Revolutionary War

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 12 2005, 10:48 PM']People also win the lottery, but there isn't a reasonable chance.

Poland had God on their side but still lost against the nazis, and their country was ravaged. God allows evil. Just because your side is just doesn't mean you win automatically. And just because you are evil doesn't mean you lose automatically.
Define "key values." they had life, libery and the pursuit of happiness.
[right][snapback]610132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well first Poland did not have God on there side, If They had they would have won, do I need to go get the scripture aboutthe 300 men agian. That doesn't mean that they where unjust, but It means God was not with them in battle. Evil is often used by God as ascourge agianst those who have offended him, He did it all throughout History, But God is also a Warrior God and he crushes those whom He wills. I care not to define "key values" I did not use the term, that was Modern Bishops who did so. I find the entire condition to be silly. It either is meaningless--- everyne who his Rightous has a fair chance of success-- if God fights for you you win. Or it is Heretical and denies Divine Providence. since I don't care for the second option I will cleave to the First, The condition is meaningless.

[ardillacid]

I musta missed the scripture lesson on the 300 men.

I am not a 100% sure what you mean about God always being on the winning side. If the evil side wins, it is because God allows it, not because he wills it. God allows evil, DJ.

Please do not use a confusingly vague term like "key valuse" as an integral part of your argument then refuse to clarify.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:21 PM']I musta missed the scripture lesson on the 300 men.

I am not a 100% sure what you mean about God always being on the winning side.  If the evil side wins, it is because God allows it, not because he wills it. God allows evil, DJ.

Please do not use a confusingly vague term like "key valuse" as an integral part of your argument then refuse to clarify.
[right][snapback]610173[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I didn't use it as a key part of my arguement, I said that it is traditional, anything Key to a society could be a key value--- the Jews would have had every rifght to fight whatever the odds because life is a key value, the survival of the Church is a key value and one is intitled if not obliged to fight when here urvival is in danger, the right f families to stay together is a key value, one can fight what ever the odds when a group is segragating out the men woemen and children, and so on.

I am well aware that God does not actively will evil but certianly he uses Evil men as a scourge, He uses them to punish or did you miss a scripture lesson on the Whole post Pentatuch old testement.

I'll find you the passage about gideon and the three hundred men.

[Don John of Austria]

Early the next morning Jerubbaal (that is, Gideon) encamped by Enharod with all his soldiers. The camp of Midian was in the valley north of Gibeath-hammoreh.
2
The LORD said to Gideon, "You have too many soldiers with you for me to deliver Midian into their power, lest Israel vaunt itself against me and say, 'My own power brought me the victory.'
3
Now proclaim to all the soldiers, 'If anyone is afraid or fearful, let him leave.'" When Gideon put them to this test on the mountain, twenty-two thousand of the soldiers left, but ten thousand remained.
4
The LORD said to Gideon, "There are still too many soldiers. Lead them down to the water and I will test them for you there. If I tell you that a certain man is to go with you, he must go with you. But no one is to go if I tell you he must not."
5
1 When Gideon led the soldiers down to the water, the LORD said to him, "You shall set to one side everyone who laps up the water as a dog does with its tongue; to the other, everyone who kneels down to drink."
6
Those who lapped up the water raised to their mouths by hand numbered three hundred, but all the rest of the soldiers knelt down to drink the water.
7
The LORD said to Gideon, "By means of the three hundred who lapped up the water I will save you and will deliver Midian into your power. So let all the other soldiers go home."

there

[ardillacid]

DJ-

No offence intended, but I cannot understand your line of thought. You say America's revolution was just because we won, therefore God was on our side. Right? Are you saying that anyone who wins a war was the just side? That is where you lost me.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:47 PM']DJ-

No offence intended, but I cannot understand your line of thought. You say America's revolution was just because we won, therefore God was on our side. Right? Are you saying that anyone who wins a war was the just side? That is where you lost me.
[right][snapback]610197[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No I am saying that we won so we obviously had a reasonable chance of success, now I don't believe it was a just war because we rebeled agianst a legit government without just cause.



I am certrianly not saying that who ever wins is the Just side, certianly God allows evil to win for his wn purposes, yet if God is truly with you, meaning that God desires your victory then a single man can defeat an army, and 300 men can defeat a host that numders like the sands of the beach. If You are Just then there is always a "reasonable chance" that doesn't mean you will win; God may not fight with you, But if you are truly Just then He might, and if He does then you will surly be victorious, for nothing can withstand the Hand of God. If you are rightous it is always reasonable to think that God may fight with you and so for the Rightous side there is always a reasonable chance of success. That doesn't mean that everyone who wins was Just, just that the Just always have a chance of Winning ALWAYS!

Edited June 13, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Mikhail]

It's a very interesting concept you are suggesting here. However, it has many holes in it.

For one, I've seen you say that they had no right to revolt cause they had no just cause. What would you consider just cause? I believe they had plenty of just cause, just as the many countries for the next two centuries did when they threw off the oppressing nations. Colonies were being exploited and taken advantage of by their "mother" countries. How was throwing off this yoke of oppression not just? What is the criteria for a just war?

Your argument about God being on one side or the other looks okay, but is flawed in so many ways. The example you gave was from the old testament, for one. It was a war that God sanctioned and blessed. In fact, the example you used could be used to disprove your argument. God wanted everyone to see that he was involved and so he wanted there to be an impossible to win by human standards, so everyone would see that there was divine intervention. However, in most wars, God does not intervene, especially after the coming of Christ. Remember Jesus said, "if My Kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight." He changed the old covenant and made a new one. I don't believe any war is justified by God and that God is either with one side or the other during a war.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 14 2005, 01:54 AM']It's a very interesting concept you are suggesting here. However, it has many holes in it.

For one, I've seen you say that they had no right to revolt cause they had no just cause. What would you consider just cause? I believe they had plenty of just cause, just as the many countries for the next two centuries did when they threw off the oppressing nations. Colonies were being exploited and taken advantage of by their "mother" countries. How was throwing off this yoke of oppression not just? What is the criteria for a just war?

Your argument about God being on one side or the other looks okay, but is flawed in so many ways. The example you gave was from the old testament, for one. It was a war that God sanctioned and blessed. In fact, the example you used could be used to disprove your argument. God wanted everyone to see that he was involved and so he wanted there to be an impossible to win by human standards, so everyone would see that there was divine intervention. However, in most wars, God does not intervene, especially after the coming of Christ. Remember Jesus said, "if My Kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight." He changed the old covenant and made a new one. I don't believe any war is justified by God and that God is either with one side or the other during a war.
[right][snapback]611165[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well the Church disagrees with you, the Crusades where justified by God, in factthey where commanded by Him. St. Joan was directly instructed to wage war and God was with the French which is why they won even when their chances looked far less than reasonable.
There are no holes in the arguement at all, Christ certianly did not "change the old covenant" in Fact He mad a point to say as much, He came " not to change one letter of the Law" Further the fact that it was impossible to win by human standerds is the point, if God is with you your chance is always reasonable. the Fact that the Angels didn't level Jeruselem is no arguement. That God doesn't favor one side or another in war anymore is simply not in keeping with Tradition.

[Mikhail]

No offense, but I don't really give a camel's fluffy air extraction what the "church" thinks. I'm a Christian, and that means one who follows the teachings of Christ. I thought this was for inter-faith debates.

Jesus did not change the law one bit. I don't see anywhere in the law and the prophets commanding anyone to go to war. God made special cases in the old testament where he ordered his people to go to war. However, all military operations are not expressly commanded are left up to human dispensation. Let me show you what Jesus did change, however.

38* ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39* But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40* And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41* And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42* Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43* ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44* But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45* That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46* For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47* And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the above verses from Matthew 5. I much prefer Luke, but this one better proves my point.

So Jesus [i]did[/i] change something. He quotes the old Jewish laws and changes them.

As for your so-called "holy wars", I hardly see how traveling to Jerusalem and slaughtering thousands of innocent people, including women and children, was in any way holy. I can hardly see Jesus commanding such a thing. To suggest that he would is preposterious.

When Jesus said "my servants would fight" he was refering not to the angels (which he mentioned later), but to his followers. Also Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, for those that kill by the sword, die by the sword. He said his kingdom was not of this world. Before his coming God kept his kingdom on this world, a physical temple, a physical ark of the covenant, a physical people. After the coming of Christ, his Kingdom was not of this world any longer.

Don't anyone try to say that you can love your enemy and kill them at the same time. Look up the word love and tell me if you could kill someone you love. Killing them is hardly blessing them.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 15 2005, 04:11 AM']No offense, but I don't really give a camel's fluffy air extraction what the "church" thinks. I'm a Christian, and that means one who follows the teachings of Christ. I thought this was for inter-faith debates.

Jesus did not change the law one bit. I don't see anywhere in the law and the prophets commanding anyone to go to war. God made special cases in the old testament where he ordered his people to go to war. However, all military operations are not expressly commanded are left up to human dispensation. Let me show you what Jesus did change, however.

38* ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39* But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40* And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41* And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42* Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43* ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44* But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45* That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46* For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47* And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the above verses from Matthew 5. I much prefer Luke, but this one better proves my point.

So Jesus [i]did[/i] change something. He quotes the old Jewish laws and changes them.

As for your so-called "holy wars", I hardly see how traveling to Jerusalem and slaughtering thousands of innocent people, including women and children, was in any way holy. I can hardly see Jesus commanding such a thing. To suggest that he would is preposterious.

When Jesus said "my servants would fight" he was refering not to the angels (which he mentioned later), but to his followers. Also Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, for those that kill by the sword, die by the sword. He said his kingdom was not of this world. Before his coming God kept his kingdom on this world, a physical temple, a physical ark of the covenant, a physical people. After the coming of Christ, his Kingdom was not of this world any longer.

Don't anyone try to say that you can love your enemy and kill them at the same time. Look up the word love and tell me if you could kill someone you love. Killing them is hardly blessing them.
[right][snapback]612128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You know I could respond to this, but frankly I am just to tired of going over the same things over and over and over, so I'm going to save us all a lot off time and direct you to seek out one of the multitude of threads onthis topic that are on this board.
By your own definition of Christian If you are not a Catholic you are not a Christian, there is no salvation outside of the Church, Christ Founded the Cathoic Chuch and to follow his teachings you must be a member of the Church. As that was a central portion of his teachings.

[Mikhail]

Very interesting. You claim to have all the proof but don't want to put it forth. Historically, the Catholic church wasn't called the Catholic church until many centuries after Christ. I don't remember Christ saying anywhere you have to be a member of the Catholic church to be a christian. However, that was not the topic for debate here. I thought this was for interfaith debate. I didn't think someone [color=red] [edited by Ice Princess: personal attack. Play nice!] [/color] was going to say to me that because I'm not Catholic my opinion doesn't matter and he isn't going to bother responding to my completely logical arguments. As for the other threads, I read probably 0.0000000001% of the threads here and only got in here because it seems that most people on here are clueless as far as history goes, other than their biased glossed over version of history that conveniently fits all their agendas. Remember, history is written by the victors or those who control the pen. You believe only what supports your agenda and discard all else, making logical debate impossible.

Edited June 16, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS

[ardillacid]

People, let us try to stay on topic please. We aren't arguing about Christianity here, but the Revolutionary War.

Mikhail, glad to see you on Phatmass, welcome. If you wish to debate about crusades, the inquisition, galileo, or the like, just go through the old threads and bump them to the top

Back on topic...Mikhail, please be more specific when you say the British "oppressed" the American colonies, for that is how you justify the war, no?

[Aloysius]

sorry, read the end of the other page and answered.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 15 2005, 09:42 PM']Very interesting. You claim to have all the proof but don't want to put it forth. Historically, the Catholic church wasn't called the Catholic church until many centuries after Christ. I don't remember Christ saying anywhere you have to be a member of the Catholic church to be a christian. However, that was not the topic for debate here. I thought this was for interfaith debate. I didn't think someone [color=red] [edited by Ice Princess: personal attack. Play nice!]  [/color] was going to say to me that because I'm not Catholic my opinion doesn't matter and he isn't going to bother responding to my completely logical arguments. As for the other threads, I read probably 0.0000000001% of the threads here and only got in here because it seems that most people on here are clueless as far as history goes, other than their biased glossed over version of history that conveniently fits all their agendas. Remember, history is written by the victors or those who control the pen. You believe only what supports your agenda and discard all else, making logical debate impossible.
[right][snapback]612961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


logical debates do not start out " I don't give a camels fluffy air extraction". And the Church was called Catholic in the begining of the second century A.D. our earliest extant referance was in about 110 A.D. which is right about the time Revelation was being written. The apostle John was either still alive or just dead thats pretty early, and that is what we have still in existance, it is likly that we do not havethe earliest referance to it, This is hardly many centuries after Christ.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 17 2005, 12:49 AM']People, let us try to stay on topic please. We aren't arguing about Christianity here, but the Revolutionary War.

Mikhail, glad to see you on Phatmass, welcome. If you wish to debate about crusades, the inquisition, galileo, or the like, just go through the old threads and bump them to the top

Back on topic...Mikhail, please be more specific when you say the British "oppressed" the American colonies, for that is how you justify the war, no?
[right][snapback]614134[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you can also start your own new threads if you wish. we do not require you to read through all our dusty files... the point of a phorum is learning by human interaction.