Comments | followinggiants: Dangerous Love

followinggiants

Dangerous Love

Apr 26, 2006 10:23

A couple of weeks ago at the soup kitchen I volunteer at once a month (it's run by a sister church of ours), there was a break in work and we were standing around talking and somehow the war in Iraq came up; now I have increasingly found it difficult to align with either Right or Left on anything, but I have been bothered by our President's view of ( Read more... )

Comments 22

h1s_songb1rd April 27 2006, 00:37:14 UTC

That's what we're doing now... loving them, and all people want us to do is leave. In your own post "it's not happening fast enough." I'm a bit skeptical of your idea about love. Did God use love on Pharoah? I suppose you could say so, but it's deifnitely not the kind of love you're speaking of. It seems to me that Saddam, from repeated experience with him insisting the's the President of Iraq with such pride, wouldn't have, and in fact didn't, respond any better than Pharoah. He took the aide and he took the charity and he used it on himself. He also wouldn't comply with agreements made in the 90's. He needed to be accountable. He wouldn't let us love his country, and now we can.

followinggiants April 27 2006, 17:27:52 UTC

I'm wondering though, if we can send troops in for black ops why can't we send covert aid to countries that don't pass through the hands of the dictators?
"He wouldn't let us love his country" What about Love endures all things? Or Love never fails?
And since when did love mean forcing yourself and way of thinking on the one you're "loving", I know my marriage wouldn't have lasted even as long as it has if that's the way my wife and I tried loving each other, and we came from similar backgrounds.

h1s_songb1rd April 27 2006, 17:42:09 UTC

Our marriage with Iraq was failing way before that. It takes two to make a marriage work and only one to mess it up. Hussein wouldn't do his part and he was the one forcing himself and his way of thinking on the Iraqi people.

So we should love Iran into not blowing up Israel? I guess sanctions are out of the question, then?

followinggiants April 27 2006, 18:56:38 UTC

So what about the scripture of the wife winning the husband over by her submission? I happen to know examples of this being followed and working. It seems that God is saying here that it just takes one to fix a marriage. And I wasn't trying to say that we are "married" to Iraq.
Did our Lord Jesus not love the soldiers when they were mocking and torturing him?
As for loving Iran, I think America should step back and ask why we are unloved and really try to rectify that...he who would have friends must himself be friendly.
And you already pointed out sanctions didn't work with Saddam, so why do we think they will work with the leaders of Iran?

Thread 6

belovedcrown April 27 2006, 13:32:19 UTC

the people of the country in question already knew they were being mistreated. They hated/feared saddam and his horrific torture. sending them aid is a beautiful idea but it in no way stops their torture by their leader against them. i think your idea is applicable in the situation where country a is fighting against country b and you want country b to back down, perhaps country a can "assault" country b with love and soften their hearts. But when country b's leaders are torturing its citizens or the citizens of another country, its a different story. It that situation, its more of a hostage scenario where a man has kidnapped a family from the mall and is threatening to blow their heads off if you don't give him money. And you are saying, ok lets give him money and love unconditionally and maybe he won't blow their heads off. its one thing to gamble with your own life (lay down your own life for your principles), its another thing to stand by and watch a 3rd party (the iraqi citizens) be slaughtered and tortured while you try to love ( ... )

followinggiants April 27 2006, 17:37:28 UTC

Turn the other cheek comes to mind...as I said in my post, I volunteer in a soup kitchen and we have the same people coming back all the time so moving your argument to that situation we should stop feeding them because they aren't stopping being drunks or druggies..."also, its a pretty safe bet that the torturers of the iraqi people have their hearts hardened to the point that while God might be able to love them out of their ways, we are not able to."
Again, "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends."

h1s_songb1rd April 27 2006, 17:57:14 UTC

You're assuming the USA is a Christian nation and the Bush is equal to Moses, Abraham, Paul or Peter. That's assuming a lot. Bush is a Christian, but the USA is hardly a Christian nation. Besides, was it love when Paul turned the peole against each other in Acts? No, it was strategy. Was Paul wrong to do that? I don't think so. I think he was smart.

belovedcrown April 27 2006, 18:07:42 UTC

So am i to believe that if you happen upon a man holding a family hostage or beating a woman in the street you are going to try to persuade him lovingly to stop instead of calling the cops? And what if that doesn't work, then what? You sacrifice the hostages and let him kill them and do nothing? Its your right and moral obligation to turn the other cheek if someone is hurting you, but if someone is abusing a 3rd party and you have the power to stop them its destructive to stand by and do nothing aggressive. You're actually in that case empowering others to sin instead of holding them accountable as brothers.

Thread 10

anonymous April 27 2006, 16:18:08 UTC

The problem I see with the first two responses to this post is that they assume that we (i.e., the American government/people) have God-given authority over the Iraqi government and people. The "hostages in the mall" illustration, for example, assumes that we are the police whom are responsible to do something. I know of no God-given authority on our part except that which we have taken (as oppossed to received) upon ourselves. Remember Moses was almost driven by God to confront Pharaoh and that was after 40 years of knowing about the problem. Forty years earlier when he tried to "take authority" it blew up in his face. The Way of Love does not always "succeed" in the way we expect or as fast as we expect it to; and we cannot abandon it merely on pragmatic grounds (i.e., because "this isn't working.").

Friar Tuck

h1s_songb1rd April 27 2006, 17:45:45 UTC

Ah, the daddy of them all. Aren't you going to get a journal, too? :)

belovedcrown April 27 2006, 18:13:06 UTC

From a judeaochristian perspective, we are all called to be our brother's keeper and to protect the least among us. I agree that we have to prayerfully and carefully survey conflicts occurring and see realistically where we stand a chance to succeed with God's cover and where it may not be feasible. But i believe we will have an accounting before God if we stood by and did nothing while people were tortured.

haikupoetess April 27 2006, 18:31:44 UTC

Going in covertly and giving them food, shelter, etc. as best we could, would not be doing nothing. And people are still being killed brutally, with our troops over there. Don't get me wrong, I support the troops in prayer. But like Forrest said, the whole idea behind it--preaching Democracy to all nations--is wrong.

Thread 6