Every organized use of arms is a political solution. Almost never does one army move without the consent or the approval of their leadership. (Both national and religious leaders) Even when the use of arms springs up from the masses (Like French and Russian Revolutions) it is still politically based.
Originally Posted by: wpr
Yes. Clausewitz had this bit nailed.
How can the French, English or Italians “take back” that which they never possessed previously? Jesus does not look for mankind to enforce by force of arms.
John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Yes. Thank you for this. I was trying to think of the passage in my earlier post, but couldn't remember where it was.]
The Crusades like all wars had atrocities committed on both sides. The Europeans were particularly cruel at times. I do not approve of their actions. See John 18:36 above.
Everyone is responsible for their actions. I doubt the percent of Muslim males in the West is any higher than it is for others who participate in these actives. I was actually speaking about these items as they make their way into THEIR countries. But they do not like it where ever it may be found. Based on your argument does this mean you are for it?
Never did I say I excuse them or anyone for any action. I simply pointed out a few of the reasons they hate Westerners.
I do not defend any of their anti-Semitic actions. Actually Semitic is a misnomer. It means “Son of Shem”. Nearly the entire region is a decedent of Shem. I merely stated that no matter what the problem is, they blame Israel.
When it comes to religious beliefs I am probably more conservative than you are. Women should have long hair and not wear pants. Men should have moderately short hair. Neither should dress provocatively.
Oh, pooh.
I understand the bit about not dressing provocatively [even though I tend to enjoy it when good looking women do so. [grin1] ]. But why should women not have short hair?
I do not wear shorts in public. My shirts have sleeves. I do not drink or smoke. I try to not curse (Although this site has pushed me to the limits at times.) or take the Lord’s name in vain. We use to worship 3 times a week. As our congregation grew older we have changed it to twice a week. I think most if not all organized religion is manmade and does not serve the Lord. I do not believe in a Trinity.
Agree 100% with point about organized religion.
I'd be interested in hearing sometime about your reason for not believing in a Trinity. Or anyone else's opinion, for that matter. [Anyone else interested in starting a new thread on such a topic?] I must admit that I have trouble getting my mind around the concept. Oh, I have no doubt that God might be triune (God's God, He can be an Octagon if He wants to be). And I do believe that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all wrapped up in one "package". But not because I've reasoned my way to that conclusion, but only because I believe that is part of what I must be willing to take on faith.
The West set their colonies free not because they were kind. They did so only when they had to. It became too difficult to maintain any of these empires by force of arms.
Yep. Empire is an expensive proposition. Unless the empire is voluntarily assented to by its imperial subjects, its costs will invariably exceed its benefits. The projection of coercive power on an imperial scale is hugely expensive. Just ask Venice, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and Britain. Or Russia. Or the Ottomans. Or, for that matter, the empire of the Great Khan.
Every one of them eventually came up against the fact. The only reason the United States-as-empire continues is its domestic productive capacity. Empire is still a net drain on the American economy, just as it was for Britain long before 1953; but, like Britain for much of the century before Suez, it has had sufficient productive capacity to "cover" those costs.
The real question is whether the US economy is in a position akin to Britain in 1953 or akin to Britain in 1815. Thanks to its "winning" of the war against Napoleon, Britain's national debt c. 1815 was on the order of 225% of GDP (twice as big a burden as ours is today). Yet because it had the productive oomph of the Industrial Revolution, its economy handled that debt with relative ease. But by 1953, Britain found it could no longer do so, not if it wanted to do all the other things a modern social-democratic state wants to do, because it no longer had the productive ability to cover the net cost of empire, too.
My personal belief is that the USA today is far closer to the position of the Brits in 1953 than people realize. Despite our aging capital stock, and notwithstanding the downturn/stagnation of the last half-decade, we are still the most productive nation in human history. But we are so addicted to government-as-transfer-payment (another characteristic we share with the Britain of 1953), that a huge fraction of our economy is no longer devoted to productive activities but in simply transferring wealth from one pocket to another.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)