I am also enjoying this conversation immensely. Have you ever considered taking up weblogging yourself? I suspect that you would be good at it, and there’s quite a number of free services available. (Blogsome is one excellent choice - but there’s also Blogger, Tabulas, Livejournal, and Xanga if you want more options.) I’d be interesting in reading what you come up with.

I did consider your reference verse, and it did puzzle me for awhile because it seems to contradict the scriptures I quoted, and many more. But I think I found a logical answer. You might be interested to know that there is a Bedouin tradition in which those who sit in judgment over legal matters (elders, or at least those in authority, I would guess) hold a single sword while reciting the terms of their judgment after a case is heard, and referring to their holy scripture. They pass the sword amongst themselves while they are rendering judgment and whoever holds the sword is the one allowed to speak. It was used as a symbol of power and authority.

I can’t say definitively, but I personally believe that this is the kind of thing that verse is referring to. The verse is indeed referring to those in authority alone, and not just any authority, but those leaders who are “servants of God” (whether or not W is a servant of God is probably something you and I would differ on as well, but the point is still there.) It doesn’t say those doing evil will face force or be slain, maimed, or killed, but will face “inflicted WRATH” (anger) from those in authority. This single verse cannot contradict the rest of the verses of God’s Word in which we are never instructed to kill or maim as believers of the Grace Administration. Also, the Bible is an Eastern book and must be understood in light of the customs of that area. Verses surrounding your example have other examples like this, such as the heaping of coals of fire upon your enemy’s head - typically, it was an action taken by those peoples to keep them warm as they went about lighting the encampment’s hearths. They would put coals in a potshard upon their head and it would keep them warm as they walked about distributing the coals. So as you see, this verse too is instruction in benevolence.

I too believe we are to stand against evil, but the armor and sword we are given to use are elements of the spiritual fight, not the physical, and that is spelled out in Ephesians.

I will read the article you reference when I get a moment - for now I have to go to work, but I will state that I think we can agree to disagree, and I’m hopeful this is possibly the start of a mutually beneficial acquaintance.

First of all, I’m “hard on those trying to do good for the homeless” because they are spending a great deal of effort on a task (making shanties and sleeping in them) which will do nothing to benefit the homeless. If they were working in a soup kitchen or a local homeless shelter, I would laud their actions. As it currently stands, I find their claim that they are “helping the homeless” to be disingenuous - they’re helping the homeless no more than I would be helping tsunami victims in Asia by simply bemoaning the disaster over lunch. Sympathy is not action, and I am going to be hard on those who attempt to portray the former as the latter, rather than accepting that the latter is necessary.

Now, onto the issues of just war and Iraq. I’m going to stay away from the issues of WMD, simply because we can debate the merits and pitfalls of intelligence and “who knew what when” until we’re both blue in the face and never get anywhere productive. Rather, I’m going to try to focus on the religious issues you raise.

As you mention, I do indeed claim to be a Christian, and specifically a Catholic. As such, I would agree with you that revenge or retaliation is in illegitimate motive for war. If the entire debate was whether we should go to war over something Saddam had done in the past, then we would have no business in Iraq. However, the debate was over what Saddam had done, what he continued to do, and what he would do in the future. “Vengeance” is properly the domain of the Lord on the Day of Judgment, but I would argue that we are called upon to attempt to right continuing injustices in the world. Additionally, the quote I cited in my post from Romans strongly suggests that the use of force to correct injustice is not only the right of the state, but that it is one of the duties of the state.

From where I’m looking at things, the question now is: Were the results of the Iraq war beneficial in the long run? In other words, did the war remove injustice rather than create it? Time is going to tell on this one - I lean towards “yes”, but I suspect that you lean towards “no.” This is another point we could debate at endless length, but I will simply note the horrors inflicted by Saddam upon his people throughout his reign. As I write this (12/31), the horrific Asian tsunami has yet to claim half of the lives claimed by Saddam. Ending Saddam’s oppression of the Iraqis alone would be sufficient justification for this war.

It is easy enough to argue that, given this line of thinking, there are other equally unjust situations which deserve a response - many of which you listed in your post. My only response is that “resources are finite:” Each of these issues is deserving of a major commitment of economic, diplomatic, and (if ultimately necessary) military resources. However, speaking as an American, we can only do so much at once. This particularly applies to the crisis in the Sudan - with a government that has said it does not want any international intervention in the genocide there, any peacekeeping operation there will begin with an invasion. Nations around the world have been (unfortunately) reluctant to commit troops to such a venture. For one individual’s analysis of where the US stands in troop availability at the moment, I would suggest this interesting post at Winds of Change.

I doubt that we will come to agreement on this issue, but I hope that perhaps we can begin to better understand each other’s positions. Feel free to post a reply here, or to e-mail me if you desire.

At what point did Christ call down fire and brimstone on anyone? The worst he did was to overthrow the moneychangers’ tables and get rid of the lame animals that were being sold for sacrifice. Didn’t the current Roman leaders deserve fire and brimstone for their treatment of Christ’s people? I’m sure SOMEone worthy of destruction could have been found during the course of Christ’s lifetime, but the rules have changed. Violence and vengeance were part of the pre-Christ administration, but being in the Grace administration, we try to do better than simple human retaliation for wrongdoing.

You claim to be a Christian, do you remember these verses?
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” Romans 12:9 KJV

“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.” Matthew 18:21, 22 KJV

“Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” Ephesians 4:31, 32

As a Christian, you either believe God’s Word or you don’t. Please show me some New Testament instruction where it says we as believers are to kill or overthrow or anything of the like.

If you have a problem with oppression and ‘the war against terror’, surely things like the genocide in the Sudan, terrorism in Europe by the Irish, as well as Kim Jong Il who really IS working on having WMDs should concern people at least as much, if not more than, a horrible leader who posed little threat to our citizens? How many “years of bloody war” are we now “doomed” to?

I’m not a peacenik. I believe that there are times and places for war because of people being mutilated or mistreated or threatened with genocide. But I personally believe those times are a last resort, and that we are to exhaust our peaceful options first. This was not done in Saddam’s case, and it is causing many people to suffer, having no water, food, or electricity, as well as the hundreds of dead (American and Iraqi) that aren’t even allowed to be shown in the media because it is “a downer”.

It is unfortunate that you are so hard on those trying to do good for the homeless. If you have a better solution, are you “getting your hands dirty” and doing something about it, or are you just venting how someone else is doing it in a different way that you take issue with? I agree that sometimes efforts to fix things seem like a bandage on the disease, but until a better way is found and implemented, it’s the best we have. I do my part by giving food and other activities, and I think every person who goes through a soup line and gets a meal for the night is incredibly thankful. Take that (or the shelters) away from them and see how much it helps. Sure there will always be people who abuse systems such as that, but I’d rather those who really need it got the food and shelter instead of cutting it off to spite the few who don’t.

Just my 25 cents worth.