Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
 photo jesuslamb.jpgA forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
Add Reply
Should the U.S. get out of the Middle East?
Topic Started: Apr 20 2008, 09:31 PM (202 Views)
lightninboy

Free Grace Churches Forums archive:

QUOTE=lightninboy
Should the U.S. get out of the Middle East?

Even if the U.S. is doing some good in the Middle East now, don't you think that eventually the U.S. will get out of the Middle East and things there will go right back to the way they were before?

If so, why not get out of the Middle East as soon as possible?

Wouldn't there be more bipartisan support for defending our shores from home than for fighting terrorism abroad?

Why fight terrorism abroad and anti-war sentiment at home when we can keep all our troops at home and if terrorism strikes the U.S. again we can tell the Democrats "Well, you got what you wanted"?

And if we had all our troops at home we could stop illegal immigration better.

QUOTE=lightninboy
Should the U.S.A. even have much of a military?

Psalm 20:7
King James Bible
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.

Matthew 5:39
King James Bible
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Luke 6:29
King James Bible
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

Horses were very rare among the Hebrews in the early ages. The patriarchs had none; and after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, God expressly forbade their ruler to procure them : " He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses : forasmuch as the Lord hath said, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way," Deut. xvii, 16. As horses appear to have been generally furnished by Egypt, God prohibits these, 1. Lest there should be such commerce with Egypt as might lead to idolatry. 2. Lest the people might depend on a well appointed cavalry, as a means of security, and so cease from trusting in the promised aid and protection of Jehovah. 3. That they might not be tempted to extend their dominion by means of cavalry, and so get scattered among the surrounding idolatrous nations, and thus cease in process of time, to be that distinct and separate people which God intended they should be, and without which the prophecies relative to the Messiah could not be known to have their due and full accomplishment. In the time of the Judges we find horses and war chariots among the Canaanites, but still the Israelites had none; and hence they were generally too timid to venture down into the plains, confining their conquests to the mountainous parts of the country. In the reign of Saul, it would appear, that horse breeding had not yet been introduced into Arabia; for, in a war with some of the Arabian nations, the Israelites got plunder in camels, sheep, and asses, but no horses. David's enemies brought against him a strong force of cavalry into the field, and in the book of Psalms the horse commonly appears only on the side of the enemies of the people of God; and so entirely unaccustomed to the management of this animal had the Israelites still continued, that, after a battle, in which they took a considerable body of cavalry prisoners, 2 Sam. viii, 4, David caused most of the horses to be cut down, because he did not know what use to make of them. Solomon was the first who established a cavalry force. Under these circumstances, it is not wonderful that the Mosaic law should take no notice of an animal which we hold in such high estimation. To Moses, educated as he was in Egypt, and, with his people, at last chased out by Pharaoh's cavalry, the use of the horse for war and for traveling was well known ; but as it was his object to establish a nation of husbandmen, and not of soldiers for the conquest of foreign lands, and as Palestine, from its situation, required not the defense of cavalry, he might very well decline introducing among his people the yet unusual art of horse breeding. Solomon, having married a daughter of Pharaoh, procured a breed of horses from Egypt ; and so greatly did he multiply them, that he had four hundred stables, forty thousand stalls, and twelve thousand horsemen, 1 Kings iv, 26 ; 2 Chron. ix, 25. It seems that the Egyptian horses were in high repute, and were much used in war. When the Israelites wore disposed to place too implicit confidence in the assistance of cavalry, the prophet remonstrated in these terms: "The Egyptians are men, and not God ; and their horses are flesh, not spirit," Isaiah xxxi, 3.
A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: Explanatory of the History
By Richard Watson and Nathan Bangs
Published 1832
Pub. by B. Waugh and T. Mason, for the Methodist Episcopal church

In many respects, Dr. Falwell's legacy is forever linked to Ronald Reagan. I believe it is safe to say that, in may ways, Jerry Falwell made Ronald Reagan who he was and Ronald Reagan made Jerry Falwell who he was. They were inseparable friends, which is a credit to both men.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin370.htm

I keep hearing how Jerry Falwell was instrumental in electing my dad, Ronald Reagan. My reaction to that was that it was nobody but Ronald Reagan himself and a lot of people like Jerry Falwell who were instrumental in his election victories.
Sure, the Rev. Falwell’s support was more than helpful, but his role in that election is not why he should be remembered. It makes light of his real accomplishments.
Michael Reagan
http://caglecartoons.com/column.asp?...4C92EB3FDED%7D

Like many of his denomination, he railed against premarital sex, adultery and drinking — and in 1965, just a few weeks after Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, Falwell delivered a sermon that urged against any formal mixture of politics and faith: "Believing the Bible as I do, I would find it impossible to stop preaching the pure saving gospel of Jesus Christ and begin doing anything else — including the fighting of communism, or participating in the civil rights reform.... Preachers are not called to be politicians, but to be soul winners."
But Falwell's views on that would change. By the mid-1970s, he was big enough to lure the attention of Jimmy Carter, who was openly courting faith- minded voters in his own campaign for president. But Falwell cooled on Carter and within a year or two of his election turned hostile. In 1979, he started the Moral Majority, partly at the urging of two Republican political consultants. In 1980, Falwell moved the organization behind Ronald Reagan, buying anti-Carter ads on tiny radio stations across the South and Midwest.
That November, he recalled later, he sat in his pickup truck listening to the returns on the radio and claimed to be stunned by the breadth and depth of the landslide. The next morning, when he appeared at a rally at Liberty, the band played "Hail to the Chief."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...621300,00.html

The Christian right managed, through the rebirth of George Bush, to gain a good measure of influence over the most powerful nation on this earth. The Christian right believes that only the apocalypse will purify the souls of the heretics, and the United States will be the instrument to bring forth God’s wrath. The great resources, the military might, of the United States is part of the divine plan to bring the Apocalypse upon us.
Jerry Falwell has made the truth about the administration's desperate attempts to go to war with Iraq frighteningly clear. Falwell has said publicly he believes Mohammad the Prophet was evil. Falwell said that Mohammad was a terrorist. That is why he and the Christian fundamentalists support Israel in their battle against the Palestinians. Because the battle Israel is fighting against the Moslem Palestinians is to reclaim the lands of biblical Israel. Evangelicals believe the lands of ancient Israel must be reunited in order to fulfill the biblical prophesy of Christ’s return to earth.
That is why George Bush makes no effort to stop Ariel Sharon’s furious attempt to drive the Palestinians from the occupied territories. Sharon will restore the ancient Hebrew Kingdom, including Judea and Samaria, provinces which make up the modern-day West Bank. George Bush makes no effort to protect the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat because the Evangelicals tell him not to.
When President Bush told the Israelis to withdraw their tanks and troops from the occupied territories last April, Falwell sent him a letter of protest. Falwell had his followers send one hundred thousand emails to President Bush to support his demand. Israel did not withdraw its tanks and troops and George Bush stopped calling. George Bush has given Ariel Sharon a free hand since.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/strong1.html

President Reagan ran and won the presidency on conservative ideas of a strong military, law and order and something that has been forgotten in America, stopping wasteful government spending.
http://mhutch.blogspot.com/2008/01/g...selves-to.html

Internationally, Reagan demonstrated a fierce opposition to the spread of communism throughout the world and a strong distrust of the Soviet Union, which in 1983 he labeled an "evil empire." He championed a rearmed and strong military and was especially supportive of the MX missile system and the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") program.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...ressketch.html

June 20, 1985
Mr. Falwell, the leader of Moral Majority, is a celebrity of long standing. Mr. Lange became a celebrity when he closed New Zealand ports to United States ships carrying nuclear weapons earlier this year. At the Oxford Union Debating Society Mr. Lange upholds the motion ''Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible'' while Mr. Falwell opposes it. Student debaters join in, although the main event is the clash of two titans.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A963948260

Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, argued that Israel's capture of Jerusalem's Old City had set the stage for nuclear Armageddon, and he confidently predicted the ultimate holocaust by 1982. Growing ever more excited with the beginning of that auspicious year, Robertson opined that the world would be "in flames" by its end. In May, he broadcast: "I guarantee you by the fall of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world" (p. 148).
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson began to suggest that nuclear war might not be inevitable, and Ronald Reagan made his peace with the Russians and signed agreements for nuclear disarmament.
http://jspc.library.wisc.edu/issues/...okreviews.html

This year Brother Andrew co-authored with colleague Al Janssen Secret Believers (Revell Books), a narrative following several Muslim-background believers.
Ultimately, the two authors want Western Christians to overcome their fear of Islam. They write, "We cannot win the war on terror with guns and bombs because everyone we kill is replaced by dozens more who seek revenge." Or, as Brother Andrew would say, the best way to stop a terrorist from shooting you is to go up and hug him.
Janssen said such statements are meant to remind Christians of their calling to deal with the heart. "We believe that if millions of Christians would respond to Muslims with the love of Christ, that would do far more to remove the threat of terror than our military activities."
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13572

We didn’t win the Cold War only because of military superiority. In the end, the Soviet Union collapsed because even the Communists lost faith in Communism.
http://www.conservativebookservice.c...th=7&year=2007

Is it God’s will for the USA to have a strong military and be a world superpower?
Is it God’s will for the USA to have a strong military to protect the preaching of the gospel?
Is it God’s will for the USA to have a strong military to protect Israel if necessary?
Should the United States be a rather pacifistic nation and trust God for protection?
What if the United States doesn’t trust God for protection?
What if the United States gets attacked and overrun?
Should the United States be willing to be a martyr nation or pay the price for not trusting God for protection?
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lightninboy

Free Grace Churches Forums archive:

QUOTE=lightninboy
Falwell’s Folly
by Laurence M. Vance

The problem with Falwell’s article is not with these observations that anyone who read the Bible and watched the nightly news already knew. The problem with the article is the numerous distortions of Scripture and the truth that occur in it.

Falwell’s first distortion is the inappropriate use of that portion of Scripture that prefaces his article: "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born . . . , a time of war." This implies that the present war in Iraq is just because, after all, there is "a time of war." If the United States was invaded then it would certainly be "a time of war." But it would be a morally justifiable defensive war against an aggressor. The war in Iraq is neither defensive nor against an aggressor.

Falwell’s second distortion is the title of his article itself: "God is pro-war."

Falwell’s third distortion: "God even gives counsel to be wise in war. Proverbs 20:18: 'Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war.'"

Falwell’s fourth distortion: "It is apparent that our God-authored freedoms must be defended.

Falwell’s fifth distortion: "President Bush declared war in Iraq to defend innocent people. This is a worthy pursuit. In fact, Proverbs 21:15 tells us: 'It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.'" Well, first of all, according to that archaic, neglected document in Washington known as the Constitution, the power to declare war belongs exclusively to Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8, Par. 11).

Falwell’s sixth distortion: "One of the primary purposes of the church is to stop the spread of evil, even at the cost of human lives. If we do not stop the spread of evil, many innocent lives will be lost and the kingdom of God suffers." I thought one of the primary purposes of the church was to preach the gospel? I thought one of the primary purposes of the church was to teach converts? There is no mention anywhere in the New Testament of the church being commanded to stop the spread of evil. Only God himself can stop the spread of evil. The Apostle Paul preached the gospel and taught converts (Acts 14:21), he didn’t waste five minutes trying to stop the spread of something as nebulous as evil. And then there is the "cost of human lives." Should the church practice evil to stop evil? Does the end justify the means? Falwell apparently thinks it does, even though the Apostle Paul said it was slanderously reported that he was saying: "Let us do evil, that good may come?" (Romans 3:8 ).

Falwell’s seventh distortion: "Some reading this column will surely ask, ‘Doesn’t the sixth commandment say, "Thou shalt not kill?"’ Actually, no; it says: ‘Thou shalt not commit murder.’ There is a difference between killing and murdering. In fact, many times God commanded capital punishment for those who break the law." Falwell is exactly right, there is a difference between killing and murdering. The question then is this: Is dropping bombs on countries thousands of miles away for dubious reasons killing or murdering? I think the answer is quite obvious.
Laurence M. Vance is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. Visit his website.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance6.html

QUOTE=Erin
Falwell held to loss of salvation, too

And did you know Jerry Falwell also held that eternal life can be lost if one failed to persevere in good works?

QUOTE=lightninboy
Well, Jerry Falwell was a Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists tend to be rather Calvinistic unless they are like Charles Stanley. Jerry Falwell was a Dispensationalist. I wouldn't be too surprised if Jerry Falwell held to some form of Lordship Salvation.

http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/?p=205
http://www.founders.org/blog/2007/04...claration.html
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1936
http://philgons.com/2007/05/was-jerry-falwell-reformed/

Have you got proof that Jerry Falwell held that eternal life can be lost if one failed to persevere in good works?

QUOTE=Erin
Falwell and Eternal Security

I may have worded that wrong, Von. I was asking if Falwell held to eternal security? After doing some research from sites such as his http://home.trbc.org/index.cfm?PID=9060

It appears that they do affirm eternal security.

QUOTE=lightninboy
"We affirm that each person can be saved only through the work of Jesus Christ, through repentance of sin and by faith alone in Him as Savior. The believer is declared righteous, born again by the Holy Spirit, turned from sin, and assured of heaven.We affirm that the Holy Spirit indwells all who are born again, conforming them to the likeness of Jesus Christ. This is a process completed only in Heaven. Every believer is responsible to live in obedience to the Word of God in separation from sin."

It sounds rather Free Grace, except maybe the part about repentance of sin.

"We affirm that the return of Christ for all believers is imminent. It will be followed by seven years of great tribulation, and then the coming of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom for a thousand years. The unsaved will then be raised and judged according to their works and separated forever from God in hell. The saved, having been raised, will live forever in heaven in fellowship with God."

I question that a church should be officially Pre-Trib, although I have no objection to a church being officially Pre-Mil.

QUOTE=lightninboy
Those who cling to the untrue doctrine that violence never settles anything would be advised to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.

-Robert A. Heinlein
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Grace Town Square · Next Topic »
Add Reply


View My Stats Msn bot last visit powered by  Bots Visit Yahoo bot last visit powered by  Bots Visit