Guilty!!!!
joshman
Reading these posts about hitler and forgivness and guilt
reminded me of something I never understood.
I was always taught in the church, and always disagreed, that if you go to
war
and obey your country then you're not responsible for murder.
I think everyone is personally responsible, war or not.
In vietnam, our soldiers murdered women and childeren and will
be held personally responsible, even if it was indirectly like dropping
a bomb on a village. The same goes for every war, including the gulf.
Does god not think in those terms? I just don't see the logic.
It's like me killing someone because you told me to, so I'm innocent.
I think this belief is a way to make people feel better. Either you follow
the lord or not. Murder is wrong, especially for money, oil, and power.
God is no respecter of people, especially puppets.
Weyland Yutani
joshman wrote in message <6hdda9$n...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>I think this belief is a way to make people feel better. Either you follow
>the lord or not. Murder is wrong, especially for money, oil, and power.
>God is no respecter of people, especially puppets.
Not to mention murder to stop the spread of communism. I agree.
---Wey.
TheJordan6
>Reading these posts about hitler and forgivness and guilt
>reminded me of something I never understood.
>I was always taught in the church, and always disagreed, that if you go to
>war
>and obey your country then you're not responsible for murder.
>I think everyone is personally responsible, war or not.
>In vietnam, our soldiers murdered women and childeren and will
>be held personally responsible, even if it was indirectly like dropping
>a bomb on a village. The same goes for every war, including the gulf.
>Does god not think in those terms? I just don't see the logic.
>It's like me killing someone because you told me to, so I'm innocent.
>the lord or not. Murder is wrong, especially for money, oil, and power.
>God is no respecter of people, especially puppets.
I agree with you. Hitler's henchmen during the Nuremberg trials used as their
defense "I was just following orders." But human decency and common sense must
take precedent over blind obedience.
I had a problem with that in the LDS church too. There is the quote from I
believe Heber J. Grant that went something like "If the prophet tells you to do
something, EVEN IF YOU KNOW IT IS WRONG, do it anyway, and you will be blessed
for it."
I don't believe adults can pass off responsibility for their acts by saying
someone else told them to do it. I also believe that when people take it upon
themselves to follow and obey any human being unquestiongly, then those
people's faith is in that person rather than in Deity. The Bible says "trust
not in the arm of flesh," and I think that's good advice.
That's why it disturbs me to read Mormons writing things like "I would lie,
steal, and kill if Gordon B. Hinckley told me to." That's not religion, folks,
that's a cult.
Randy Jordan
vody...@yahoo.com
joshua wrote:
__________________________________________________________________________
Reading these posts about hitler and forgivness and guilt
reminded me of something I never understood.
I was always taught in the church, and always disagreed, that if you go to
war
and obey your country then you're not responsible for murder.
I think a better way to term it would be:
There is a difference between killing someone during war, and killing someone
during peace. God will hold you responsible for it, but during war, there are
some acceptable circumstances for killing (may not like it anyway, but. . . ).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think everyone is personally responsible, war or not.
In vietnam, our soldiers murdered women and childeren and will
be held personally responsible, even if it was indirectly like dropping
a bomb on a village.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking your scenario, I think that it depends on what they knew. If they were
told that the bombing target was a military base, are the piolots and bombers
then responsible for killing women and children, or are those who provided
them with the mis-information then responsible? I tend to go with the latter.
As well, there are horrible things going on in war that can coerce someone to
do things that they would never do before. What if you see women throwing
grenades at you (Apocalypse Now comes to mind)? What if children are used as
decoys, or as soldiers? Can you then afford to be particular? I will let God
sort that out.
However, do not take this to mean that I think every instance of soldiers
killing women and children was excusable. I do not. However, I do recognize
that soldiers in war go through experiences that I may very well never
understand, and that these experiences change their perception. I also
understand that they are conditioned to obey orders without questioning, and
that there is intense pressure to obey these orders (and this is not even
close to the social pressure you find in churches). IMO, their guilt for
killing in war is very different than killing during peace times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same goes for every war, including the gulf.
Does god not think in those terms? I just don't see the logic.
It's like me killing someone because you told me to, so I'm innocent.
I think this belief is a way to make people feel better. Either you follow
the lord or not. Murder is wrong, especially for money, oil, and power.
God is no respecter of people, especially puppets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that you present a too-simplistic picture. Killing someone because
they are invading your homeland (as with British soldiers in WWII) is very
different than slaughtering civilians, as is attacking agressive nations that
threaten other's freedom (remember that Iraq did attack a soveriegn nation).
This is a complex issue, and to think that God does not recognize this does a
diservice to your opinion of Him.
Geoff Matthews, who knew British soldiers in Northern Ireland, and did not
envy them.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
wilt
joshman wrote:
>
> Reading these posts about hitler and forgivness and guilt
> reminded me of something I never understood.
> I was always taught in the church, and always disagreed, that if you go to
> war
> and obey your country then you're not responsible for murder.
> In vietnam, our soldiers murdered women and childeren and will
> be held personally responsible, even if it was indirectly like dropping
> Does god not think in those terms? I just don't see the logic.
> It's like me killing someone because you told me to, so I'm innocent.
> I think this belief is a way to make people feel better. Either you follow
> the lord or not. Murder is wrong, especially for money, oil, and power.
> God is no respecter of people, especially puppets.
So, by your view is the termination of human life, for whatever reason,
murder?
wilt
FAWNSCRIBE
It's like me killing someone because you told me to, so I'm innocent.
> I think this belief is a way to make people feel better. Either you follow
> the lord or not. Murder is wrong, especially for money, oil, and power.
> God is no respecter of people, especially puppets.
>>>>>>>>>>
many devout Christians feel the way you do..some would rather do jail time
than kill their *spiritual* brothers( as many HAVE done) in times of war.
JWs for example have gone to jail ( not run ti Canada) rather than be involved
in killing or even doing ANYTHING that is involved with war.I knew of a JW man
who went to jail years for his stand in WW2 and hesaid " He would obey God as
ruler rather than men"..SOme would say war is far different than taking a gun
and shooting someone at home, but when one thinks that when one DOES go to war
at the nehst of someone they may be kiing their own *brothers*.I wonder what
some others think.
Fawn
Dave Fuller
FAWNSCRIBE wrote in message
<199804192342...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
There are some that have studied the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," and
are convinced that it means the intentional taking of human life. I am one.
Dave
vody...@yahoo.com
In article <6hfg55$6uc$1...@usenet41.supernews.com>#1/1,
"Dave Fuller" <crazy_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> There are some that have studied the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," and
> are convinced that it means the intentional taking of human life. I am one.
What was the consequence for disobeying this commandment?
Geoff Matthews, who thinks that "Thou shalt not murder" would be a better
translation.
>
> Dave
Scott and Deb Quantz
>
>
> That's why it disturbs me to read Mormons writing things like "I would lie,
> steal, and kill if Gordon B. Hinckley told me to." That's not religion, folks,
> that's a cult.
>
> Randy Jordan
please cite your reference...
Scott Q
Angela808
>"Dave Fuller" <crazy_a...@hotmail.com> wrote;
>Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 08:46 EDT
>There are some that have studied the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," and
>are convinced that it means the intentional taking of human life. I am one.
>
>Dave
I would never kill. I would never want to go to war.
However, there is a time that I'm sure I would kill. If someone broke into my
home and attacked my children to harm or kill. If it were the only way I could
stop a sniper from shooting children down in a courtyard I would do it. There
are many scenarios where I'm sure I would.
What else would you do? Stand there and watch mass destruction? There is a
line. A definite line. Looking back it would have been better to kill Hitler,
then have the mass hellish destruction take place that did. I don't thing any
God wants that.
FAWNSCRIBE
However, there is a time that I'm sure I would kill. If someone broke into my
home and attacked my children to harm or kill. If it were the only way I could
stop a sniper from shooting children down in a courtyard I would do it. There
are many scenarios where I'm sure I would.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some will say that self defense in a PERSONAL way or protecting a child from
being killed by whapping a person in the head with a crowbar is FAR different
than to destroy at the ORDER of another with no assurance you are killing who
deserves to be because of what THEY are doing.
A different scenario is to protect your girlfriend from a man trying to kill
her and you see it and have to shoot HIM to stop her death than to drop a bomb
indiscriminately, knowing innocents will be killed and have the "Let God sort
them out mentality" WHen the A bomb was dropped everyone killed was not guilty
of doing a thing but being in the wrong place in the wrong time or being of the
wrong nation when a treaty went belly up.
the BIBLE allows for personal self defense I believe.
The would you kill a person trying to kill a kid analogy is not the one Id use
for war.
Stopping the sniper killing kids is not lobbing a grenade into a house and
bumping off whoever is inside.
Fawn
Dave Fuller
Angela808 wrote in message
<199804210246...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>"Dave Fuller" <crazy_a...@hotmail.com> wrote;
>>Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 08:46 EDT
>
>>There are some that have studied the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill,"
and
>>are convinced that it means the intentional taking of human life. I am
one.
>>
>>Dave
>
>I would never kill. I would never want to go to war.
>
>However, there is a time that I'm sure I would kill. If someone broke into
my
>home and attacked my children to harm or kill. If it were the only way I
could
>stop a sniper from shooting children down in a courtyard I would do it.
There
>are many scenarios where I'm sure I would.
>
>What else would you do? Stand there and watch mass destruction? There is
a
>line. A definite line. Looking back it would have been better to kill
Hitler,
>then have the mass hellish destruction take place that did. I don't thing
any
>God wants that.
Angela,
"Looking back it would have been better to kill Hitler, then have the
mass hellish destruction take place that did. I don't thing any God wants
that."
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that killing Hitler would have
precluded what happened. Had Corporal Hitler died during World War I, would
that have saved us from World War II? Or, would there have been another
individual come to the fore to "rescue" Germany, with the same insane ideas?
Adolph Hitler was one man and it took a cast of characters to bring about
the atrocities of World War II. Was Hitler the key player? How far would
he have gotten without Goebbels, Goring, and many others? Can we be totally
certain that Goebbels, Goring, et al. would not have had the opportunity to
visit their insanity on the world minus the presence of Hitler himself?
While I have not visited the subject in decades, most of the historical
treatment that I read about World War II concluded that it was a natural
result of World War I and while they are not kind to Hitler, they do not
assign the complete and total blame to him. Instead, they see him
capitalizing on a very vengeful attitude shown toward Germany by the Allied
powers after World War I.
In short, I think that killing Hitler is an overly simplistic solution that
fails to take into account the many factors involved in Hitler's rise to
power.
"I don't think that any God wants that." (I find it rather eerie that in a
discussion of Hitler, the word used to speak of deity is derived from
German.) Let us look at the meaning of the word, "god" for a moment. From
the "Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" copyright 1971, we read:
1 - a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and
powers and to require man's worship; spec: one controlling a particular
aspect or part of reality
2 - a person or thing of supreme value
3 - a powerful ruler
Of the capitalized version, "God", the same source has:
the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power,
wisdom, and goodness whom men worship as creator and ruler of the universe
(Your use of "any" allows me to draw an inference that you are speaking of a
polytheistic system as opposed to a monotheist system so I will not use the
definition of the capitalized noun as it is based on a monotheistic
understanding.)
I am afraid that there is a being that has more than natural attributes and
powers that wants man's worship that did want what happened in the
atrocities of World War II and the many other conflicts that men have been
caught up in during the history of this earth. What is commonly called the
Holy Bible speaks of one who was labeled, "a murderer from the beginning,
not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him." (cf.. John 8:44
NIV) At the start of this verse, the being is spoken of thusly, "You belong
to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire."
The individual credited with speaking those words is also credited with
calling upon people to put faith in him or believe in him. We have, since,
changed that to having beliefs about him; i.e., born of a virgin, being from
Nazareth, etc. I am afraid that rather misses the point of putting faith in
him; relying on him, placing confidence in him; but I also think Scientology
is somewhat off-base so what do I know?
Dave
Dave Fuller
FAWNSCRIBE wrote in message
<199804211125...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
<snip>
>the BIBLE allows for personal self defense I believe.
<snip>
>Fawn
"In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women." The Bible "allowed";
nay demanded; the killing of certain people. Yet, the Lord Jesus Christ did
not say, "Yes, since the Bible allows it, make it so."
Fawn, I am glad that you believe that the Bible allows for personal
self-defense, but what is your point? The LDS that you like to "beat on"
believe the Bible allows for more scripture to be written and accepted,
continuing revelation, modern day prophets, etc. You "pooh-pooh" their
beliefs, yet seem to believe that your beliefs are some how far superior.
When Paul wrote words to the effect:
"Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against
the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood . . ."
(cf.. Ephesians 6:11 & 12 NIV)
"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world . . ." (cf.. 2
Corinthians 10:3 & 4 NIV)
When Jesus Christ himself said things like:
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
(cf.. Matthew 10:28 NIV)
When David wrote:
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will
fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."
(cf.. Psalm 23:4 KJV)
In one of our exchanges, you attempted to give me Greek lessons. Have you
ever studied the Hebrew word translated as "evil" in the last passage? It
is also translated as harm in many other places.
I have mentioned people who have a "faith" that allows them to ignore how
their actions effect the target of the action. You are one of those people.
As long as you believe the Bible allows something, that is all that matters.
Yet, that same Bible states:
"Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation - but it is not to the
flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you
will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body,
you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of
God."
There is a significant difference between what the Bible allows and what
following the Spirit of God allows.
FAWNSCRIBE
Fawn, I am glad that you believe that the Bible allows for personal
self-defense, but what is your point? The LDS that you like to "beat on"
believe the Bible allows for more scripture to be written and accepted,
continuing revelation, modern day prophets, etc. You "pooh-pooh" their
beliefs, yet seem to believe that your beliefs are some how far superior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
************************
My point is what i stated..I dont "beat on" anyone Dave..You dont like how I
speak that sfine but Im not beating anyone up here.
I pooh pooh?..nope..I Point OUT.
if I believed as the LDS do ID BE LDS..I feel as I have ALWAYS stated we all
fall and stand before God as INDIVIDUALS on that final day or did you miss
that as well ?
I believe my views are more in line with what the Bible says and feel that the
Bible is the only word of God that is scriptural today for mans use and
betterment.
No big surprise there either right?
Whats YOUR point?
fawnie
Gerald G. Fuller
Angela, I think, said:
>
>I would never kill. I would never want to go to war.
>
>However, there is a time that I'm sure I would kill. If someone broke into
my
>home and attacked my children to harm or kill. If it were the only way I
could
>stop a sniper from shooting children down in a courtyard I would do it.
There
>are many scenarios where I'm sure I would.
>
Which is it? You would never kill, or you would kill under some
circumstances? I, too, would never want to go to war. I think few people
when thinking calmly and rationally would want to go to war. Yet when the
time has come in the past that a way of life seems threatened, then people
flock to the recruiting office so long as the sentiment supports the effort
and the thought still prevails that the way of life is threatened. Even
Peter, we are told, was anxious to go to war to protect his Master. How can
we truly expect to be better or closer followers of Jesus Christ at this
point in our existence than Peter was? Maybe some are, maybe we all should
strive to be. But how many do you suppose are? How many of us have "gospel
hobbey horses" that we ride? By that I mean pet things that we see as sins,
which we think we would never do, while failing to see equally noxious
things that we do all the time?
When I was younger, I stood in a church meeting one day (not LDS) and stated
that I had felt a call to the ministry, but that I was now (then) glad that
I had not been able to leave the Air Force, since I knew that there was a
need in the Air Force for good Christian families such as my own, to be
examples for the rest. Real humble attitude, eh? Well a few years later my
good Christian family existed as a family no more. Was that partial payment
for my lack of humility? Or was it totally unrelated? I really don't know.
>What else would you do? Stand there and watch mass destruction? There is
a
>line. A definite line. Looking back it would have been better to kill
Hitler,
>then have the mass hellish destruction take place that did. I don't thing
any
>God wants that.
If God did not "want" that, could He not have prevented it? Is there any
truth to the idea that He allows men to pile up evil until it topples over
on them, that they may learn from that experience? As I think Dave asked,
how can you be sure that killing Hitler would have prevented anything? I
agree with his reading of history that the only thing it would have
prevented would have been his leadership of the Third Reich. It would not
have prevented the reaction of Germany to the unChristlike actions of the
English, French, and United State against them after WWI.
Yes, true love and forgiveness would have worked, most likely but no one
wants to be the one to start. All need to get their little bit of vengeance.
Gene
Dave Fuller
Gerald G. Fuller wrote in message <6hjmnh$2...@ns1.ccinet.net>...
Amen - not in the sense of "so might it be" but in the sense that you have
hit the nail on the head.
vark - the Gentile that refuses to stay in the closest.
>
>Gene
>
>
acruden
Josh,
I have seen many, many entries made by you in this newsgroup and I am
beginning to think that you are full of a lot of wind, but this subject I feel
that I need to respond to you on.
I am a vet served in Desert Storm, so this hits close to home for me.
What about Israel? Many times they were sent out to do what was called "burnt
earth" which was where you basically committed a form of genocide. They would
have to kill all the men, women, and shildren. They would have to destroy
all the livestock and crops, buildings, and belongings of their enemies. If
this isn't gruesome, then I don't know what is.
Bur war is never good, but not defending our homes and families in whatever
means necessary is worse. Would you let your home be over ran and your family
be killed because you wonder if God is going to judge you for acting as the
priest and protector of your home and family?
Andrew
joshman wrote:
> Reading these posts about hitler and forgivness and guilt
> reminded me of something I never understood.
> I was always taught in the church, and always disagreed, that if you go to
> war
> and obey your country then you're not responsible for murder.
> I think everyone is personally responsible, war or not.
> In vietnam, our soldiers murdered women and childeren and will
> be held personally responsible, even if it was indirectly like dropping
> a bomb on a village. The same goes for every war, including the gulf.
> Does god not think in those terms? I just don't see the logic.
Les Mathewson
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> <snip> drop a bomb
> indiscriminately, knowing innocents will be killed and have the "Let God sort
> them out mentality" WHen the A bomb was dropped everyone killed was not guilty
> of doing a thing but being in the wrong place in the wrong time or being of the
> wrong nation when a treaty went belly up.
Hi FAWN!
I don't know. If I read my Bible right, there are two kinds of people.
(1) People who are "guilty" and are worthy of death and (2) people who
are guilty and forgiven and who will "live even if they die."
So far as I can tell there are NO innocents. Nobody who "didn't deserve
to die." Nobody who was "just in the wrong place at the wrong time."
If anything all humans are in the wrong place at the wrong time (e.g.
Earth during the reign of sin).
I think the prohibition against murder in Deut 5:17 is there for (1) the
preservation of society and social order, yes but also (2) for the
maturing of our souls.
I used to work as a social worker on death row. Our warden did not
believe in the death penalty. It nearly drove him mad. I suppose you
might say I have the "let God sort it out mentality."
I guess you would say it is wrong to cut somebody's leg off! Is it? I
know men who do it everyday. They do it to cut out a cancer, or to
remove a limb which has gangrene. There are times, because of sin that
one must use force to stop force. The old testament is filled with
examples. I would not ever wish to take a human life. It is better to
save life then to destroy. But my point is that nobody is "innocent" on
this earth and in the end, if you die at age 15 by having a atom bomb
vaporize you, or if you die at 95. God will be the one who sorts it
out. The wise man said the miscarried fetus is better then those who
lived, as it never knew the folly of life. I'm not going to kill
myself, but I do not fear death. I am not going to take the life of my
child, but if one should die, I take comfort in knowing that "God will
sort it out."
Have there been unjust wars? Surely! Do we have an unjust God? Surely
NOT.
Peace!
Leslie
Les Mathewson
acruden wrote:
>
> Josh,
<snip>
> I am a vet served in Desert Storm, so this hits close to home for me.
Andrew,
I am a vet, I got out of the Army months before the "Storm." I say
thank you for doing what you had to do. I would not WANT to go to war,
but I tell you I felt a bit guilty that men and women who I knew were
going, and I was not.
'though I was not standing next to you in person, I was by your side in
spirit. We prayed that you would not need to be there any longer than
was absolutely necessary, and that you will would be safe.
Maybe in a perfect world, there would be no war. I am sure that if you
came across a bleeding soldier from the other side, you would have
bandaged his wounds and saved his life. Right? Of course you would
have.
Did you go to war with the intent of killing as many men as possible
because you hated them? OR did you go to stop the horrors being
inflicted on the country you were saving?
I think Jesus had the right idea, when he said "when you are angry with
your brother without cause, you are guilty of murder in the sight of
God."
Murder has to do with the heart. If you are driving home from work and
your neighbor's kid runs out in front of your car, gets hit, and dies.
You killed him, yet you are NOT guilty of murder! If you go to war (to
defend, not to aggress) you are NOT guilty of murder. Any more than
killing the man who is about to rape your wife or kidnap your children.
(Especially if you have tried other means to stop him before you kill
him.)
In war this is what happens. One side (the murdering side starts the
killing) One side (the non murdering side) says "Hey, let's solve this
without war." But when side 1 starts taking lives then side 2, "has to"
either give up, or take up arms. Sure the whole world could have
surrendered to Hitler without a shot, but I don't think that would have
been "christian" either.
Leslie
joshman
Les Mathewson wrote in message <353F303A...@sprintmail.com>...
>acruden wrote:
>>
>> Josh,
><snip>
>> I am a vet served in Desert Storm, so this hits close to home for me.
>> <snip>
>
>Andrew,
>
>I am a vet, I got out of the Army months before the "Storm." I say
>thank you for doing what you had to do. I would not WANT to go to war,
>but I tell you I felt a bit guilty that men and women who I knew were
>going, and I was not.
>
>'though I was not standing next to you in person, I was by your side in
>spirit. We prayed that you would not need to be there any longer than
>was absolutely necessary, and that you will would be safe.
>
>Maybe in a perfect world, there would be no war. I am sure that if you
>came across a bleeding soldier from the other side, you would have
>bandaged his wounds and saved his life. Right? Of course you would
>have.
>
>Did you go to war with the intent of killing as many men as possible
>because you hated them? OR did you go to stop the horrors being
>inflicted on the country you were saving?
They went to war to protect our oil interest, after flooding the media
with the 'poor innocent kuait's' and all the horrible things they were
happening. Which was true, but hardly the reason we went and killed
so many people.
Funny how pres. Bush's son obtained all offshore Saudi oil rights
a few months after the war.
acruden
Les,
I appreciate your response, although the person to whom I wrote my response
was partially written because that individual feels the need to yell LOUDLY
in this newsgroup.
When I went to the Storm, I was a fireman in the Air Force, so I did not
kill, nor was I given the chance directly. But regardless of the existence
of the chance, I went not with an attitude bent on killing anyone, but with
an attitude disagreeing with the reasons that we were there for. But I
obeyed because, as a vet yourself you know, that was what we did.
I am not one who is prone to fits of rage. If anything when I get angry I
go just the opposite direction. I become calculated and measure my actions
well because I do not wish to do anything that might hurt another person.
But war is ugly and sometimes you have to do what you have to do to defend
your home and family. That is the attitude that I hold on that. I would
sooner be found of a sin in defending my family than to find my family hurt.
Andrew
Les Mathewson wrote:
> acruden wrote:
> >
> > Josh,
> <snip>
> > I am a vet served in Desert Storm, so this hits close to home for me.
> > <snip>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I am a vet, I got out of the Army months before the "Storm." I say
> thank you for doing what you had to do. I would not WANT to go to war,
> but I tell you I felt a bit guilty that men and women who I knew were
> going, and I was not.
>
> 'though I was not standing next to you in person, I was by your side in
> spirit. We prayed that you would not need to be there any longer than
> was absolutely necessary, and that you will would be safe.
>
> Maybe in a perfect world, there would be no war. I am sure that if you
> came across a bleeding soldier from the other side, you would have
> bandaged his wounds and saved his life. Right? Of course you would
> have.
>
> Did you go to war with the intent of killing as many men as possible
> because you hated them? OR did you go to stop the horrors being
> inflicted on the country you were saving?
>
acruden
Actually Josh, you have the right idea to be skeptical of our true motives
over there. I have a friend who is the editor of a large city newspaper in
a city that I need to keep nameless to help preserve his anonimity, but his
postion makes him privy to things off the new reels that we don't get to
see. He is writing a book about all of this also.
The U.S. had a woman as an ambassador to Iraq, and I am in no way a
chauvinist, but I did learn in the military "That when in Rome, do as Romans
do". The way that woman are viewed in that part of the world is degrading,
but it exists. First they shouldn't have had a woman as an ambassador to
that part of the world.
Second, there was contract between Iraq and Kuwait for protection by the
Iraqies from the rest of the world because Kuwait didn't have an adequate
force to do the job. They were paying the Iraqies to be their force. What
is more is that Kuwait was doing it's own oil drilling, but they were doing
slant drilling into Iraq for up to 20 miles into their land. It might be
more of a distance, but I it was a long way. Kuwait quit paying thier money
that was a contract.
Suddaam went to the U.S. ambassador and explained all of this and then asked
if he invaded Kuwait, would the U.S. get involved against him? She (the
U.S. ambassador) went to the Secretary of State and made the same inquiry
and his response was, "The U.S. will not get involved in a holy war!"
Suddaam invaded, it was time for Bush to start looking at re-election, so to
the public outcry he consented and invaded.
We had no business being there.
joshman wrote:
> Les Mathewson wrote in message <353F303A...@sprintmail.com>...
> >acruden wrote:
> >>
> >> Josh,
> ><snip>
> >> I am a vet served in Desert Storm, so this hits close to home for me.
> >> <snip>
> >
> >Andrew,
> >
> >I am a vet, I got out of the Army months before the "Storm." I say
> >thank you for doing what you had to do. I would not WANT to go to war,
> >but I tell you I felt a bit guilty that men and women who I knew were
> >going, and I was not.
> >
> >'though I was not standing next to you in person, I was by your side in
> >spirit. We prayed that you would not need to be there any longer than
> >was absolutely necessary, and that you will would be safe.
> >
> >Maybe in a perfect world, there would be no war. I am sure that if you
> >came across a bleeding soldier from the other side, you would have
> >bandaged his wounds and saved his life. Right? Of course you would
> >have.
> >
> >Did you go to war with the intent of killing as many men as possible
> >because you hated them? OR did you go to stop the horrors being
> >inflicted on the country you were saving?
>
Les Mathewson
Oil rights of course we were interested in our oil rights. Do you have
any idea of how many "wars" are being waged right now in the world.
Historically, the US only gets involved in conflicts which touch out
"national interests."
Some have suggested that oil was involved in Viet Nam conflict! Sure
the press likely emphasized the "human" aspect of the war. Perhaps if
Iraq was giving us oil breaks we would not have been involved at all.
Had Saddam Hussian achieved his objective, would he have gained control
of opec or perhaps invaded yet another nation? I tell you what you can
buy all the gas you want from me for $10/gal. That's what we would be
paying now had Hussian been left unchecked!
Reality test please!!
Leslie
joshman wrote:
>
> Les Mathewson wrote in message <353F303A...@sprintmail.com>...
> >
> <snip>
Les Mathewson
acruden wrote:
>
> Suddaam invaded, it was time for Bush to start looking at re-election, so to
> the public outcry he consented and invaded.
> We had no business being there.
>
1989? Bush had just been elected in the fall of 1988. He took office
in Jan 1989, he was not even close to "running for re-election" in 1989.
In fact he do doubt lost the election because the war was over so
quickly that he could not play it up during the 1992 campaign. Had he
allowed the war to go on for a couple years and had a victory in 1991 or
so, perhaps his political gains would have been greater. I think Josh
was right when he suggested that the personal pay off for Bush was not
political, but rather financial due to his son's oil interests.
But we have done far adrift from "is it murder to kill in war."
Leslie
joshman
Les Mathewson wrote in message <35408824...@sprintmail.com>...
>Oil rights of course we were interested in our oil rights. Do you have
>any idea of how many "wars" are being waged right now in the world.
>Historically, the US only gets involved in conflicts which touch out
>"national interests."
>
>Some have suggested that oil was involved in Viet Nam conflict! Sure
>the press likely emphasized the "human" aspect of the war. Perhaps if
>Iraq was giving us oil breaks we would not have been involved at all.
>Had Saddam Hussian achieved his objective, would he have gained control
>of opec or perhaps invaded yet another nation? I tell you what you can
>buy all the gas you want from me for $10/gal. That's what we would be
>paying now had Hussian been left unchecked!
>
>Reality test please!!
Innocent human lives for 10 bucks a gallon??
Yeah, you're right, we should kill whoever we have to in order
to have cheap oil. Maybe it would force us to create alternate energy.
The oil companies have a political hold.
I'll bet you're a republican?
Gerald G. Fuller
>But we have done far adrift from "is it murder to kill in war."
>
>Leslie
According to the following definition, murder must be an unlawful killing.
While war should be unlawful, and inasmuch as the last few that the United
States has been involved in have in fact (as I see it) not been lawfully
entered, by declaration of the Congress as the Constitution allows, it is
arguable whether or not the participation of soldiers in these wars is
unlawful according to man's laws.
We need to consider, however, whether they are lawful under God's laws. I
would have to assume that barring a revelation to someone in authority that
God desires a nation to go to war, that to do so is unlawful.
Here is the definition of murder.
Random House Webster's College Dictionary 1996, p.891
murder n., v., -dered, -dering. —n. 1. the unlawful killing of a person,
esp. when done with deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the
commission of another serious crime ( first-degree murder)or with intent but
without deliberation or premeditation ( second-degree murder). 2.
something injurious, immoral, or otherwise censurable: to get away with
murder. 3. something extremely difficult or unpleasant: That exam was
murder! —v.t. 4. to kill by an act constituting murder. 5. to kill or
slaughter barbarously. 6. to spoil or mar through incompetence: The singer
murdered the aria. 7. Informal. to defeat thoroughly. —v.i. 8. to commit
murder. [1300–50; ME mo(u)rdre, murder, var. (influenced by OF murdre < Gmc)
of murthre MURTHER]
In some of our wars, the killing is definitely with premeditation, and often
in the process of committing another crime, such as wresting land of
property from those currently in possession.
I would now ask, what in the definition of war, following, would excuse
individuals from personal responsibility for their actions while engaged?
Random House Webster's College Dictionary 1996, p.1500
war n., v., warred, warring, adj. —n. 1. armed conflict between nations or
factions within a nation; warfare. 2. a state or period of active
military operations. 3. (often cap.) a particular armed conflict consisting
of a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812. 4. armed fighting as
a science or profession. 5. active hostility or contention; conflict: a war
of words. 6. aggressive competition in business: a fare war among airlines.
7. a struggle to achieve a particular goal: a war against poverty. 8.
Archaic. a battle. —v.i. 9. to make or carry on war. 10. to carry on
active hostility or feel strong opposition. —adj. 11. of, belonging to, or
resulting from war. [bef. 1150; ME; late OE werre < ONF < Gmc; cf. OHG werra
strife; akin to WAR2] —warless, adj.
Gene
Clifford Statum
Dave Fuller <crazy_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<6hfg55$6uc$1...@usenet41.supernews.com>...
> >> I think this belief is a way to make people feel better. Either you
> follow
> >> the lord or not. Murder is wrong, especially for money, oil, and
power.
> >> God is no respecter of people, especially puppets.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
time
> >than kill their *spiritual* brothers( as many HAVE done) in times of
war.
> >JWs for example have gone to jail ( not run ti Canada) rather than be
> involved
> >in killing or even doing ANYTHING that is involved with war.I knew of a
JW
> man
> >who went to jail years for his stand in WW2 and hesaid " He would obey
God
> as
> >ruler rather than men"..SOme would say war is far different than taking
a
> gun
> >and shooting someone at home, but when one thinks that when one DOES go
to
> war
> >at the nehst of someone they may be kiing their own *brothers*.I wonder
> what
> >some others think.
> >Fawn
> There are some that have studied the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill,"
and
> are convinced that it means the intentional taking of human life. I am
one.
> Dave
I believe a more correct translation of the commandment is "Thou shalt
do no murder", or shed innocent blood. If someone breaks into my home
with the intent to rob and do bodily harm, I will most likely take his life
intentionally.
--Clifford
Dave Fuller
Clifford Statum wrote in message <01bd716b$509f52e0$bed294d0@default>...
Clifford,
At one time in my life, I believed certain things. Today, I realize that I
should not have believed those things because they were not/are not in
keeping with what the Heavenly Father desires of mankind. However, Heavenly
Father allows us believe many things which lead us into disobedience to Him.
Dave