What do you guys think of Putin's moves this week?

[All4Christ]

Well, there is no "saved" in the Protestant sense of gaining salvation and being unable to lose it, or "damned" in the Calvinist sense of being pre-destined for damnation and unable to find salvation.

Agreed. Saved, being saved, God willing, will be saved. That's the difficult part of trying to convey the meaning of Christian, salvation, etc etc.

 

[buzuxi02]

Trump is a cultural Christian just like the Clintons and Bush's before him. Obama is a cultural Christian having become one through his wife, but is also a non-practising cultural muslim. It's really irrelevant as there are no real Christian leaders in any country except for Putin. Real Christians are simply unelectable.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Trump is a cultural Christian just like the Clintons and Bush's before him. Obama is a cultural Christian having become one through his wife, but is also a non-practising cultural muslim. It's really irrelevant as there are no real Christian leaders in any country except for Putin. Real Christians are simply unelectable.

George W. Bush is a serious Christian.

I don't really see how Obama is a cultural Muslim. Does celebrate Islamic holidays? I doubt it.

 

[buzuxi02]

George W. Bush is a serious Christian.

I don't really see how Obama is a cultural Muslim. Does celebrate Islamic holidays? I doubt it.

He did celebrate them at one time and thinks highly of percieved Muslim contributions and once claimed Islam was his faith in an interview with George Stephanopoulos. In which the host interupted him and said something like don't you mean "Christian faith". Obama was like oh yeah (Freudian slip). Point being is he may have a hawaiian birth certificate but we won't find a baptismal certificate. As far as I'm concerned Jimmy Carter and Reagan were the last real christians. And it still doesn't guarantee that it would make them good presidents. Trump is a nominal cultural Christian like many western leaders. I believe in his book with Kiyosake, Trump did make mention he has faith in God and that it's important but he probably isn't the kind to observe 'turn the other cheek'

 

[tapi]

The thing about NATO being in "Russia's backyard" is that the countries annexed by the Soviet Union during WW2/The Cold War, that is, Estonia, Poland, Lithuenia and Latvia, do NOT want to have it happen again. They don't want to have anything to do at all with Russia's "federation". Mind you, Russia has never admitted to annexing them but still holds that the Soviet Union "liberated" them. And that these countries willingly chose to be part of the Soviet Union. Well I think we all know the truth about this.

Since Russia cannot be trusted in the slightest and these countries do not have much of an army of their own to speak of, at least compared to Russia, they joined NATO to have some kind of security against Russian imperialism. It's honestly mind boggling that some people here would deny them the right to back up their independence in the face of a bully neighbor who cannot be trusted.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There is less openness to the Left because they openly fight for abortion, which is a nice word for infanticide. They fight for sodomy, income redistribution, and generally immoral sexual anything....There is nothing unChristian about their views on the environment, defense, regulation, etc.

Republicans come with PLENTY of baggage. They hate unions and make things harder in that regard with our standard of living, are often very apathetic with the environment, can be hawkish at times, and they tend to have policies favoring the upper class. But in the end, they are more traditionalists morally and care more about preservation of Judeo-Christian values despite hypocrisy elsewhere. Democrats tend to have far more atheism, secular humanism, and agnosticism with morality at best. They're far from Christian. You can't be a Christian and be ok with infant slaughter and encouraging sodomy.

Neither choice is truly Christian, but one moreso than the other I'd say.

I agree, but why does this non-judgmental attitude only seem to apply to Republican leaders? Not a lot of mercy for anyone on the left.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The thing about NATO being in "Russia's backyard" is that the countries annexed by the Soviet Union during WW2/The Cold War, that is, Estonia, Poland, Lithuenia and Latvia, do NOT want to have it happen again. They don't want to have anything to do at all with Russia's "federation". Mind you, Russia has never admitted to annexing them but still holds that the Soviet Union "liberated" them. And that these countries willingly chose to be part of the Soviet Union. Well I think we all know the truth about this.

Since Russia cannot be trusted in the slightest and these countries do not have much of an army of their own to speak of, at least compared to Russia, they joined NATO to have some kind of security against Russian imperialism. It's honestly mind boggling that some people here would deny them the right to back up their independence in the face of a bully neighbor who cannot be trusted.

Considering NATO's project against Assad (which obviously has zero to do with self-defense), and thus being supporter of the Saudi-Israeli axis in the Middle East, a lot of us understandably see it as an enemy of Orthodox Christians. You might also understand why a lot of us don't feel great sympathy for Ukrainian separatists, since they are strongly associated with the Ukrainian schismatics, who try to force Orthodox Ukrainians under their heel, even outside of the Ukraine (which another thread is up about), engaging in the same imperialism they protest, except bringing it into the Body of Christ. There is also a decent suspicion that Euromaidan, like Arab Spring, was pushed by foreign interests, which really complicates matters.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the situation is EXTREMELY complicated, and I think you make some excellent points (as usual), Tapi!

I think we Orthodox tend to have a bit of "Orthodox Lives Matter" thinking. We want to protect our own. We see the Muslim rebels opposed to Assad persecuting Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians (mostly Orthodox), and we caucus with a dictator. Why? Not because he's a great dude, but because he's the least among evils from the angle of protecting our own. Same with Putin I think. People in TAW adore the guy. I'm cautiously optimistic with him often times, but do I trust him as much as many in here? No way. He still has state-run television, a lot of assassinations obviously were tied to him, he pushed his luck in Ukraine, and he's quite a tough guy provocateur at times. I love the way he has patronized the Russian Church, I love his stance on the LGBT evils, I like his love for the hierarchs and traditions of the Church, and I often can see his point in his feelings toward the U.S. despite being American myself. But I think a lot of what he does is political and expedient and he uses the Church to some degree for himself (I think).

I agree largely with what you say. Those former Soviet Eastern bloc countries were bullied and vassals of a mighty red menace. They don't want to be vassals again. But I can also appreciate Russia not liking nukes in their backyards! I think NATO causes a lot of mischief as does Putin. We're all just caught somewhere between. It's not always black and white, sort of greyish.

The thing about NATO being in "Russia's backyard" is that the countries annexed by the Soviet Union during WW2/The Cold War, that is, Estonia, Poland, Lithuenia and Latvia, do NOT want to have it happen again. They don't want to have anything to do at all with Russia's "federation". Mind you, Russia has never admitted to annexing them but still holds that the Soviet Union "liberated" them. And that these countries willingly chose to be part of the Soviet Union. Well I think we all know the truth about this.

Since Russia cannot be trusted in the slightest and these countries do not have much of an army of their own to speak of, at least compared to Russia, they joined NATO to have some kind of security against Russian imperialism. It's honestly mind boggling that some people here would deny them the right to back up their independence in the face of a bully neighbor who cannot be trusted.

 

[rusmeister]

The thing about NATO being in "Russia's backyard" is that the countries annexed by the Soviet Union during WW2/The Cold War, that is, Estonia, Poland, Lithuenia and Latvia, do NOT want to have it happen again. They don't want to have anything to do at all with Russia's "federation". Mind you, Russia has never admitted to annexing them but still holds that the Soviet Union "liberated" them. And that these countries willingly chose to be part of the Soviet Union. Well I think we all know the truth about this.

Since Russia cannot be trusted in the slightest and these countries do not have much of an army of their own to speak of, at least compared to Russia, they joined NATO to have some kind of security against Russian imperialism. It's honestly mind boggling that some people here would deny them the right to back up their independence in the face of a bully neighbor who cannot be trusted.

I think Gurney is a lot closer to a fair perspective. When I read your words, Tapi, I see the appreciation of one point of view, but not of others. Gurney shows both an appreciation of a fear of Russia based on the past AND being able to understand not wanting nukes placed in neighboring countries by an alliance of which you are the main target, an ability to grasp sympathy with Russians as well as Ukrainians or Lithuanians.

You say "Russia can't be trusted" (a country as an abstraction). Well what about NATO? What about the US? Can THEY be trusted? Can Russians trust Russia? We can admit your grasp of one side of the issue. I'm curious as to whether you can show a larger vision that also sees Russians in Russia, and grasps what they might fear.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Simply put, Rus, I think most of us can agree that no country can truly be trusted!!

I think Gurney is a lot closer to a fair perspective. When I read your words, Tapi, I see the appreciation of one point of view, but not of others. Gurney shows both an appreciation of a fear of Russia based on the past AND being able to understand not wanting nukes placed in neighboring countries by an alliance of which you are the main target, an ability to grasp sympathy with Russians as well as Ukrainians or Lithuanians.

You say "Russia can't be trusted" (a country as an abstraction). Well what about NATO? What about the US? Can THEY be trusted? Can Russians trust Russia? We can admit your grasp of one side of the issue. I'm curious as to whether you can show a larger vision that also sees Russians in Russia, and grasps what they might fear.

 

[tapi]

As far as I know, there are no Nukes in the Baltic states. About trusting Russia, and the question about who we can trust..

Well, I don't see why anyone would attack *Russia*. I just don't see it happening. There would be simply nothing to gain by it, starting to fight a huge war with a huge country. Russia on the other hand seems to be keen to annex smaller nations and I see the small Baltic countries' concerns as very legitimate.

So I ask again:

Do they not have the right to seek the defense available? Should they instead just do nothing and be completely at Russia's mercy?

 

[rusmeister]

As far as I know, there are no Nukes in the Baltic states. About trusting Russia, and the question about who we can trust..

Well, I don't see why anyone would attack *Russia*. I just don't see it happening. There would be simply nothing to gain by it, starting to fight a huge war with a huge country. Russia on the other hand seems to be keen to annex smaller nations and I see the small Baltic countries' concerns as very legitimate.

So I ask again:

Do they not have the right to seek the defense available? Should they instead just do nothing and be completely at Russia's mercy?

You can ask again. No one says that small countries have no right to defense. But when you say "seek the defense available", that kind of gives away the real meaning of the proposal: not that a country should defend itself, but that another, much larger entity should defend it. We can look back to Korea and Vietnam to talk about such "defense".

But the real objection remains - you have dismissed Russian concerns, by saying there is nothing to gain by attacking Russia. This does not address those concerns at all. The real motives of the larger entities: the US and NATO, vis-a-vis Russia, is about economic, rather than political dominance, and the maintenance of a continuous flow of purchase of arms, with or without war. But although you have considerable sympathy with Russia's border states (and nobody doubts this) and a clear awareness of their own history of being occupied and controlled by one power or another, you display no awareness of Russia's having been occupied, its people murdered, scorched earth policies in both the 19th century under Napoleon and the 20th century under the Nazis. The accounts are many and as fully horrifying as those of the other states, yet you have shown no ability to think about how that history might motivate Russians to be suspicious of an alliance created specifically against them, and then, after the fall of the Soviet Union and extreme willingness of Russians to reject war and embrace friendship with the West, that alliance against them was expanded, as member after member of what had been part of the Warsaw Pact effectively turned its guns in the opposite direction, and this alliance creeping right up to Russia's borders. If you had been, for instance, in Naro-Fominsk, which is pretty darn close to Moscow itself when it was occupied (I read a survivor's account, an entire book), you might see how hostile forces pressing on Russia would be seen as threatening, despite your assurances. You don't heed to tell me about the reverse; I am fully aware of it, and why Russia's neighbors don't want to see a new Russian Empire. I'm just really not convinced that you get the Russian side. I think it was bad that Russia went into the Crimea. I think the whole separatist movement in the Donbass is bad. But I can see the other side, the two decades preceding these things that led to this, the forces of both Russia AND the West vying to influence the Ukraine, and when it really began to look like Ukraine could really become a US puppet state, I could see why Russians would want to secure the Black Sea. I don't say that justifies everything, and I certainly agree that Yanukovich was serving Russia's interests, and thought what he did to Timoshenko was terrible ( among many other things) but I do say that thinking that the US plutocracy wasn't trying to get its own hooks into the Ukrainian government is naive in the extreme.

You can reassure us that "nobody has anything to gain, starting to fight a huge war with a huge country". No one had anything to gain in 1963, either, but it almost came to nuclear war. You have to be able to look at both sides, not dismissing anyone's concerns, to hope to begin to have a fair perspective. There are two or more sides to any controversy, and the most convincing argument is the one that fairly expresses all sides.