Yes, it is telling that the US suppressed discussion of a definition of terrorism in the UN as there was no definition that anyone could come up with that would distinguish clearly between the actions of their perceived enemies and their (our) own choices.
Do you really think that subversion is feasible? After all, Bin Laden was a US ally in the 80's. Bin Laden has been trained in US thought and tactics, which is why he is soo elusive. I don't see subversion as a key element on the war against terror. In terms of what the Israelis have done, take out the Alpha and let the rest of the pack squabble for command. Once the dust settles, repeat the process. Worked successfully against a suicide squad when they took out Rantisi. I forget who they took out before him.
I imagine I will sound excessively violent, but I don't think there is much dialogue to be had with people of this sort. From their own pronouncements, nothing short of western submission to Sharia law will placate them.
God has given nations "the sword" to defend national sovereignty and to maintain peace within the state. Terrorists (or whatever word you choose) threaten both.
Where do you get that from, Craig? Why are national boundaries sacrosanct? What about the kingdom of Scotland, formerly a sovereign nation within Britain? Would you advocate use of the sword in defending Scottish sovereignty?
The point is really that a terrorist and a freedom fighter are possibly the same depending on your view of their cause...
"To defend national sovereignty"? Where do you get that from, Craig?
Good question! It seems to me implicit in Romans 13. Maintaining peace within the borders of the state must necessarily involve defending those borders.
Or put it another way - anyone violating the state's sovereignty is defying the authority of the (God appointed) ruler of said state. Hence they are a "wrong-doer", and subject to the rulers sword.
For these reasons I believe that both police officer and soldier are honourable professions that a Christian may participate in. Indeed, my middle child wants to join the army and I have encouraged him.
Regarding Scotland, I would say that since the 1707 Act of Union (passed by both the English and Scotish parliaments), Scotland and England (and Wales) have constituted one state.
Hence Joe McBlogs who refuses to pay taxes to Number 10 is not a freedom fighter, he is a criminal.
Would you have supported the Royalists in the English Civil War on the basis of the divine right of kings?
Dear me, these are hard questions Michael!
I have more theological sympathy with Cromwell, I think he was a pretty well meaning bloke. But, in good conscience, I dont think I could have taken up arms against the sovereign of the day.
But I find the whole issue a very very difficult one. What does the Christian do in Nazi Germany? At the moment, I think I would have hidden Jews (like Ten Boom), but not attempted to assassinate Hitler (like Boenhoffer).
But dont think I believe these are easy issues. Still, we need to make a decision and stride forward boldly...
Sure, but we get back to the fact that civil obedience is required of Christians.
I guess Nero was reigning about the time that Paul wrote Romans. Nero was a pretty despicable character, but Paul still has no problems calling on the Roman Christians to obedience.
We've wandered from my original point, though, which was that it is biblically legitimate for a state to use force to defend itself. Perhaps we can define "state" as that domain which comes under a "ruler"...
yes, but a biblical understanding also sees states as possibly temporary things - ie they are not immutable or unalterable sources of power. You need to balance Rom 13 with a good solid dose of Revelation's critique of beastly/human political power...
17 comments:
Yeah, read and enjoyed it. Looks like a fascinating book, and one I may pick up.
More profound comments will follow when a bit of caffeine kicks in...
To catch a fox you have to think like a fox (Red Dawn). Nice article. Have a nice day.
But perhaps you could subvert the whole fox paradigm?
:-)
Yes, it is telling that the US suppressed discussion of a definition of terrorism in the UN as there was no definition that anyone could come up with that would distinguish clearly between the actions of their perceived enemies and their (our) own choices.
Do you really think that subversion is feasible? After all, Bin Laden was a US ally in the 80's. Bin Laden has been trained in US thought and tactics, which is why he is soo elusive. I don't see subversion as a key element on the war against terror. In terms of what the Israelis have done, take out the Alpha and let the rest of the pack squabble for command. Once the dust settles, repeat the process. Worked successfully against a suicide squad when they took out Rantisi. I forget who they took out before him.
when you say "take out", you're not talking about going to the movies, right?
No, I'm talking about extrajudicial killings.
I imagine I will sound excessively violent, but I don't think there is much dialogue to be had with people of this sort. From their own pronouncements, nothing short of western submission to Sharia law will placate them.
God has given nations "the sword" to defend national sovereignty and to maintain peace within the state. Terrorists (or whatever word you choose) threaten both.
"To defend national sovereignty"?
Where do you get that from, Craig? Why are national boundaries sacrosanct? What about the kingdom of Scotland, formerly a sovereign nation within Britain? Would you advocate use of the sword in defending Scottish sovereignty?
The point is really that a terrorist and a freedom fighter are possibly the same depending on your view of their cause...
"To defend national sovereignty"? Where do you get that from, Craig?
Good question! It seems to me implicit in Romans 13. Maintaining peace within the borders of the state must necessarily involve defending those borders.
Or put it another way - anyone violating the state's sovereignty is defying the authority of the (God appointed) ruler of said state. Hence they are a "wrong-doer", and subject to the rulers sword.
For these reasons I believe that both police officer and soldier are honourable professions that a Christian may participate in. Indeed, my middle child wants to join the army and I have encouraged him.
(to be cont)
Regarding Scotland, I would say that since the 1707 Act of Union (passed by both the English and Scotish parliaments), Scotland and England (and Wales) have constituted one state.
Hence Joe McBlogs who refuses to pay taxes to Number 10 is not a freedom fighter, he is a criminal.
Perhaps better examples: Basque sovereignty? The Kurdish "nation"? Serbia?
Modern Israel?
The idea of a "nation" in the modern sense is very recent. In the bible it means more like "people-group" than "sovereign state".
Would you have supported the Royalists in the English Civil War on the basis of the divine right of kings?
Would you have supported the Royalists in the English Civil War on the basis of the divine right of kings?
Dear me, these are hard questions Michael!
I have more theological sympathy with Cromwell, I think he was a pretty well meaning bloke. But, in good conscience, I dont think I could have taken up arms against the sovereign of the day.
But I find the whole issue a very very difficult one. What does the Christian do in Nazi Germany? At the moment, I think I would have hidden Jews (like Ten Boom), but not attempted to assassinate Hitler (like Boenhoffer).
But dont think I believe these are easy issues. Still, we need to make a decision and stride forward boldly...
I guess the examples are meant to force a re-think of the theory of sovereign state-hood...
Sure, but we get back to the fact that civil obedience is required of Christians.
I guess Nero was reigning about the time that Paul wrote Romans. Nero was a pretty despicable character, but Paul still has no problems calling on the Roman Christians to obedience.
We've wandered from my original point, though, which was that it is biblically legitimate for a state to use force to defend itself. Perhaps we can define "state" as that domain which comes under a "ruler"...
yes, but a biblical understanding also sees states as possibly temporary things - ie they are not immutable or unalterable sources of power. You need to balance Rom 13 with a good solid dose of Revelation's critique of beastly/human political power...
Well, I'm certainly in agreement with that...
Post a Comment