Good News From Iraq

[WorldWarrior]

Metis--and once the church go established it too started to persecute other Christians who "didn't fit" into the new idea of the organized church.


No wonder people don't want to know who Jesus really meant when he said--"What you do to these the least of my brethren--you do to me"

He meant everyone--too high a standard to meet? Possibly.


Especially when deciding that it's "okay" to Torture some people becauise they're "not who Jesus was talking about anyway."

[Faithfulee]

Luckily most people believe that Jesus wants us to treat EVERYONE as though they are our--and his "Brethren."

It's very interesting when one reads accounts of the early church from post-scriptural sources whereas the early Christians were well known and respected by so many because they would put their own lives on the line to help others, including those suffering from leprosy and other potentially deadly diseases.  But the powers-that-be often disliked them and persecuted them because they simply would not follow suit like a "good Roman" or a "good Whatever".  The early church did take the "be not of this world" teachings of Jesus quite seriously it appears.

I thank you for the recognizion of the values of the early Christians.  That is what is Christiand Doctrine today.
The fact that ALL Christians don't "bear their cross" as Jesus did is part of our humanity.  But, knowing what our calling is is important to us and to the world.  It does call us Christians to 'Christ like" actions.

There are Christians Church's still in Iraq, but they are persecuted by Muslims. I have a friend in Canon AndrewWhite, who has been working for peace between Sunni and Shia factions.  I am not aware of recent progress sadly, and even more sadly,  I found out recently that he is suffering from MS.  My prayers are with him and with his mission of bringing the real message of Jesus Christ, the one you list above, to the Iraq people.

[Acumen]

So to ask the question whether Jesus would approve of any war, no matter how justified, is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.   

Not according to many Christians both in and out of the peace churches.  Instead, it seems that, and we've seen this with many religious groups throughout history, the above becomes a convenience to go against the basic teachings themselves.  If Jesus said to turn the other cheek, be as harmless as doves, to not live by the sword, etc., then how does one get from that to the excuse to kill even in the case of war?  I simply do not find an "exclusionary clause" in the N.T. that allows for such a move.  On top of that, we well know that the early church did not allow its congregants to get involved in warfare as far as doing the actual fighting is concerned, and this didn't get changed until Constantine declared Christianity to be the state religion (according to Dr. Hanson, the church did allow policing action towards the end of the 3rd century but, if war broke out, the congregant was expected to abstain from any military activity). 

Jesus says absolutely nothing about how nation-states ought to behave.  There is no other way around it.  So, for some to imply that invading Iraq is not the enactment of Christian precepts is based upon a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine and the subsequent unwarranted application of Christian principles to nation-states.  There may be no "exclusionary clause" in the NT, but there is no justifiable warrant to apply certain ethical precepts meant for individuals to bodies of citizenry.

However, if the country is mostly secular and multi-religious, then that country need not necessarily abide by what Jesus taught.  However, this still would not leave Christians off the hook even in a secular country if they were to follow the original teachings of the church and, quite apparently, Jesus himself.

Off the hook in terms of what, serving in the army or believing that a nation-state is justified in defending itself?

[SquirleyWurley]

You can't seriously be saying that you think Jesus is satisfied with the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison?

I said  "I spoke to Jesus last night about the abu Graib situation.  He said he is completely aware of what is going on,  more so than anyone on this earth, and yes he is satisfied."

Did you talk with Jesus and hear a different version??

Yes I did, several years ago on this particular issue, and years before more generally on the subjects involved.  The terms 'evil fruit' came up, and 'worldliness' and 'sadism', etc., consistently, whether I was Roman Catholic (in my youth and as a teenager and freshman in college), or later on when I did a stint as a Pentecostal, or yet later when I was interested in various 'Christian heresies'...  Take it for what you will...  I have not always been an atheist.

[Faithfulee]

Wurley

Can either of us prove what Jesus said to us??  I admit that I can not.  But I also can evaluate what I heard and square it with my beliefs, as you can also.  It is the process of listening for God that helps us all, and because we are imperfect, we can expect to have differences.

But there is more good news from Iraq today 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_turning_point


Iraqi violence down; war's root causes unresolved

BAGHDAD - Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.

Those positive signs are attracting little attention in the United States, where the war-weary public is focused on the American presidential contest and skeptical of talk of success after so many years of unfounded optimism by the war's supporters.

. . .  . . . .
American deaths last month — 19 including four non-combat fatalities — were the lowest monthly tally of the war. In May 2007, 126 American service members died.

Many Sunni insurgents have stopped fighting and turned against al-Qaida in Iraq, which U.S. commanders say still remains a threat.

Perhaps Canon White did have some influence after all

Let us pray for peace in Iraq

[WorldWarrior]

"Can either of us prove what Jesus said to us??  I admit that I can not.  But I also can evaluate what I heard and square it with my beliefs, as you can also. "

You don't have to.

All we have to do is refer to Jesus' words on how to treat our fellow human beings--"the least of his brethren."


that is all the proof we need for how Jesus wants us to treat our fellow human beings.

[Faithfulee]

That's "Good News"  too

[WorldWarrior]

But apparently not to the Christians who think it's "okay" to Torture other human beings.

[Faithfulee]

But there is more good news from Iraq today 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_turning_point


Iraqi violence down; war's root causes unresolved

BAGHDAD - Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.

Those positive signs are attracting little attention in the United States, where the war-weary public is focused on the American presidential contest and skeptical of talk of success after so many years of unfounded optimism by the war's supporters.

. . .  . . . .
American deaths last month — 19 including four non-combat fatalities — were the lowest monthly tally of the war. In May 2007, 126 American service members died.

Many Sunni insurgents have stopped fighting and turned against al-Qaida in Iraq, which U.S. commanders say still remains a threat.

Perhaps Canon White did have some influence after all

Let us pray for peace in Iraq

[Thorolf]

Personally, I love how the misunderstood concept of "separation of church and state" is only touted when it's convenient in an effort to shut up those darn "religious people," but utterly ignored when trying to beat Christians over the head with what people THINK Jesus would say.

Have your separation, and eat it too.

[Faithfulee]

More good news form Iraq

Iraq Leaders are expressing their appreciation of being Liberated

And fearing the election of Obama

see new topic on that subject.

[Faithfulee]

And from todays Al Jezerra

Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shia leader, have meanwhile begun to surrender to government forces in the city of Amara, according to government officials.

The interior ministry said groups are turning in their weapons two days in advance of a military crackdown.

Amara is said to be a stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the centre of weapons smuggling from Iran.

The clampdown on the city follows similar efforts in Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City district.

[Faithfulee]

And this from the NY Times

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html

Some realities of Iraq

The first is the mood of the American public, which has rendered a judgment that the price we have paid in Iraq over the last five years far, far exceeds what has been achieved there to date. Therefore, whoever wins the presidency — John McCain or Barack Obama — will take office knowing that the American people will not tolerate another four years dominated by an open-ended commitment to Iraq.

But the second is the reality on the ground in Iraq, which is no longer an unremitting horror story. Clearly, the surge has helped to dampen the internal conflict. Clearly, the Iraqi Army is performing better. Clearly, Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki, by cracking down on rogue Shiite groups from his own community, has established himself as more of a national leader. Clearly, the Sunnis have decided to take part in the coming parliamentary elections. Clearly, Kurdistan continues to operate as an island of decency and free markets. Clearly, Al Qaeda in Iraq has been hurt. Clearly, some Arab countries are coming to terms with the changes there by reopening embassies in Baghdad.

The third reality, though, is the fact that the reconciliation process inside Iraq — almost five years after our invasion — still has not reached a point where Iraq’s stability is self-sustaining. And Tuesday’s bombing in Baghdad, which killed more than 50 people at a bus stop in a Shiite neighborhood, only underscores that. The U.S. military is still needed as referee. It still is not clear that Iraq is a country that can be held together by anything other than an iron fist. It’s still not clear that its government is anything more than a collection of sectarian fiefs.

That is an enormous change and all Americans should be proud of the sacrifice we all have made to achieve it. 

A sobering comment in the article was the report at a public meeting someone said that now Iraq and Israel are the only democracies in the ME.  The speaker was BOOOOOOED.

America was responsible for the formation of this unique democracy and we should be proud of the accomplishment, and continue the effort to keep it functioning.  Iraq Democracy may be THE reality that makes all the sacrifice worthwhile.

[Acumen]

Here is some good news from Iraq.

Due to heavy casualties suffered by the Mahdi Army (2000 deaths in the past couple of months), Muqtada al Sadr was forced to change his tactics and disband the Mahdi Army in favor of a small, secretive fighting force.

"The setbacks in Baghdad, Basrah, and the South have forced Sadr to turn the Mahdi Army into 'a secret military organization,' the Iraqi report stated. 'The number of members doesn't exceed 150-200, hugely down from the total estimated number of 50,000 in the past two years.'"












http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/mahdi_army_decimated.php

[SquirleyWurley]

At what point might more troops from allies (UN or otherwise) serve the role of stabilizing Iraq, policing it, helping it transition to self-policing?  Is it impossible given the current relations between the US and it's traditional allies?  Is it compromised by the tensions between the US and the UN?

And who can help work with those problems, as diplomat to the UN, as President to the US, as diplomat to various allies?  I see these as issues which can make or break future Iraq.

[Acumen]

At what point might more troops from allies (UN or otherwise) serve the role of stabilizing Iraq, policing it, helping it transition to self-policing?  Is it impossible given the current relations between the US and it's traditional allies?  Is it compromised by the tensions between the US and the UN?

What's the point at this stage in the game?

[SquirleyWurley]

Um, help in stabilizing things, spreading out the burdens of dealing with the messiness of the new conditions in Iraq.

[Acumen]

Um, help in stabilizing things, spreading out the burdens of dealing with the messiness of the new conditions in Iraq.

What makes you think that changing hands now is in Iraq's best interests?

[SquirleyWurley]

At some point it would seem useful to either consider getting others more involved, or focus a lot better on what our goals ought to be over there, or just get out.

[Acumen]

At some point it would seem useful to either consider getting others more involved, or focus a lot better on what our goals ought to be over there, or just get out.

Again, it's a little late for that.  Violence in Iraq is at an all time low, Al Qaeda has been effectively pushed to the northern fringes of Iraq, Al Sadr's army (once considered a sizable threat) is seriously fragmented and disorganized, and the ISF is growing in size, strength, and in military technology. 

Why would the US, after hard fought bloody battles with little to no aid from the international community, give up the reigns of control when serious progress has been made?  The US has undergone some serious criticism for this long war, it makes no sense to forfeit the our mission in Iraq to entities like the UN so they can share in the benefits without sharing in the costs.  Screw the international community.