A deplorable, loudly thumping his chest while clinging to bible and gun)

 

Please, show in the thread “pompous pedantic moralizing from the place of safety providing the protection to make the pompous pedantic moralizing pronouncements.”. ..?

• The Op clearly laid out the history of the results of human conflict generally are not long lasting with a few exceptions.

• None of the examples of refutation are other then contemporary, and while historically accurate, will ultimately not survive human hatred and heartache.

• Examples are strew in the pages of any good history book. The Scriptures record great armed conflicts and failed empire building of the past: Egypt, Israel, Babylon, Medes & Persian, Greece, Rome, ...

That some disagreed with the presentation of the opening is understandable (as any OP on the B.B.) but ultimately, in the light of the expanse of history, indefensible.


The matter of assumption made, in the quote above, is truly baseless.


That some disagree with the opening statements of the OP should not have interfered with the questions of the OP.

But such has marred this thread.

 

My bad, I should have said In My Opinion the o/p is a "pompous pedantic moralizing from the place of safety providing the protection to make the pompous pedantic moralizing pronouncements.”. . Howbeit by an oblique or an innuendo pompous pedantic moralizing pronouncement leveled against America in the o/p with the following statement "The same with Roman empire, Greek empire, Egyptian empire, Spanish empire, soon the US empire..."

The obvious answer to the pedantic (IMO) questions - when led of the Spirit of God

HankD

 

Understandable is that desire to want the US to continue in some preservation grace of God.

Understandable is that some want to have some great awakening as seen in the past.

That is all understood.

But, again, historically is just not born out. The evidence abounds that God has given the world over to hurl into the last days.

"Being led by the Spirit of God is a good answer." Nothing wrong with it.

Just as others may have actually been able to offer a more excellent answer had they not tried to modify the question(s).

Why do you consider the OP pedantic?

Was it because I dared to declare what was uncomfortable to the reader?
Was it because the claims made were provable and few are aware or want to admit to the truth?
Was it because it was looked upon as a threat to what people want to believe, although what they believe may be a lie?
Was it because the OP actually ask folks to really come to terms with their own level of devotion and where the true loyalty should abide?

Amazing that you would assign a characterization to one you have never met and know nothing about. If you knew, you would not give such a tribute.

 

Because sir - words mean something and I don't like the oblique innuendo of your words given in in a moralistic superior way about our country while simultaneously enjoying the protection and the safe place it provides you.

That is your right granted you by the Bill of Rights - but it is also my right to tell you I don't like it.

You personally I love because you are my brother in Christ. I just wish you had more of an allegiance to our country.

OK - Its true that our government has veered down and to the left - because of the party of death (Not the same Democratic Party of my past allegiance) - which President Trump is trying to correct (Gorsuch).

The government of the previous administration was IMO criminal and that may soon be revealed concerning the traitorous (IMO) Uranium 1 scandal.

See you in The New Jerusalem brother - (wherein dwelleth righteousness).

HankD

 

What was done by innuendo?

Not being defensive of my posts, but truly asking at what point was the OP not open and glaringly truthful?

Was there even a hint of there being slight of hand set out in the beginning of the OP as to what was considered the rational for the questions?

Declarations of doom should be understood, not pushed back against.

But for some reason there are some who feel threatened by the storm.

Hank, my family enjoy the rights and privileges of the country because, from before this country was “conceived,” my family had already paid for them. Every generation has donated to their preservation. Questions and assumptions, by some posters as to my contribution, should never have been part of the discussion. Such items provide no purpose to the thread, and is an affront to the effort in good dialogue.

Historically, has any government any time or place not been established by God?

Yet, government being twisted and ungodly is not new to this generation. All governments have embraced that which is evil and perverted justice from the very beginning of early people grouping.

The question has never been a matter of government righteousness, but to what degree the audacious brash boldness of common everyday people to not only do evil, glory in the doing of evil, and encourage and proudly promote others doing evil. There is no more shame and embarrassment and no more a conscience not quenched in the lusts and excess by the common person.

The church no longer pushes back at worldliness, but drags it into the house, sets it up high, and proclaims it righteous. There is no shame, but bold proclamation of how worldly attractive it has become.

Yet, this is defensible? This is called worthy, noble, that which is to be unquestionably loyal?

The OP set out legitimate claims. Nothing hidden.

The OP ask legitimate questions Nothing hidden.

 

True and accepted. This is a debate forum. I answered your questions and responded to your claims.
Please see #84 and #86 which are my latest responses sufficient IMO to respond to your latest post.


HankD

 

I really, really struggled with this issue when thinking about joining the military a few years ago. Hard to reconcile pacifism and turning the other cheek with militarism. I know it isn't a black and white issue.

 

This is not a new issue.

Prior to WWII soldiers “following orders” was an excuse, but that was removed by the Nuremberg trials. Now there is an extra burden on each soldier to weight what is the right, for wrong is no longer excusable.

Now as the world hurls into the last days, the believer has even greater reason to come to agreement with the Holy Spirit on this issue.

It isn’t a matter that what is the leading of one will be the leading of another, but deliberate seeking of God’s will.

Would it surprise believers to understand that God can approve of a believer being an assassin, a smuggler, a soldier?

Though two of the three may be considered evil, under the authorization of God, there is the removal of deceit, for the action is divinely appointed.

Example: Ehud.

 

I remember the enemy "brain washing" of our POW in Korea. They taught them (reeducation) that America was not a good country, was not worth fighting for, etc. Corporations (banks) were exploiting the masses, and look at all the evil, giving smallpox to the native peoples, putting blacks to work as slaves and mistreating them in every way imaginable.

America certainly has its faults, but we need to shine the light of day on our problems and not buy the fake news peddled by the governments of North Korea, China, and Russia. Lets make America great again.

Godly people serving godly governing authority to protect our siblings in Christ, from Communism, and Islam is a fight worth having!

1) When do we fight under governing authority? Answer (from post #30) Godly people serving godly governing authority to protect our siblings in Christ, Answer (from post #29) Also note that Acts 4:18-19 also indicates we are do what we believe is right in the eyes of God.

2) If the required action violates God's commands, we, acting as an individual should become a conscience objector. Note that some of these drove ambulances and rendered care on the battlefield.

3) Those that do not honor America are probably not Christians (but many may be tares). Some have bought into the scapegoating fictions of the Left, I can even honor the past service of John McCain, while acknowledging he seems to be undercutting our efforts to make a better America for all, including Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

 

Van this is a re-post, and it never responded to the OP questions.

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

Here is your response.

First, one can take the view that the question isn't about participation in the military is the issue. That assumption lead to a great number of posts that were not on topic.

Second, and more to what you did post:
You are suggesting that at sometime a government of some nation in history was actually Godly.

There was never a successful utopian venture, and the closest governing body to what became the US was the Plymouth colony. Certainly not without certain problems.

Do you not agree that the only “governing authority” to the believer is the Scriptures and as Scripture principles are lived the government may or may not take issue.

But this does not address the question of the OP:
2) When do believers determine that imprisonment and death are preferred in comparison to service and submission to the country (any country)?

Here you are suggesting that a small minority of Americans are not believers. That the vast population of America are believers?

When did America become a "Christian nation?"

I don't see a time when the government of the U.S. was "Godly." I see that God USED the U.S. to His purpose, just as He uses all nations in the world.