Yes. That beloved man has summed up Iranian foreign policy once again.

“I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,” he said.

“Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.”

Barack Hussein Obama actually makes John Kerry look like a man of conviction.

Obama Qualifies Position on Talking to Enemies

Respect?

You have an anonymous blogger account.

You’re not answering direct questions.

You cast aside biblical justification with which you don’t agree.

It sounds like you’re a pacifist but can’t bring yourself to take on the label. If that’s what you are, own it.

It appears to me that you’re not interested in “diplomacy” with me, or anyone else here who may disagree with you. Rather you prefer to state that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Try that with Iran and see where it gets you.

If I thought you were genuinely interested in learning about the issue I would be glad to speak with you concerning the article at slate.com.

As it stands, I find it hard to take you seriously.

Something to consider…

Jesus says that I’d have to take a bullet. Pretty radical.

That is not necessarily radical. A coward could do the same thing and it wouldn’t be radical but rather an act of cowardice.

What would you do?

I believe I’ve already answered that.

I am not a pacifist. I’m just trying to understand how Christians like JT think that krauthammer’s article was “good” when it is so dismissive of an effort to find a peaceful solution to a very difficult problem. It’s just staggering to me that Christians are so willing to go to war without first trying everything they can to avert it. Especially given our concern for the sanctity of human life. A lot of human lives are obliterated by war; we’re insulated from the horror of war in the West.

I’m also trying to understand how this fits in with the teaching of Jesus and Paul–radically personally pacifistic–with our responsibility as Christian citizens of a 21st century democracy in which we have the power to vote for our leaders and shape international policy. I think the answers are biblical, and I hope to do a lot more reading and thinking about this in the next few months.

“If someone were kicking down your front door with guns drawn, announcing they wanted to kill you, would you try to implement a strategy of diplomacy?” No. Jesus says that I’d have to take a bullet. Pretty radical. What would you do?

Greg: Romans 13 doesn’t answer the question about why we shouldn’t try diplomacy first. That’s all.

As for what we could talk about, here’s a start: http://www.slate.com/id/2139845/

Also, please stop saying we have failed to provide biblical justification. We have provided biblical justification; just not to your satisfaction.

Stan mentioned Rom. 13, and then you said:

Romans 13 doesn’t really help. Iran has a government and Romans 13 says it is constituted, in part, to carry out God’s wrath on the evildoer. Rom 13 makes no distinction between democracies, dictatorships, theocracies. etc. If Romans 13 applies to all forms of government, how does that answer the question about whether we should seek a non-military solution to our problems with Iran?

Your response doesn’t negate the application of Rom. 13 to our discussion. Yes, Iran’s government is supposed to carry out God’s wrath on the evildoer. But what if Iran’s government is the evildoer? You wouldn’t suggest that Rom. 13 means our government should only take care of evildoers in our own country, would you?

The obvious (and tired) response to this is, “Well, if that’s the case, why don’t you attack North Korea, etc., etc., etc.?” We can only do what we can do. We can only do what our resources and political will allow us to do.

Again, you may not agree with our biblical justification, but please do not continue to state that we have not provided any.

I think you would gain some respect if you would answer a couple of questions.

Are you a pacifist?

Do you agree that war is justified in some circumstances, even when your country is not invaded?

Where is your biblical justification for diplomacy when you or your ally has been threatened with extermination?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Zionist regime should be wiped off the map.”

What would you like to say to him?

If someone were kicking down your front door with guns drawn, announcing they wanted to kill you, would you try to implement a strategy of diplomacy?

The bottom line is that you guys don’t think we need any biblical justification for bypassing go and heading straight to war with Iran. And that answers my question.

Mr. Brown,

I think you’re wrong about the kicking down the doors thing. Perhaps not ours/yours but certainly our allies (Israel at the very least).

See, if someone has a history of kicking down doors, and the Ayatollahs certainly do, then to decide that the reasons they are building a big door-kicker-downer are other than kicking down doors, if just plain foolish.

Iran does not have a history of successful negotiations with the west, they do have a history of militant Islam. That all mitigates against the wisdom of talking, or at least, talking very much.

Again, if you need a biblical arguement (and I maintain that you don’t), defending the defenseless is a good one. It makes a well planned, well thought out strike not only a good option, but in the case of Iran building nuclear weapons, practically a requirement.

As I’ve said before, you’ve yet to provide a biblical case for your arguement, so requiring that of others is a bit two-faced.

Jesus didn’t make that distinction, because he never addressed national foreign policies. They are irrelevant to the kingdom of God.

It bore repeating.

Iran is not kicking our doors down. Diplomacy is a voluntary thing, not a coercive act.

I asked for some biblical support for krauthammer’s views. None has been forthcoming.

Cheers.

I’m beginning to suspect you’re joking around here.

If I talk with someone who wants to buy my house, I don’t have to give my house away.

Assuming you’re serious, which I’m beginning to doubt, I’ll try to answer that.

1) Negotiating the sale of a house usually is not a life and death situation. It’s a voluntary contract entered into without coercion.

2) If someone were kicking down your front door with guns drawn, I seriously doubt you would try to implement a strategy of talking. If you’re single, I suppose that might be OK. If you have a family to defend, I would think otherwise.

If in such a situation you would not utilize a strategy of talking but rather used violence, you would be a hypocrite. If you did attempt to sit down to talk with the armed intruders, I’m not sure what to think.

1. Military intervention is not a viable solution.

2. Those making the decisions haven’t tried to talk with the enemy and are simply spoiling for a fight.”

I assume no such things. Re 1, I reject military intervention when diplomacy has not been attempted first. This is just war theory 101. No one has provided a biblical basis for NOT talking with Iran–it’s just assumed that there is one.

Re 2: I have no idea where you get that. It is true that this Administration had no reluctance to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. But Iraq is not the issue here.

I am simply looking for a biblical rationale for not talking with a enemy before using military force.

As for talking equalling appeasement, what can I say? It’s just silly to suggest that all the treaties and peace talks that have led to resolution of conflict (e.g. the Camp David peace accords which led to the end of hostilities between EGypt and Israel and which have held to this day) were nothing more than “appeasement” just because they involved negotiation. If I talk with someone who wants to buy my house, I don’t have to give my house away.

I found this quote that was attributed to Francis Schaeffer:

The world is an abnormal world. Because of the Fall, it is not what God meant it to be. There are many things in this world which grieve, but we must face them down. We never have the luxury of acting in a merely utopian way.

This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor fallen world in which we live – this lost world – means that we desert the people who need the greatest help.

Maybe Francis Schaeffer didn’t say/write it. Either way, the quote pretty well summarizes my opinion on the issue.

Mr. Brown is assuming a few things here.

1. Military intervention is not a viable solution.

2. Those making the decisions haven’t tried to talk with the enemy and are simply spoiling for a fight.

Number one is certainly not precluded in Scripture and Romans 13 certainly does apply to all governments. Even Hitler and the Ayatollah’s are/were given authority by God to punish evildoers. Their abject failure in the regard doesn’t mean they aren’t supposed to be doing that, it means…they aren’t doing that. They are still, like the US in place to punish evil doers. (In the same way, in fact, that a preacher who teaches Oprah instead of Bible has been put there for the purpose of teaching the Bible, even if , in fact, he is not.

Number 2…The general public has no way of knowing this and, as political history bears out, those who support the opposite political party will believe the worst in any case.

All things considered, Mr. Brown hasn’t provided a biblical reason for his view. Perhaps he should start there if he wants to be taken seriously.

Psalm 82 justifies US intervention right now in just about every country on the face of the planet. Darfur, Zimbabwe, Palestine, Israel, etc.

We’re in agreement.

you’ll have to address the reasons why we don’t do the same for others who are not living under a threat of oppression or worse but are actually experiencing it right now.

Actually, I don’t have to address that. The leaders of our country, who are sleeping while those other countries are experiencing oppression or worse, should be held to account.

In this case, there’s plenty to talk about.

Like what?

There’s certainly no biblical justification for ridiculing someone who thinks diplomacy should at least be tried before we resort to war.

There’s that term diplomacy again. Diplomacy involves negotiation. It is not wise to negotiate with those who want to kill you or others. That, Mr. Brown, starts sounding a lot like appeasement. I’m not ridiculing you personally. For all I know, you’re a nice, but misguided in my opinion, guy. I do, however, ridicule appeasement as a strategy.

I don’t think this gets us any closer to a biblical defense of Krauthammer’s critique.

Psalm 82 justifies US intervention right now in just about every country on the face of the planet. Darfur, Zimbabwe, Palestine, Israel, etc. Of course, we don’t have the military capacity (and that’s what you’re talking about–a military solution) to do that, but if you’re saying we should defend Israel based on Psalm 82, you’ll have to address the reasons why we don’t do the same for others who are not living under athreat of oppression or worse but are actually experiencing it right now.

In legal circles, we mediate cases but we think there’s value in talking instead of litigating. In this case, there’s plenty to talk about. There’s certainly no biblical justification for ridiculing someone who thinks diplomacy should at least be tried before we resort to war.

I’d like to hear a cogent biblical argument against talking (not “appeasing”) with another government for the purpose of reducing the risk of conflict.

What exactly do you suggest we talk about? Do we invite them over for pizza? Do you propose we just sit around the dinner table chatting with them until they lob a nuclear weapon on Israel? Is there a point where you would actually support armed conflict with the purpose of killing the enemy?

Psalms 82:3-4 Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

I think the citizens of Israel should be defended. You can’t defend against a nuclear weapon after the fact. It would be right near the top of war planning folly to wait until the enemy is crossing the border before acting. In today’s world, there are countries that are dedicated to Israel’s total destruction. We’re not talkin about a “risk of conflict” here but rather a promise of conflict. The threats have been made. If you want to sit around and talk, fine.

Personally, I’d like to hear a cogent biblical argument for talking (you say not “appeasing”) with another government for the purpose of reducing the risk of conflict.

The sinless Son of God is uniquely qualified to manage the affairs of his father’s house. But it provides no biblical justification for what Krauthammer was talking about (which is that we shouldn’t be talking at all).

Mr. Brown, remember that Jesus the friend of sinners was the same Jesus who overturned the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple.

I didn’t realize Jesus made that distinction.

He never made that distinction because he never addressed how one government should react to another government that was actively pursuing the elimination of another country.

There is Biblical justification for the government using deadly force against wrongdoers.

Romans 13:3-4 states For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

His followers, 2000 years later, would rather take control of the reins of history and thrust swords into the hearts of tyrants than take Jesus seriously.

I’m really disappointed that you would decree that Christians who disagree with your pacifist views don’t take Jesus seriously. Well meaning, sincere Christians are on opposite sides of that issue. As an issue, it surely isn’t on the level of questioning the sincerity of one’s faith.

We can have debates about this and other non-essenstial doctrines without issuing such decrees about people’s sincerity.

I am convinced that believer’s baptism is the correct view of baptism. I currently attend a presbyterian church. I think they’re wrong on the issue of who is a proper candidate for baptism. Yet I don’t doubt for a second that they take Jesus seriously.

On this side of heaven, we will have disagreements. However, as the Evangelical Manifesto pointed out, our choice is for a civil public square, and a working respect for the rights of all, even those with whom we disagree.

You said upthread that “I’m with Stan (and Ehud) and I think Scripture is too.” Now you say that it’s “not a biblical issue”? If God is sovereign and we have some duty to governmental authority, it seems to me that it must be a biblical issue, however we may disagree about how that issue should be decided.

I’m really only interested to know if folks like JT, who think Krauthammer wrote a “good article,” can defend Krauthammer’s view with anything like a biblical perspective. Nobody who shares JT’s view has even made the effort.

His followers, 2000 years later, would rather take control of the reins of history and thrust swords into the hearts of tyrants than take Jesus seriously.

I’m no inerrantist, but the flippancy with which you treat Jesus’ teachings saddens me gravely.

To make Jesus ‘Lord’ is to submit to Him in all areas of life. Our allegiance to him trumps all. Many comments on this thread make me think people have their priorities backward.

Peace,
-Daniel-

There isn’t a biblical arguement per se, because it’s not a biblical issue.

If there was a biblical arguement it would fall under protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
Don’t confuse the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of this world. The latter is the sphere in which nations operate.

Jesus didn’t make that distinction, because he never addressed national foreign policies. They are irrelevant to the kingdom of God. He addressed persecution of the church and never how to deal with tyrannical governments.

It seems to me that the crazy idea the the US is somehow the promised land and not Babylon, and the idea that God made some kind of covenant with the US like he did with the OT nation of Iarael, is what has led to that kind of confusion.

Would Christians in China or Vietnam ever get concerned about whether or not their governments are acting in an unbiblical way?
Neither should western Christians.