Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Same for my husband. He went to East Timor and Bouganville. Like you say Australians recognize the people who died serving their nation.
Hubby went to the dawn service for the first time as a civvie today. He seemed a little down when he mentioned there weren't many people wearing suits and medals - well we do now live in a little non-defence town after all.
However instructions on how to treat slaves were given. So once again using your logic that is condoning slavery. So still not a strawman. i may be guilty of poor phrasing I will admit.I probably didn't understand your simple point because you rambled here and there initially.
You can equally apply that line of thinking to prostitution, would Jesus have told Mary Magdalene to be happy with her wages? Highly unlikely, in fact. No.
If Jesus told the Roman soldier to be happy with his wages, he is either condoning the military job or rather neutral to it. If he was against it, you have to think of a scenario of something else he might be against. Prostitution is one, how about hired hitmen? Would he have told hired hitmen to be happy with their wages? Again, highly unlikely.
You did construct a strawman, because what you said there makes it seem like I said "because Jesus said nothing about it, therefore it must be correct" - which is absolutely not what I said. I said that Jesus told the Roman soldier to be happy with his wages, and therefore his job in Jesus' perspective was probably not immoral.
Now who is making assumptions about the other persons view? i have not made one comment on if having military is legitimate or not according to scriptures or practical as you put it here. I simply saying I do not believe your logic behind your reasons stands up to scrutiny.It's all fun and games having a dialectical battle with someone on the internet about the illegitimacy of a military, but your theories falls flat on its face when faced with the prospect of the sheer practicality of it. In other words, following your line of reasoning we'd have about 50 battalions of Chinese infantry here overnight given the chance.
You really think it is that simple????This is not just a Christian issue, but a secular one. You maybe Christian, but you live in a world filled with people of various beliefs and ideas and fortunately for you, you live in a country that possess the ability to defend itself from foreign ideology so you can practice what you want. If you want an example of a country that can't maintain military standards and see what happens to its people, religious or not, go take a look at some of the African countries.
I think all this confusion can be avoided if people knew general definitions for things:
No, war isn't about revenge necessarily. Surely you can't seriously think that can you? And even if it were, it's not as clear cut as you present it.
Most wars are started for reasons completely other than revenge. Some wars like the Rwandan genocide for e.g. started due to revenge and hate within the people, but most wars do not start for that at all.
What if a country was invaded, like Poland was by Germany in 1939, so people defending themselves is revenge is it?
I'm sorry what exactly does the sermon on the Mount have to do with two types of morality? Morality based on love and morality based on law? Oh yea, that! How could I have missed it! No...I don't know what you're on about. If this is some unorthodox theological revelation you've derived after you read the Bible, I don't want to hear about it. If it isn't, elaborate.
Germany was seeking revenge on Poland for WW1
Whatever
Are you serious? Poland didn't exist in WW1
I doubt it but I'll bear it in mind if anything occurs. Thanks for the offer.I am sure my extensive historical knowledge will enlighten you
I doubt it but I'll bear it in mind if anything occurs. Thanks for the offer.
China would never need to invade Australia they can simply defeat us economically by simply hyperinvesting capital thus buying Australia out. Already this is happening with many large tracks of farm land in Australia being bought by chinese money some of this money is linked to their government directly.China being the most unpredictable nation out of the three, regularly displays its military might and intention, if Australia did not have a military, you can be assured Indonesia and China would be at our shores given the chance. Resources and Land are invaluable, we have plenty of that and only a complete fool would not have a contingency plan and be crazy enough to think that simply having faith in God is going to stop an attack. It might do, but God gave us the power to reason and the ability to do. Faith and Action is the merit, not faith whilst doing nothing. It's up to us to defend what is ours, and if you have trouble coming to grips with this idea, go back to the old testament and revisit the ideas of territories which God ordained.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?