[BereanatHeart]

Originally Posted by Travis

Fine, I won't argue about this because we'll just appeal to sources that contradict and we won't get anywhere. Again, if it was only one person dying unjustly it would be too many.

Really? Are you saying that one life is to much a cost to liberate thousands?

[Travis]

Taken unjustly? Yes; it's murder. The ends do not justify the means. Are you a utilitarian?

[JakeW]

Travis, before I sit down and write again about the many places we disagree on this issue, I thought I could maybe ask you to explain your position to me.

Typically you DO have a well researched, and scriptural position after-all and before I open my mouth I'd like to hear it....

so... that being said.... Do you have any scriptural backing for your assumption that Governments are autonomous to each other?

In the spirit of not having to debate the question I'm asking, I mean... why doesn't the U.S. government have jurisidction? Why aren't people across man created artificial political boundaries worthy of all of my efforts to protect and help them? Why does geography dictate who we can help?

I say again, I don't mean this to flame bait you or anything, so please don't be offeneded, any tone I have is accidental. I figure you really do have some scripture to back your belief and I am genuinly curious.

Jake

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JakeW

Travis, before I sit down and write again about the many places we disagree on this issue, I thought I could maybe ask you to explain your position to me.

Typically you DO have a well researched, and scriptural position after-all and before I open my mouth I'd like to hear it....

Could you be more specific? I think I’ve made my position here fairly clear. Was there something in particular you were wondering?

Originally Posted by JakeW

so... that being said.... Do you have any scriptural backing for your assumption that Governments are autonomous to each other?

Westminster Confession of Faith XXIII Of the Civil Magistrate:

"II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: [2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; [3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. [4]" (emphasis mine)

2. Prov. 8:15-16; Romans 13:1-2, 4

3. Ps. 2:10-12; 1 Tim. 2:2; Ps. 82:3-4; 2. Sam. 23:3; 1 Pet. 2:13

4. Luke 3:14; Romans 13:4; Matt. 8:9-10

The Westminster Confession of Faith, an authoritative confession of The Church, makes it clear that the ability to wage war is an extension of the police powers of the state, for it says “for that end” they may make war, with “that end” being “to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth.” (emphasis mine). Does The US have police powers in Iraq? No, the government of Iraq has police powers in Iraq. War is an extension of the police powers to control and protect the citizens of that government’s nation—not the people of other nations.

Originally Posted by JakeW

In the spirit of not having to debate the question I'm asking, I mean... why doesn't the U.S. government have jurisidction? Why aren't people across man created artificial political boundaries worthy of all of my efforts to protect and help them? Why does geography dictate who we can help?

The very definition of the United States government precludes them from being the civil magistrate of Iraq. If they are not the civil magistrate of Iraq then they do not have the authority to wield the sword and punish evildoers there, for that is a power given to the civil magistrate only (Romans 13). The US government, not being the civil magistrate in Iraq, is disobeying Romans 13, for in Iraq our government has no more jurisdiction than any regular citizen. You ask how I know governments are autonomous. Don't you think it's obvious that not just any government can rule over any other in a "might makes right; power gives jurisdiction" fashion? Would it be morally just for another nation to invade the US since we're allowing the slaughter of babies through abortion (assuming a nation with the power to do so existed and was against abortion)?

[PontiusPirate]

VOTE EDWARDS!

ah em...Bush is a member of the "skull & bones society"...
aren't they kinda like the masons & all that? that freaks me out.

[Daniel Horney]

Originally Posted by PontiusPirate

VOTE EDWARDS!

ah em...Bush is a member of the "skull & bones society"...
aren't they kinda like the masons & all that? that freaks me out.

don't vote edwards. He is a political ladder climber and a reckless representative.

He doesn't show up for votes if "it isn't close"

He is from NC but doesnt support the issues his constituents care about.

Boo.

[FreakShiny]

Originally Posted by Ryan Akers

Also, Dean is a moron considering he claimed Job was his favorite book in the New Testament.

I'm sorry, but by supporting Democrats, most of the platform you support is against the Bible.

And once again, Dean is a moron.

Very well said, Ryan.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by Travis

Could you be more specific? I think I’ve made my position here fairly clear. Was there something in particular you were wondering?

This is perfect! Since I wasn't too clear, I have to congratulate you on guessing exactly right!

Originally Posted by Travis

Westminster Confession of Faith XXIII Of the Civil Magistrate:

"II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: [2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; [3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. [4]" (emphasis mine)

2. Prov. 8:15-16; Romans 13:1-2, 4

3. Ps. 2:10-12; 1 Tim. 2:2; Ps. 82:3-4; 2. Sam. 23:3; 1 Pet. 2:13

4. Luke 3:14; Romans 13:4; Matt. 8:9-10

The Westminster Confession of Faith, an authoritative confession of The Church, makes it clear that the ability to wage war is an extension of the police powers of the state, for it says “for that end” they may make war, with “that end” being “to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth.” (emphasis mine).

Now I see how you're interpreting this, just not why you're interpreting it in that manner.

When I read "according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth.” I don't understand why you think that doesn't mean according to the wholesome laws of [the common wealth this offical is in]. And even if you don't doesn't this enable us to make war in order to maintain the wholesome laws of other commonwealths?

It clearly states the roles of a government as far as policing it's own people, but I don't see how you're making the jump to claim that this (or those verses) indicate international affairs. I see this as explaining how a choosen official should act, but not how a governing body should act. In fact, it seems to me when applied to an entire national government it leads to lunacy.

For the sake of illustration, if we had a fully christian nation, whose piety was being destroyed by some sort of vulgar media invasion (lets say telelmundo), we would be justified in wageing war in order to "maintain piety" (with piety being defined by ourselves no less!)

You see, if you take this all the way out, our government has the right to define telemundo as un-pious ("according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth.") and if something endangering their nations piety, they have the right to wage war (“for that end” they may make war"), with “that end” being “to maintain piety, justice, and peace".

In our situation, all the government has to do is say that Iraq's current leadership, which our school children learn about, is causing them to loose faith that Christian living is the only way to go. This makes them a danger to our national piety. Poof, our country now has the right to make war on them in order to maintain our piety levels......

Since this is sillyness, it seems clear to me that "maintaining piety, justice, and peace" are directives for individual leaders, not directives governments as a whole.

Originally Posted by Travis

Does The US have police powers in Iraq? No, the government of Iraq has police powers in Iraq. War is an extension of the police powers to control and protect the citizens of that government’s nation—not the people of other nations.

I do agree that a single nation doesn't have police powers in other nations. I disagree with your definition of war (for now at least).

I think you are oversimplifying by assumeing that national government is the top of the pyramid. For instance, the City of Tulsa government has authority over me. What gives the federal government the right to move in if there is an emergency in Tulsa?!?!? The answer is that city government is not the highest authority.

Your argument seems to be saying that National government is soveriegn over all. I disagree. I feel that here in tulsa I am subject to city->county->state->federal->international->God in order of least to most.

Just because Iraq is a federal government doesn't mean that it doesn't answer to international governing, or God (I assume that God is a given of course being that we are most Christians here)

Just like my disobeying gun saftey laws brings the city police, tulsa bombing its own citizens brings the federal police, Iraq bombing its own citizens brings the international police, and a depraved humanity brings condemnation.

Originally Posted by Travis

The very definition of the United States government precludes them from being the civil magistrate of Iraq.

I agree totally, however, I think you oversimplify by assuming that the U.S. acted alone (but we've already gotten into that canof worms haven't we)

Originally Posted by Travis

If they are not the civil magistrate of Iraq then they do not have the authority to wield the sword and punish evildoers there, for that is a power given to the civil magistrate only (Romans 13).

That is a power given to a civil magestrate yes, but why do you assume that national government is the highest tier? Why doesn't international government (i.e. U.N.) hold the powers of the civil magestrate?

Originally Posted by Travis

The US government, not being the civil magistrate in Iraq, is disobeying Romans 13, for in Iraq our government has no more jurisdiction than any regular citizen. .

I would argue that the U.S. didn't act alone, that we acted unilaterally with other nations to enforce and maintain "justice and peace" as defined by the "wholesome laws of [i][b]each commonwealth" (i.e. the U.N.)

Originally Posted by Travis

You ask how I know governments are autonomous. Don't you think it's obvious that not just any government can rule over any other in a "might makes right; power gives jurisdiction" fashion? Would it be morally just for another nation to invade the US since we're allowing the slaughter of babies through abortion (assuming a nation with the power to do so existed and was against abortion)?

Morally right for them or for you? Since you are leaving it up to individual common wealths to proscribe their own laws as to what is right and wrong, I would say that they may easily have a law that says "invade countries with abortion to maintain our piety". And according to the logic above that would be a lawful reason for them to wage war on us.

It's like international moral relativism. When peace and justice are defined by the "wholesome laws of each commonwealth" then no nations have any right to declare the laws/actions of others wrong if they wrap their atrocities into 'laws'.

Jake

[BereanatHeart]

Ha ha. What do you guys think of Dean now? He lost the Iowa causcus, and in his concession speech went crazy. Whooaeeeiiiah!!!!

I don't know about you guys but as a republican I say Howard Dean for Democratic nominie.