Does the Bible Support a Just War?

I had often wondered is it wrong for a nation to use arms to defend itself, is it wrong to use deadly force if necessary to protect your self or others? This is the question I use to ask myself and maybe you are asking yourself the same question. I have found this article in my Apologetics study Bible that I found fascinating. No I didn’t look to this source only to form my conclusion or opinion on war but it did help and it sums it up. This article is formed fully upon on what God’s word says.

While the Bible doesn’t approve of war for every cause, and while it encourages peace with all persons (Rm12:18, “If possible, on your part, live at peace with everyone.”), it nonetheless indicates that peace and justice sometimes require war (Mt 24:6, “ You are going to hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, because these things must take place, but the end is not yet.) This is made clear from many considerations. First, the Bible does not prohibit all taking of life. For instance, killing in self-defense is justified (Ex 22:2, “ If a thief is caught in the act of breaking in, and he is beaten to death, no one is guilty of bloodshed.), as is killing in capital punishment (Gn 9:6, “ Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in His image.) Government is divinely authorized to use “the sword” (Rm 13:4, “For government is God’s servant, avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong.”) , as Jesus Himself recognized (Jn 19:11, “You would have no authority over Me at all,” Jesus answered him, “If it hadn’t been given to you from above. This is they the one who handed Me over to you has the greater sin.”) . Second, under the law, God spelled out the rules of warfare for Israel (Dt20). Third, While Jesus forbade His disciples from using a sword for spiritual purposes (Mt 26:52), He urged His disciples to buy a sword if necessary for protection (Lk 22:36-38, “The he said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one. For I tell you, what is written must be fulfilled in Me; And he was counted among the outlaws. Yes , what is written about Me is coming to its fulfillment.” “Lord,” they said, “look, here are two swords.” “Enough of that! He told them.) . Forth, John the Baptist did not say that armies should be abolished and did not call for repentance from serving in the office of soldier (Lk 3:14).

The Bible commnds Christians to obey their government (Rm 13:1-7; Ti 3:1; 1 Pt 2:13-14). However, there are limitations to such obedience. When the government commands worship of idols or a king (Dn 3:6), forbids preaching the gospel (Ac 4-5), or orders the killing of children (Ex1) , then it is a believers duty to disobey. Likewise, if government engages in unjust warfare, believers may dissent. However, like Daniel 6, the three Hebrew young men, and Peter in (Ac 4-5), those who disobey government must accept the consequences meted out by the state.
Several conditions for just war are given in the Bible. First, it must be declared by one’s government (Rm 13:4). Second, it must be in defence of the innocent and/or against and evil aggressor (e.g., Gn. 14). Third, it must be fought by just means (Dt 20:19).

In addition to the above reasons for a just war policy, biblical arguments for total pacifism are flawed. For example, Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39) refers to a personal insult ( like a slap in the face), not to bodily harm. Indeed, even Jesus refused to turn His cheek when a smitten unjustly ( Jn 18:22-23). The exhortation to love our enemies does not preclude this use of force to restrain them from killing us (cp. Paul’s instigation of government intervention for his protection in Ac 23)

Article by: Norman Geisler.

A Long Time Ago.....

Its been a month or so sense my last entry. I have been busy helping my family get ready for there trip China. They are adopting a 6 month old girl which is very exciting! Please keep our family in your prayers.

P.S. I will be keeping everyone updated.

Will She Stay or Will She Go?

Despite a contract due to run until 2011, Katie Couric is expected to end her anchor job at CBS Evening News possibly as soon as the January 2009 presidential inauguration, reports the Wall Street Journal, relying on information from CBS News executives and Couric's inner circle.

The potential move comes as a result of continual low ratings for the nightly newscast, a high (estimated $15 million a year) salary for Couric and pressure at the network to slash costs and attract more viewers.

For the last week in March, Couric's broadcast was watched by an average of 5.9 million viewers – compared to 8.3 million who tuned in to NBC's Nightly News With Brian Williams and 8 million for ABC's World News With Charles Gibson.

In a statement Wednesday, a spokeswoman for the program told the Journal, "We are very proud of the CBS Evening News, particularly our political coverage, and we have no plans for any changes regarding Katie or the broadcast."

In another statement provided by another spokeswoman, Couric said, "I am working hard and having fun. My colleagues continue to impress me with their commitment to the newscast, and I am very proud of the show we put on every day."

After leaving NBC's Today show, Couric, 51, began at CBS in September 2006 amid much ballyhoo, but after an opening week of promising ratings, the numbers quickly slipped and then leveled off in distant third place behind the rivals.

Couric's only job salvation at CBS, the Journal suggests, is if the ratings suddenly surge. Another prospect for Couric, says the paper, might be as successor to 74-year-old interviewer Larry King, whose CNN contract expires next year.

I honestly don't like Couric. But neither do I like the evening news. Instead I setting down and wasting an hour of my life on distorted liberal propaganda I get my news from multiple sources online in my spare time and I tune into Fox News every once an a while. Anyways I hope she goes because I am tired of the Liberal media that distorts the news.

The American Public Gives a Big Thumbs Down to Socialized Medicine

The American people are not particularly happy with our current health care system, but happily, they're also opposed to the system of socialized medicine that Obama and Hillary and proposing.

The latest polling numbers from Rasmussen polling bear this out,

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of American adults favor a national health insurance program overseen by the Federal Government. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 39% oppose such a government-led initiative while 31% are not sure.

The survey also found that 46% believe the quality of care would decrease under a national health insurance program while 16% believe that quality would increase. Twenty percent (20%) say the quality of care would remain about the same while 18% are not sure.

At the same time, 42% believe the cost of health care would increase while 25% would expect prices to go down.

While opposing a national program overseen by the federal government, Americans support requiring companies to provide health insurance for their employees. Sixty-three percent (63%) favor such a requirement while 24% are opposed.

An earlier survey found that just 31% rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent.

Socialized medicine is to the liberals what a Flat/Fair Tax is to conservatives: an idea that strongly resonates with the base, but an idea that is also too radical for the American people.

However, the liberals' failure on socialized medicine is our opportunity. That's because conservatives do have ideas that will cover far more people, cut significantly into the costs of health care, and yet, are far less radical than socializing health care.

For example, we should give tax breaks to individuals for health care instead of companies, so that when you lose your job, you don't lose your health care. We should also allow insurance companies from all over the country to compete to sell insurance in every state. Streamlining the regulations that make bringing a new drug to market so slow and expensive would he helpful. Getting rid of the illegals coming into this country would save billions and getting the lawyers under control with tort reform would also trim the cost of defensive medicine significantly. Medical savings accounts are also an excellent idea.

Conservatives have much better ideas on health care than libs do and given how important this issue is to the American people, we need to spend a lot more time talking about those ideas.

www.rightwingnews.com

Summer Love

Some Cheesy Pick-up lines You don't want to use.

1. Baby, somebody better call God, cuz he's missing an angel!

2. Can i get your picture to prove to all my friends that angels really do exist?

3. Do you have a map? Because I keep getting lost in your eyes.

4. I would say God bless you but it looks like he already did.

5. If I received a nickel for every time I saw someone as beautiful as you I would have 5 cents.

6. If I could rearrange the alphabet, I’d put U and I together.

7. Is your father a thief? Because he stole the stars from the skies and put them in your eyes!

8. My boys over there bet that I wouldn't be able to start a conversation with the most beautiful girl in the room. Want to buy some drinks with their money?

9. You're so pretty, I forgot what my pick-up line was going to be.

10. The man of your dreams was on his way, but I beat the crap out of him so I could get to you first.

11. God must be a genius to make up a girl like you!

12. If looks could kill, you'd be on America's Most Wanted.

One In 9,223,372,036,854,775,808

When I was visiting my friends over the weekend I couldn't help but laugh at all the Brackets that everyone has plastered all over the dorm room walls. As I surveyed all the busted brackets I couldn't help to think, what are the chances of perfection in a bracket? Until I found this.

For any savvy college basketball fans with illusions of achieving perfection in their March Madness tournament brackets this year, consider this: The odds of correctly selecting every winner in the 64-team field are about on in 9 quintillion. That number doubles if the play-in game is included.

Were some mathematical zealot to fill out every possible 64-team bracket on the letter-size paper, the sheets would bury the entire surface of the globe 50 feet deep. To pull the right page from that pulp stack is about as likely as winning California's Super Lotto Jackpot three times in a row.

Of course, many games in the first round of the tournament are near locks, reducing the odds considerably. No 16 seed has ever dethroned a top seed. Still, even if the entire first round is discarded, the chance for perfection is about one in 2 billion.

It's no wonder numerous websites offer million-dollar-plus prizes to anyone who pulls off the impossible.

All Bulk, no bite

The risk of embarrassment, shame, and penalty for professional athletes secretly using human growth hormone (UGH) may be for nothing. A new study from researchers at Standford University and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center found that HGH serves to enlarge muscular size but not strength.

The analysis. Which relied on data from 44 previous studies, determined that healthy people from age 13 to 45 who took HGH gained about 5 pound but showed no marked increase in biceps or quadriceps strength. They were also more likely to develop joint pain, lose endurance, and maintain higher levels of lactate, which fatigues muscles.

The added bulk in HGH users, the study found, resulted largely from muscles retaining more fluids-a potential benefit for body builders or fitness models but of no consequence to ballplayers or cyclists. Lead researcher Hau Lui admits that the results are far from conclusive on whether the banned substance could help in hitting home runs or conquering a mountain stage. The study did not examine the effects of HGH when used in concert with anabolic steroids, a tandem some scientists believe to significantly enhance athletic performance.

For many athletes, HGH is preferred over steroids because it remains undetectable in drug tests. But it is not immune to tough policing efforts. The testimony of former athletic trainers has exposed widespread use of the substance in Major League Baseball. Former Senator George Mitchell's report, released this past December, implicated such high-profile players as Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte.

The greatest evidence against the findings of this new study is that so many finely tuned athletes believe HGH provides a competitive edge-and are willing to risk so much on that conviction. - WORLD