10/25 Afternoon show - Re: voting

[jaydam]

Steve, you said that you would take into account the impact a vote might have on believers and your neighbors, and contrasted the two candidates and how they might impact believers here including future generations.

You didn't name him, but it sounds as if you are leaning towards Trump as the better vote due to the perceived freedom you believe he would continue for believers here.

I wonder what part his foreign policy plays upon your vote. He advocates a hard line towards Islamic jihadists to include torture of prisoners and even comfort with not only killing a terrorist but going ahead and taking out the terrorists entire family.

It seems this type of foreign policy is part of what moves the Islamic movement we are watching, supports their recruitment, and ends up fueling their drive which Christians have been taking the brunt of in the Middle East.

If your concern is for believers globally, and if you decide to vote for Trump, how do you get past his rhetoric which seems to add fuel to the violence we are seeing, violence which is on the verge of making the church extinct in areas of the Middle East? In other words, how do you get past the concern that more Christians may pay the price for your vote if you choose to try to help vote in a man who appears willing to stoke the fire of war by advocating extreme measures against which many humans, not just Christians, would recoil?

I was actually going to try to call in with this question, but the show ended before I got to a place I could call from.

[thrombomodulin]

jaydam,

This is a good question. I am interested in your thoughts on what the correct response is to the violence committed by Islam against others.

those who may in the future join or promote terrorist organizations, because their anger is fueled by Trumps policy of killing the family members of terrorists, hold a double standard. For the actions of the terrorists are equally deserving of condemnation as they also engage in taking the life of the inoccent in a terrorist act.

I do not know if you saw my post in another thread but I wanted to let you know I bought The Persecutor on your recommendation and very much enjoyed it

Pete

[steve7150]

Islamic violence is fueled internally and originates from it's own teachings. It has existed for almost 1,500 years before Trump and will exist long after he is gone. It's not a land issue or an Israel issue or a Trump issue , it's only an Islamic issue and they hate everyone including each other.

[jaydam]

Islamic violence is fueled internally and originates from it's own teachings. It has existed for almost 1,500 years before Trump and will exist long after he is gone. It's not a land issue or an Israel issue or a Trump issue , it's only an Islamic issue and they hate everyone including each other.

Until we (U.S. backed by its western partners) kicked off retaliatory wars the region had a stability to it which we ruined. We opened up the opportunities which allowed ISIS to almost eradicate the entire church from certain areas. Furthermore, the revelation of our torturous treatment of prisoners greatly empowered ISIS to recruit more fighters to aid them in such eradication. Treatments that Trump supports.

Certainly violence was always there, but it has been American policies which have upset the balance that kept that violence in check, and American policies which have created the environment for the greatest church persecution I have ever been alive for.

[jaydam]

jaydam,

This is a good question. I am interested in your thoughts on what the correct response is to the violence committed by Islam against others.

those who may in the future join or promote terrorist organizations, because their anger is fueled by Trumps policy of killing the family members of terrorists, hold a double standard. For the actions of the terrorists are equally deserving of condemnation as they also engage in taking the life of the inoccent in a terrorist act.

I do not know if you saw my post in another thread but I wanted to let you know I bought The Persecutor on your recommendation and very much enjoyed it

Pete

Hey, I'm glad you got the book. I have been absent from the forums as of late and I did not see your other post, but please link the thread here and I would love to read it.

I believe I know the correct state response to the Islamic problem, and I know the correct Christian response. I don't believe the two mesh, and that is part of my problem with Christians in political office, since I don't believe the Christian can necessarily act in the best interest of the state.

As for your double standard, it goes both ways, and perhaps the Islamists better see the truth of the matter before us. They recognize this war, not as a battle between combatants, but a clash of cultures. Not only a clash of cultures, but the necessity that one or the other culture must fall, there can be no peaceful coexistence. Thus, their goal is decimation and their target is the culture and all its people, so they do not see they are taking the life of innocent people.

If they do see any they kill as innocent, that is merely the cost of war. I don't know how we can speak against that when we do the same thing with our drone strikes. We weight the value of the HVT (high value target) against the known civilian casualties that will occur because the HVT is in a densely populated area, or is at a dinner party, wedding, or other function, and we do not decide if it is morally right or wrong to cause the death of these innocents. The collateral deaths are a necessary part of a "right" war, so we don't think our killing of these innocents is a sin. However, while we do not weigh the morality of it, we weight the PR aspect of it. Is the target of high enough value that we can explain it was worth it, or is the target at least of high enough value that we are willing to take the public backlash for killing numerous innocent civilians?

[dizerner]

Certainly violence was always there, but it has been American policies which have upset the balance that kept that violence in check, and American policies which have created the environment for the greatest church persecution I have ever been alive for.

Was it really in check though. Now we are forced to see the violence, yes, and we can see it is Christians. Saddam was purportedly responsible for over 250 mass graves and up to half a million victims. ISIS? Just over 1,200 casualties. Saddam and his sons were reported to do atrocities easily rivaling ISIS, yet we were not subjected to the graphic video of it. We lose perspective easily with what's more visual I think. Steve is right. "Islamic violence is fueled internally and originates from it's own teachings." You can't appease with favors an enemy that is going to hate you either way (think Hitler). I think Trump is right to say, this is a snake—whether we pet it on the head or stomp it on the head, it's always going to bite.

[thrombomodulin]

There's not much here, but this was the link:

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5531

their goal is decimation and their target is the culture and all its people, so they do not see they are taking the life of innocent people.

Your right - this kind of thinking is not subject to the criticism I made of being a double standard.

I believe I know the correct state response to the Islamic problem, and I know the correct Christian response. I don't believe the two mesh, and that is part of my problem with Christians in political office, since I don't believe the Christian can necessarily act in the best interest of the state.

I also hold the view that the two do not mesh. I do not know of any satisfactory solution to this problem.

[Homer]

Hi Jaydam,

You wrote:

I believe I know the correct state response to the Islamic problem, and I know the correct Christian response. I don't believe the two mesh, and that is part of my problem with Christians in political office, since I don't believe the Christian can necessarily act in the best interest of the state.

I have been studying through Roman's for some time. Paul wrote the following:

Romans 13 (NASB)

13. Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4. for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

First I see that God has established human government. And it is His agent as long as it is fulfilling the purpose He has established for government. The order that is kept among persons and nations, by human government, is accomplished as God's agent. And those who act criminally and harmfully, either persons or nations, are subject to punishment (ekdikos, punisher, avenger) by government as God's agent.

If the above is correct, and I believe it is, how then can we say that a Christian can not be a policeman, soldier, or government official directing same if the government is acting as God's agent and carrying out His will?

[jaydam]

Hi Jaydam,

You wrote:

I believe I know the correct state response to the Islamic problem, and I know the correct Christian response. I don't believe the two mesh, and that is part of my problem with Christians in political office, since I don't believe the Christian can necessarily act in the best interest of the state.

I have been studying through Roman's for some time. Paul wrote the following:

Romans 13 (NASB)

13. Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4. for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

First I see that God has established human government. And it is His agent as long as it is fulfilling the purpose He has established for government. The order that is kept among persons and nations, by human government, is accomplished as God's agent. And those who act criminally and harmfully, either persons or nations, are subject to punishment (ekdikos, punisher, avenger) by government as God's agent.

If the above is correct, and I believe it is, how then can we say that a Christian can not be a policeman, soldier, or government official directing same if the government is acting as God's agent and carrying out His will?

I'm out right now, but I would respond with another question:

Is an entity righteous just because God is using it as his agent, as a conduit for his will?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

13. Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4. for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil

Richard Wurmbrand, a Lutheran minister (who spent 14 years being tortured in a Communist Romanian prison) quoted this very passage. He emphasized the first part of verse 3: "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil." He said Communist authorities were just the opposite. They were a cause of fear for good behavior, but not for evil. For that reason he believed that these false authorities were NOT from God, and that it was morally right to lie to them. If you disagree with Wurmbrand's position, maybe you would reconsider if you had been tortured in a prison for 14 years.

Wurmbrand made up his mind that he would never reveal the names or whereabouts of other Christians. When the tortures got too bad, he did give the names of Christians. But they were Christians who either had died, or who had escaped the country.

It seems that Wurmbrand also secretly carried a small vial of poison on his person while he was in prison—just in case the tortures to reveal Christians' names became unbearable. In that case, he would take the poison and die, rather than reveal who his fellow brothers and sisters were; he knew such revelation would result in their coming to the prison to be tortured also.