My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

I am a 1967 graduate of The Citadel (Distinguished Military Student, member of the Economic Honor Society, Dean's List), a 1975 graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div., magna cum laude, member of the Phi Alpha Chi academic honor society); I attended the Free University of Amsterdam and completed my History of Dogma there and then received a full scholarship from the Dutch government to transfer to the sister school in Kampen, Holland. In 1979 I graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Churches of Holland (Drs. with honors in Ethics). My New Testament minor was completed with Herman Ridderbos. I am also a 2001 Ph.D. graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (Systematic Theology) in Philly with a dissertation on the "unio mystica" in the theology of Dr. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). I am a former tank commander, and instructor in the US Army Armor School at Ft. Knox, KY. I have been happily married to my childhood sweetheart and best friend, Sally, for 43 years. We have 6 children, one of whom is with the Lord, and 14 wonderful grandchildren.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Keepers of the Peace

The Berkeley, California City Council and the United States Marines

On May 15, 1993, Ronald Reagan spoke these words to the graduating class of The Citadel: “Some continue to think of the world’s best military as a laboratory for social experiments. Well, I’m here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. We are at peace today and we have that peace through strength, and you, our military, are the providers of that strength. Most importantly of all, you are not wagers of wars, but keepers of the peace.”

I can openly state that I am a better person for having graduated from “El Cid,” even though I there were times I hated what I was going through. I learned an inexplicable amount of self-discipline and the meaning of service. Upon graduation, I served my country in Armor in the United States Army. I am a better person for having served in our military and a better patriot. I am proud and thankful that I had the privilege of protecting the great and unique freedoms of America. I loved my country when I entered The Citadel and I loved it even more when I left the military. I learned essential lessons of life at both places that continue to serve me well today.

That is why it is unconscionable for me that Mayor Tom Bates and his city council in Berkeley, CA recently passed a resolution that labeled Marines operating a recruiting station in that city as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders.” To Mayor Bates’ mind, military recruiters are “sales-people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults.” Moreover, the council’s declaration requested Berkeley’s residents to “impede, passively or actively” the work of military recruiters wherever possible. To bolster their act of utmost ingratitude and near treason, the council went so far as to grant special parking privileges in front of the recruiting station to the ultra left-wing anti-war group, Code Pink. One can only gleefully imagine what would have happened if the city had granted similar privileges to Code Pink to disrupt the work of a mosque in Berkeley.

Strangely, and yet thoroughly predictably, the ACLU has remained silent, showing once again where their allegiances lie. To use a cliché, the silence is deafening. It is beyond comprehension that these elected officials would fly in the face of and be in opposition to one of the finest organizations in the United States: the Marine Corps. The Corps has been at the forefront of defending this country and the rights and privileges of its citizens. When there was a need, the Marines were there. It is an organization that, like President Reagan said, aims at keeping peace. For some today—including, apparently, the mayor and city council of Berkeley—the notion of peace is an abstraction or a one-liner on some inane bumper sticker. While Bates and his crew are out “Imagining World Peace,” the Marines are actually doing something to effectuate it, like putting themselves in harm’s way; putting their lives on the line.

It disgusts me to no end to watch the Code Pink feminists and effeminate men act like and state that they oppose the war, but support the troops. No they don’t. If they did, they would support what the troops are doing to protect their little Code Pink tushies. They would be respectful that these troops go days without showers, don’t sleep in state of the art hotels after a long, hard day of actively undermining our troops and giving moral support to our enemies, eat MREs (otherwise known as 3-lies-in-1: Meals Ready to Eat), while Bates, the ACLU, Code Pink, and the other crazies in Berkeley are having chicory salad with creamy vinaigrette and olive toast. No doubt, for a healthy snack they stop into their local trendy snack shop and grab a tofu smoothie. After all, next to the prospect of Roger Clemens having used HGH and having been injected with steroids, second hand smoke and McDonalds are our greatest national security threats.

I’m old school—shoot, at my age, I’m old everything—but I grew up in a household that hunted, held doors and chairs for women, offered women their seats on public transportation, and stood up and greeted women when they entered a room. My grandfather served in World War I. He was from a poor farmer’s family in South Carolina. He served his country in the trenches, living with the expectation that he could get gassed at any moment. Once a month, he told me, he would get pulled out of the trenches and sent to the rear. His head would be shaved, he would be de-loused, his old uniform burned, and then he would be sent back to the trenches. What he was doing was called serving his country.

My father is a former-Marine (former, not “ex-.” There’s no such thing as an “ex-“ Marine!). His parents died when he was nine. He was raised in a Baptist orphanage. In the late 1930s he joined the Marines and served three years in the Pacific theater until the end of WWII. Dad didn’t speak much about what he did in the war—neither did my grandfather—but he did tell me stories of rats crawling across his face while he tried to sleep in his foxholes and of the anguish of losing his best friend. He also insured that I understood that the real heroes in the war were buried on Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Bougainville, the Northern Solomon Islands, and a host of other places, the names of which we’ve long since forgotten, if we ever knew them in the first place.

It was that kind of rearing that prepared me to serve my country when my turn came. I have had the unspeakable privilege of knowing many military personnel in my life. They are not serving their country because they “cannot make it on the outside,” but because they are disciplined, effective leaders, love their fatherland, and are convinced that this is the greatest country in the world and that there are things in life worth fighting for and, if necessary, worth dying for. As much as Berkeley, CA would have us believe otherwise, people are still clamoring to come to the United States—in fact, many do daily, illegally. But apart from the illegal alien problem, many come willingly and go through the legal process to live in this land. They are welcomed as legal citizens. The Marines and other branches of our armed forces shed their blood for them as well.

What has Berkeley done? We all know that it was the hotbed of activism during the Vietnam War and now Bates and his merry band of ex-hippies, who barely survived Woodstock, want to resurrect another type of activism against the Marines, whom they obviously and clearly disdain. They fail to realize that you can have no better friend than the Marines and no worst enemy. But this time, it’s my concerted hope and prayer that America will stand behind the Marines—not that they need it—and let this band of dissidents in Berkeley know that their “resolution” is disgusting, despicable, and unconscionable. While our Marines are training hard to protect us and our freedoms, Berkeley is at the taxpayer’s trough gorging itself on $240,000 of U.S. taxpayer dollars and for what purpose? There is a restaurant called Chez Panisse in Berkeley that is creating gourmet organic school lunches. I am not making this up. If I’m lyin’, I’m dyin’!

Chez Panisse is one of those trendy places that charges about a $100 a plate for such culinary atrocities as comte cheese soufflé. In case you didn’t get the French connation, comte cheese soufflé loosely translated means, “tastes like it has already been eaten once.” While little Johnny—whose parents are in drug rehab—asks Mary—whose parents know Jane Fonda and actually still have their leg warmers—“What are you having for lunch today?” She answers, “Creamed anchovies and olive toast,” while a Marine in Iraq has been through a long day of combat and saw his best friend get blown away by an IED. Tonight he’ll eat SOS or a MRE.

Yep, once you think about it for a while Code Pink and Bates are correct. Who in the world would want their kids associating with anyone who would train so hard and so long just to protect our freedoms? Who would want their kids rubbing elbows with those who will do the most unnatural thing in the world: run into the face of gun fire, while Bates, Code Pink, and the olive toast crowd runs away screaming, terrified, and traumatized? Who would want their children associating with some man who doesn’t cry at the least inconvenience like not getting his creamed anchovies, but who would cry, carrying an Iraqi child that he doesn’t even know, who lost her life when a terrorist in her country murdered her and her family? Who would want to be forced to watch a Marine that lost a limb protecting our freedoms handing a toy at Christmas to a child that would otherwise have nothing?

If you’d like to drop Mayor Bates a little note, laced with some chicory salad with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast, he can be reached at mayor@ci.berkeley.ca.us. I’m sure he’d be glad to hear from you. You might add that their next step after the Marines leave Berkeley might be to ask Code Pink to protect their city for them. Or if a national or natural disaster strikes that city, you might want to remind the mayor that the U.S. military should not be allowed into the city to help in any way. After all, military personnel are known to lie and seduce minors and young adults. You can also call the mayor at 510.981.7100.

Thankfully, Berkeley is not like the rest of the United States. There is a grateful nation that salutes our men and women in uniform. There still exists a part of American society that has not fried its brains on drugs and far left-wing ideology. Some of us still study real, unrevised, politically incorrect history. And any American with a modicum of patriotism in his or her body willingly and freely says, “Thank you, Marines, on behalf of a grateful nation for all you have done and are doing for us. Semper Fi.”

28 Comments:

Blogger SolaMeanie said...

Preach it, brother! Amen!

You might also mention the probable effects of endless homosexual parades in Berkeley, San Francisco and environs. After all, elected officials that can sanction men in pink leotards and Slinky toys waving where their private parts should be (all the while walking next to children and babies in strollers) don't have much in the way of true civic mentality left.

It's too bad they don't use San Quentin's gas chamber anymore. Treason used to be a capital offense. And that's the double aggravation of it all. These clowns have probably been schooled by the ACLU just how close they can skate to treason and not cross the line.

4:29 PM  
Blogger SolaMeanie said...

And before Randy chastises me for my reference to the gas chamber, being stoned to death ala the God-authored Mosaic Law probably would have been more painful and have taken much longer. Personally, I'm partial to the electric chair.

4:31 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Randy,
You are truly the most clueless person on the planet. Go away and stay away! Go converse with Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan.

10:02 PM  
Blogger SolaMeanie said...

Randy,

"Enjoyed this war?" Talk about judging someone's motivations!

BTW, the same God who loves peace is the same God who inspired the Apostle Paul to write that the state doesn't bear the sword for nothing.

7:28 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Randy,
When Jesus says there will be wars and rumors of wars until he returns, who do you believe. You are the most pathetic interpreters of Scripture I have met in my life!
BTW, when I said go away, it wasn't a suggestion. You are now siding with the far left and Code Pink. You are the poster boy for everything that is wrong in the CRC. Even though I am weary of your cheap shots at me, I'm really incensed by your criticism of those protecting your right to act as foolishly and as irresponsibly as you do. Bye

8:50 AM  
Blogger Randy said...

Ron,

You treat me poorly AND worse yet... you insult Yahweh, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and my grandparents when you treat me so poorly.

May God's Shalom rest on you,
randy

2:49 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

May God bless the United States Marine Corps.

Sola, it's kind of interesting that you bring up the death penalty. The Supreme Court of my home state supreme court has said that ol' sparky is cruel and unusual punishment.

Now the unicameral has to act and institute a lethal injection.

Here in Michigan, the only death penalty is the federal death penalty. The state has had no death penalty since 1847.

It's sad, but there are some crimes for which the ONLY just penalty is the death penalty. I, likewise, believe that the Apostle Paul assumed as much in Romans 13!

8:26 PM  
Blogger SolaMeanie said...

I think it's high time to rein the courts in. The United States Constitution allows Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts. Perhaps its time for Nebraska to do the same thing.

Remember, their ultimate goal isn't changing the method of execution. Their ultimate goal is eliminating the death penalty period. No matter what method they come up with, it will be "cruel and unusual punishment" to these people. Odd, since the Founding Fathers had no problem with hanging or other methods. If such things were unconstitutional, wouldn't the men who actually wrote the document have had something to say about it at the time?

9:06 AM  
Blogger wordsmith said...

Whoa, Rattlesnake - You'd better heed Randy's advice. After all, *he* would never treat anyone poorly or insult them. *He* would never assume the worst about someone by judging their motivations. *He* would never be sarcastic or facetious. *He* would never cast stones. He's always loving and non-judgmental, remember?

7:49 AM  
Blogger SolaMeanie said...

I rather have to wonder why Randy keeps coming back here to throw water balloons if he's so offended by what goes on here. I never would have thought a Calvin College and Seminary grad would cotton to masochism, but he keeps coming back for more.

Is it possible that a biblical, Calvinist fellow teen short-sheeted his bed long ago at a youth snow camp?

10:29 AM  
Blogger bpr said...

>While Bates and his crew are out “Imagining World Peace,” the Marines are actually doing something to effectuate it, like putting themselves in harm’s way; putting their lives on the line.

Hmmm, so if we kill others we can achieve peace?

And before you say that someone needs to protect us from terrorists, keep in mind that half of the new testament was written by a religious terrorist who went around killing Christians until Jesus got his attention.

9:48 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Dear Burper,
Yes, that's correct. Peace is achieved by defeating those who wish to do you harm. Negotiating doesn't work. BTW, the terrorists will kill you as well, simply because you're an infidel. They wouldn't even take the time to listen to your pacifist rhetoric before they decapitate you.
It seems to me that Paul wrote something in Romans 13 about the state bearing the sword. In the OT, YHWH is called a warrior.

6:44 AM  
Blogger bpr said...

It also seems to me that anyone can love those who do good to them. But we are called to love those who hate us.

Are you saying it is possible to say to an Iraqi rebel (they are not the ones who attacked us, by the way) "I love you with the love of Christ, even though you are my enemy" and then shoot him?

Because I have heard it said that love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8:19 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Burper,
Do you insinuate that a "rebel" in Iraq is not necessarily a member of al Qaeda? That he or she is not necessarily a jihadist?
You are in your house late at night. You hear noises. You get up and find that your young daughter has been raped and murdered and you see a figure heading into your infant son's room. What is the "loving" thing to do?

8:42 AM  
Blogger bpr said...

Your analogy does not hold water.

The "loving thing" would not be to find out where the man lived and kill not only his co-conspirators but also his children, wife, aunts, uncles, and cousins, and unrelated house guests and neighbors.

According to the Washington Post, Bush admits to 30,000 civilian casualties caused by the war, and over half a million more deaths have occurred than otherwise would have happened if not for the war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html).

And that was a year and a half ago.
Seems to me that less than 10,000 innocent people were killed in 9/11. Yet here we are, responsible for a much greater number of murders not to mention the foreign militants who also have families and may not actually be in direct opposition to the USA (just because one bad apple is in your house does not mean you have the right to take a gun, go downtown, and kill all of the people you think might possible pose a threat in the future).

10:55 AM  
Blogger bpr said...

And another article on civilian casualties:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,933405,00.html

11:08 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Burper,
You're a little slow on the uptake. I'm not suggesting that you hunt down the man's relatives. That's clearly unbiblical. My question to you--which you haven't answered--is what is the loving thing to do in the scenario I provided?
Another suggestion: Stop reading the left-wing stats. I have known and know people that have been over there. Those are bogus numbers and if Bush really did say that more than 30,000 civilians died he was misquoted. It sounds like you're from Code Pink.
But in war, it really isn't the numbers, is it? How many died in the Civil War? Why at the battle of Cold Creek, over 7,000 Americans died in half-an-hour. Over 6,000 died on the beaches of Normandy. It isn't the numbers, it's the cause of the battle.

2:58 PM  
Blogger bpr said...

Civilians were not being killed by US soldiers on the beach in Normandy. Do you have any documentation to conclude that the number I provided is wrong, other than the "people you know" who have been there? What is your number? Do you think that the US military has not killed innocent civilians?

Your ad hominems aside, we are killing innocent people in our goal of ridding the world of terrorists.

Killing or disabling the man heading toward your son's room? That might be defensible. Killing several innocent people in the process? Not so much.

4:12 PM  
Blogger bpr said...

Oh, and here is a report from Fox News (do you think they are liberal too?) who places the death toll of non-insurgents even higher than the number I quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan09/0,4670,IraqiDeathToll,00.html

4:26 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Can you name any war when there has been no collateral damage (civilian casualties)? Are you insinuating that there have been more civilians killed by American actions than by Hussein? No, I have never been there, but that's hardly the point is it? If that were the case--your point is silly--then no one except those who were there could ever make an sentient statement about history. Good grief!
I also noted that you dodged the questions. Please answer them or leave.

6:12 PM  
Blogger bpr said...

>Can you name any war when there has been no collateral damage (civilian casualties)?

That wasn't the point. I was debunking your illustration of the war as a father protecting his little boy. It isn't that simple. It isn't "we kill the bad guy, no more innocents are harmed." The reality of it is "we kill the bad guy and some good guys."

>Are you insinuating that there have been more civilians killed by American actions than by Hussein?

No, are you insinuating that us killing fewer people (including innocents) than one tyrant justifies us doing it in the first place? We would have much fewer drunk-driving related deaths if we just shot all the drunk drivers out there. After all, they are the most likely repeat offenders. So do we kill those who may pose a future risk, or maybe not pose a future risk, to save others, as well as a few passing motorists that get caught in the cross-fire?

>No, I have never been there, but that's hardly the point is it?

Not at all the point. Re-read my post. I never said you should go there. I said you should cite a credible source other than "people you know that were there." One person experiencing a limited view of the conflict can hardly support your view that the media reports are exaggerated. I also provided you with a nice, right-wing media source that shows I used a conservative estimate.

>If that were the case--your point is silly--then no one except those who were there could ever make an sentient statement about history. Good grief!

You seem to get awfully excited here about a point that I never made.

>I also noted that you dodged the questions. Please answer them or leave.

I hadn't answered them because they seemed to be a rabbit trail, but since you insist:

>Do you insinuate that a "rebel" in Iraq is not necessarily a member of al Qaeda?

Never said that. Not all rebels are but that is neither here nor there. We were attacked by al-Qaeda, not Iraq. We went in to Iraq not to destroy al-Qaeda, but on faulty intel that suggested Hussein was working on bombs. Well that didn't pan out, so instead the military says, "but while we're here, lets try to kill some bad guys."

>That he or she is not necessarily a jihadist?

Not really the point. I don't believe so, but even if they were, doesn't change my argument.


>You are in your house late at night. You hear noises. You get up and find that your young daughter has been raped and murdered and you see a figure heading into your infant son's room. What is the "loving" thing to do?

I repeat my argument that disabling or even killing the man could be defensible. I don't believe in killing, but even for a person who does, it is an argument I would accept as the loving thing to do. As for me, I'd try to disable the man. The reason I ignored your analogy is because it does not match real life. Your analogy involves no collateral damage. It involves one bad guy, a victim, and a potential victim.

That is why I substituted it for my analogy, in which you end up killing several not-evil family members of the murderer to save your child. Much less defensible.

You follow two lines of thought depending on which one is convenient. Your analogy has no collateral, and this defends your point that perhaps we are engaged in a just-war. Then when we start talking about this war you admit that there is always collateral damage and I am dumb to think that there wouldn't be.

Of course there is collateral damage. That is the point! You are a pastor and are using your authority to suggest that we kill other innocent people. Surely you will deny this, but then you will keep defending a war in which you have already established the certainty of innocent deaths. Just because those who will die innocently have not been determined yet does not excuse us of our responsibility to quit firing weapons into homes in the first place.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304376,00.html)

8:23 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Burper,
Here's what I got when I followed the link you sent: "You've requested a FOXNews.com page that cannot be found."
Also, at icasualties.org there is a bar graph with combined--combined--numbers of Iraqis--civilian and Iraqi security forces. Their numbers don't match yours. They also print this caveat at the bottom of the page: "Note: Iraqi deaths based on news reports.
This is not a definitive count.
Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers recorded on this site." This doesn't mean that Americans are killing civilians wholesale. Apparently, you've read too much revisionist history.
Out of curiosity, why don't you believe in killing? Do you want us all to believe that a horrible mass murderer, rapist, or child rapist should not be killed? Have you no sense of propriety? What motivates you to make such a declaration?
What, in your mind, would constitute a "just war"? In other words, what are you clear criteria? I am interested.

7:16 AM  
Blogger bpr said...

I apologize that the death count is based off news reports and does not meet your criteria for definitive. I would quote the DOD, except they do not record civilian casualties (wonder why?) so I am forced to make due with what I have. I still believe it is better than citing someone I know who has been there (but if that is your preferred method of research, I can accommodate you; I know people there too). I never said the US military is killing civilians wholesale. But they are killing civilians. Of course it is unintentional. But they are doing it nonetheless.

I will respond to your questions from my perspective. These opinions are not meant to create a debate, as I know that many intelligent people disagree with me and can also generate a debate in their favor. These opinions are separate from the previous debate in which we have been engaging. I respectfully give you these opinions as they were asked for and you genuinely seem interested.

>Out of curiosity, why don't you believe in killing?

I do my best to imitate Christ. The wisdom of the world suggested that the woman caught in adultery be killed. Jesus let that slide. The wisdom of the world suggested that if men come to arrest your rabbi, you take a swing at their head with a sword. Jesus told his apostles to back off. The wisdom of the world suggests that when an innocent man is up for the death penalty, those who falsely accuse him are guilty of his murder. Jesus begged his father for their forgiveness.

>Do you want us all to believe that a horrible mass murderer, rapist, or child rapist should not be killed?

According to the standards of the world, of course they should be killed. According to Old Testament standards, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. A man kills, you are entitled to kill him back.

A much harder thing to do, but the example seen in Christ, is forgiveness. Saul persecutes Jesus. Jesus makes him a missionary. Over and over Jesus says "forgive, forgive, forgive."

>Have you no sense of propriety? What motivates you to make such a declaration?

I guess I just have a distaste for the propriety of the world, once again looking at Christ here. Religious order thought that Jesus shouldn't heal on the sabbath. He takes propriety and flips it around. Propriety said that a prostitute should not wash your feet with her hair and tears. It said that a holy man should not eat with tax collectors and prostitutes. What seems foolish to us is often the wisdom of God. This includes, but is not limited to, loving your enemies. You never replied to how a US soldier can look at an Iraqi, say to him "I love you with the love of Christ," and then shoot him.

>What, in your mind, would constitute a "just war"? In other words, what are you clear criteria? I am interested.

I personally think that the term "just war" is an oxymoron. I do not declare that my point is more defensible than the idea of defending jews in concentration camps in WWII. But I also think other methods than killing thousands of civilians in Japan could have been pursued.

If we are secure in our salvation, why are we killing those who have not heard? If we know that for us "to die is gain" then why do we kill those who have not had a preacher sent to them yet? To preserve our lives in this broken world that we may carry them out a little more peacefully before we die?

Those are my positions. I know you disagree with them at least on some points. I'd rather not debate them too much on this post at the risk of losing topic focus.
bpr

11:28 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Burper,
Why do you say that people should be killed "according to the standards of the world"? Do you find nothing in Scripture that justifies the state taking the life of, say, a convicted murderer?
Do you see no distinction between Jesus telling his disciples not to take personal vengeance and having soldiers wage war? Can you point me to one instance where Jesus or Paul spoke with a soldier in Scripture and told them to get out of the military?

10:05 PM  
Blogger bpr said...

>Why do you say that people should be killed "according to the standards of the world"? Do you find nothing in Scripture that justifies the state taking the life of, say, a convicted murderer?

I already pointed out that a religious extremist, Saul, became the largest single contributor to the New Testament. It would have been just as easy for God to take him out.

In the example we have in Christ, no one is being killed for their wrongdoing. Just Jesus is killed to take away the consequences of our wrongdoing.

Old Testament? Sure you can justify stuff. But you can also justify killing someone for adultery, avoiding the eating of bacon because it is unclean, etc.

We are no longer under the law. We were slaves to the law but now we are slaves to righteousness.

Jews failed to see Jesus as the Prophet because he failed to do exactly what you want to do. The Jews thought He would deliver them from an oppressive empire. They thought their Messiah would ride in on a white stallion in full armor and rid the world of the oppressive regime they were under.

They missed Him because He didn't do those things.


>Do you see no distinction between Jesus telling his disciples not to take personal vengeance and having soldiers wage war?

What if that war is based on personal vengeance? It sure isn't based on what it was supposed to be, namely disarming Iraq of missile/bomb capabilities. Oops, you mean you don't have long range missile laboratories? Well while we're here, lets go ahead and kill some people.

>Can you point me to one instance where Jesus or Paul spoke with a soldier in Scripture and told them to get out of the military?

Can you point me to one instance where Jesus or Paul spoke with a soldier and told them that killing was OK?

Just because they don't mention the military in that capacity does not make it a good idea.

In fact, one of the points I was trying to make (had you answered my question) was that you cannot be love your enemy while killing him.

And now I see that for a second time you've dodged the same question. I will ask you a third time:

Are you saying it is possible to say to an Iraqi rebel "I love you with the love of Christ, even though you are my enemy" and then shoot him?


And again my point:
I have heard it said that love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. We are to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. We are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us that we may be sons of our Father in heaven.

7:55 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Burper,
Now I understand. You are a Dispensationalist, who thinks that the OT no longer applies to Christians. How convenient that 75% of God's revelation to man no longer--to large measure--applies. Have you ever heard of covenant?
What in the world do you mean by justifying "stuff" from the OT? Did God command the death penalty for adulterers in the OT or not? That is hardly "justifying stuff." That is simply a ridiculous statement. It makes sense that in the NT excommunication replaces the death penalty because the NT is no longer a theocracy. What do you make of Matt. 5:17-21 for starters?

7:10 AM  
Blogger bpr said...

Let me point out that you have not responded to my critiques of your argument, and you didn't respond for a third time to the question I asked you.

Additionally, instead of defending your position you attack my personal beliefs, ones that I said I did not care to debate as they are not relevant to the debate that I offered, and beliefs which I respectfully gave you as you requested them (and even then I specified that I was not applying them to the debate).

>You are a Dispensationalist, who thinks that the OT no longer applies to Christians. How convenient that 75% of God's revelation to man no longer--to large measure--applies.

I love how when you respond, you do so to an argument that I never made, and quite frequently. I said that we are no longer slaves to the law, no longer subject to its consequences. Everything is permissible. But not everything is beneficial. The very passage you gave shows that Jesus came to fulfill the law. Even if we were as righteous as the pharisees we could not do so.


>Have you ever heard of covenant?
Yes, I was unfortunately brought up in the PCA tradition.

I will now bow out of this blog. I thought that with all of your credentials so ostentatiously posted at the top of your blog you could manage a civil debate on a topic. I now see why you elevate guys like Bill O'Riley who also cannot manage civil debate and hang up as soon as they hear something they don't like. Reread my posts and look at all the points I made. Then look at which points you responded to using scripture.

Most of your defenses are either "common sense" which is often counter-biblical, or else you just ignore a valid point and attack irrelevant issues that were not brought up.


The question I posed is now rephrased as a statement:

If in good conscience you can say to an Iraqi as you shoot him in the head, "I love you with the love of Christ, the same way that He loved me, a sinner, who also deserved to die," then go ahead and keep your war.

bpr

11:49 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Burper,
So you are angry that you were raised PCA? What happened? I wasn't raised PCA, but made the conscious choice to join. I really don't recall making any allusions to Bill O'Reilly, but the manner in which you couched your words it sounds as if you lean more to the left.
BTW, even though you might not like the tone, there are still men who don't talk like women. And this as well: it is your war too. You might not like it or support it, but I truly hope that you are not so naive that you think a terrorist will pass you by simply because you're glad you left the PCA.

9:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home