Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—
At a church I was making a delivery at this weekend, an assistant pastor mentioned to me that he’s hearing more and more about Ron Paul, but still hates his foreign policy. He asked me the status quo neoconservative question: “Don’t you think it’s wiser to take the war over there than to bring the war over here?”

My answer was: “No. Bring the war over here.”

He was shocked. Literally floored. With his mouth agape, and before he could respond, I told him I’d post a blog post for him, and him alone, but share it with the public. I think it’s a worthy post to share with others, because it opens up a realistic eye to this so-called war, and the definition of “them.”

When many think of “them” bringing the war to us, they think of 9/11. 9/11, a tragic event, an event that could have been prevented with less government, not more. No government in the world can prevent guerilla attacks. It isn’t possible. Yet private organizations can, and do, prevent outbreaks of mad people every day. I saw a drunk youth booted out of a shopping mall by armed guards once. It was fast, and no rights were violated. When 9/11 happened, my claim to fame was that I foresaw the event just 7 months earlier. I ran an email newsletter read by around 2000 people. I was ranting and raving about the inability of the airlines to monitor security, about the inability of pilots to arm themselves, about how ridiculous it was that pilot doors weren’t even locked (a year before 9/11, I witnessed an old lady accidentally open the flight-deck). Before 9/11, few listened. They felt secure. The day after 9/11, I was stuck in San Diego, and I received hundreds of emails asking me how I knew there would be an attack. My response was: “Because government got in the way.”

Terrorist attacks are infrequent even in the Middle East. We hear about all the ones that happen, but if you were to plot them out on a world map, you’d see they mostly happen in the same 2 or 3 locations. What is unique about those locations is the massive oversupply of government agents in those areas — agents there to supposedly secure the area. Yet just miles away from the most popular place for terrorists to attack, you see peaceful private citizens going about their lives: going to movies, eating fast food, shopping, living. The common sign is not where the terrorists are, but where uninvited agents of war exist.

So I welcome the idea of bringing the war over here, for many reasons:

1. Reducing our foreign aggression would reduce the amount of innocent casualties that occur. I find it horrific that our government doesn’t keep track of how many innocents are murdered during our dalliances in foreign lands. I want to know. I think I have a right to know. It’s a more important fact than how many enemy combatants are killed. I also think that by not killing innocents, we’ll anger far fewer people. Blowback’s a mean enemy.

2. Reducing our foreign aggression would reduce the amount of money we spend on military games. It’s a massive figure, and when money matters get large, I have a law I wrote: “The bigger a monetary amount grows, the less understandable it is to common people.” When I mention to someone that a $100 car radio was stolen at the mall, they understand. When I mention that billions of dollars a year are stolen because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policy, they look like they didn’t hear me. Big numbers mean little connection to reality for most people. So I’ll put it this way: the U.S. government has to tax 10,000,000,000 people (about the size of the world’s population) $100 each to pay for the Iraq war. That’s 10 billion people paying $100 each. It’s staggering, since it takes a few hundred years for a single person to count up to a billion. They still don’t understand.

3. Reducing our foreign aggression will definitely reduce the amount of hatred aimed at the U.S. government. I’ll be in the Middle East with my wife on December 27th, less than 15 miles from Iran. We’re going shopping and sightseeing, and we’ll eat good food. I’ll take photos. It’s not a bad place to be. The people I know in the Middle East are constantly shocked at our saber-rattling, and many of them can’t understand why “we” hate “them” — most of the countries we supposedly hate looked very much like our own home towns. The photos you see in the paper and on TV would be akin to someone going to the California desert and calling it America. It’s called lying.

4. I know my neighbors in Illinois. Most of them are packing heat. That’s what a conservative area calls for: people using their God-given inherent right to protect their homes. I’d love to see any army, organized or not, try to walk 5 miles into the U.S. The U.S. army would be ridiculously undermanned if it had to repel an enemy attack. The U.S. private citizens would not be. We have 300 million adults in the U.S. We’re spending $1 trillion on a war that we’re losing, just as we’ve lost every war since the day after WWII ended. $1 trillion divided by 300 million adults = $3333 per adult. That’s more than enough money to arm every adult with a single firearm and enough ammo to last years. Personally, I gave up my gun ownership beliefs, but that’s the wonderful aspect of freedom: if the enemy has no idea who is armed, they’re less likely to attack. John Lott’s great book “More Guns, Less Crime” showcases how towns with few gun restrictions are the safest, and towns with heavy gun restrictions are the most dangerous. Criminals know what the laws are, and they know that the average resident will follow them. Why rob in a town with many legal guns when you can rob in a town with strict gun laws?

Seriously, bring it on. I know my neighbors wouldn’t stand for it. It doesn’t matter who attacks, because the minute a madman goes on a rampage, I can see 50 million or 100 million Americans not standing for it.

It’s a good answer. Let people hate us for our freedoms, our Imperialism, our love of Britney Spears, our use of trans-fat laden foods, or even our ice cream variety. What are they going to do? Come here? If they do, there is only two groups to blame: the attackers, and those who pretend to defend us.

We can defend ourselves. We don’t need the police (who can’t defend anyone while they write their traffic citations and play Dog the Bounty Hunter with those who jump bail on a minor pot charge). We don’t need the Army. All we need are individiuals who understand that they may be called to defend their families, their home, their neighbors and their towns. No one can destroy freedom except those voted to protect it. And if you’re familiar with the past 90 years, you understand that is exactly the case. 9/11 should have been responded to by returning more rights to individuals. Instead, we chose the wrong people.

Zion, IL
A.B. Dada
—

Since Mr. Schweitzer has agreed to discuss Just War Doctrine, I’ve spent a day talking with the wife and a few good friends about the proper angle to portray my viewpoints on Augustine’s popular theory. I believe that the Just War Doctrine is immoral, and unbiblical, while Curtis takes the opposite view.

At first, I thought I had a slam dunk, but after discussions with others, I realized that my primary debate tool is useless in this venue. For those who know me personally or deeply, they are aware that I prescribe to a minority view on Christianity and the Bible, notably the Preterist or Covenant eschatological doctrinal view. I assume that Curtis, as well as most Christian readers here, prescribe to the more common Dispensationalist doctrinal viewpoint on Biblical matters. This complicates the issue significantly for me, but does not necessary make it an impossibility.

Since the majority of Christian readers here are of the Dispensationalist, I believe it is in my best interest to “attack” the debate from their point of view rather than from my own. I used to adhere to that same doctrine for many years, but I had many concerns that plagued me regarding significant portions of the New Testament, which led me down the path to accept many aspects of the Preterist viewpoint, although not all. I would appreciate, and openly pursue, comments from people who see me leave the Dispensationalist path in my oppositions (or even agreements) to Mr. Schweitzer’s posts at his blog. For those friends and readers who are Preterist, or who are heading in that direction, I will try to address those views at a later date, or after the main body of the replies I post here. I will be very explicit in defining that view separately, and hopefully without any attempt to sway or provoke a change of doctrine for the reader.

One caveat: I am very potent as a convincer toward the Preterist viewpoint, I’ve been told. It is NOT my place, or my wish, to get anyone reading any of my posts to accept or even consider that viewpoint until they are led spiritually to question their own doctrine of beliefs. I find the Dispensational viewpoint significantly lacking in both grace and justice, but I also accept that it is the status quo doctrine of the 20th century for most Evangelicals, and I will not be one to judge another’s views, even if they are counter to my own. I serve hundreds of Dispensational congregations fruitfully, and do not openly promote my own views in that servitude. If you feel I am promoting a heretical or opposing doctrine within any of these future posts (other than when I place a warning that I will do so), please post a comment and hold me accountable. While I have made many inroads in my own private home assembly to teach people the varying views of Christianity (and other religions!), I don’t believe that this blog is the place to do so. /caveat

The setup
The basis for my part of the debate will focus on a few areas of the Bible that I believe show that the Just War Doctrine can be challenged by Christians who do not advocate the use of force against others. I sincerely believe that Christ also held to the ideas of non-resistance and acceptance of hatred from others, which can be used as a powerful weapon to shine the light of love, peace and charity to others in hopes of getting them to question the basis for their own hatred.

Definition of a Christian
I also accept that there are New Testament verses that are useful in defending force on others, and I hope to dig deep into those verse to prepare against Curtis’ side of the debate in utilizing those same verses. I will start by saying that all verses of the Bible are contextual, not absolute. Using one verse without explaining the context of the paragraph or book is a process that many seemingly heretical pastors and preachers use to advocate fear and force and control of the individual. Christ was/is about freedom and submitting to God and other mortals, not about making God or other mortals submit to you. When it comes to dealing with other Christians, the Dispensationalist has practical and strong advice/advocations in how to deal with brethren. If we can not agree with those basic tenets, the debate will be fruitless and a wate of time for the writers and readers. It is my hope that we can at least come to an agreement with some or all of these points, at least from an Evangelical Dispensationalist viewpoint.

Preterist Prespective: It is my believe that the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Age is over, fulfilled completely in two “Comings of Christ” that have occurred and will not occur in the future. I believe we live in the “Reign of God” which is transliterated incorrectly in many modern Bibles as the future “Kingdom of God.” It is my believe that Christ’s actions and words were incredibly spiritual in nature, not physical or pertaining to a mortal Kingdom./Preterist

Some verses against the use of force
Two simple verses that seem to show that Christ promoted peace, always:
Matthew 5:9 Jesus: blessed are the peacemakers
Matthew 5:39: if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

Matthew 5:39 has an intriguing transliteration problem that Rob Bell (who I generally do NOT agree with) pointed out: the striking of a cheek was an act that was common in ancient times, always being performed with one particular hand. The idea of striking someone on the other cheek would cause the striker to use the back of their hand, which put them on the negative side. I do believe that this is the case, but I am not sure that the transliteration problem is a negative one necessarily. Still, I think this verse is the weakest in defending against the Just War Doctrine.

There are also verses that promote the idea of the use of force:
Eccles 3:3: a time to kill
Luke 3:14: Peace of Rome, could keep their jobs

Many Dispensationalists believe that the Old Testament still offers insight and direction for the Christian. I vehemently disagree, finding the Old Testament’s direction as useless after Christ. Nonetheless, I will try to provide Christ’s unique insights into Old Testament verses that show that Christ was against much of the teachings of the mortal men of the Israelite Bible.

Since this is just a setup explanation, I believe it is important to close with Augustine’s viewpoints on the Just War Doctrine. This is a paraphrasing, but should be conclusive:

Augustine said that before one could use force against an “enemy,” one must make these considerations:
1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) there must be serious prospects of success;
4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Just on the face of it, I believe that even if you prescribe to the Just War Doctrine, most if not all of these 4 considerations have been broken in modern warfare, both terrorist-driven and State-enforced. This view, though, is not part of our debate. I hope we can proceed in this debate from a neutral aspect: more of a “what if” than a “what happened.” It would be unbalanced if I was to use examples of any recent war against Mr. Schweitzer, so I will refrain from those angles.

Please feel free to join us by tracking back from your own blog to either of our blogs, or entering your own comments on either site. I hope that we can do justice to both the Word of God, and provide some security for those believing either viewpoints, as well as opening a door for both sides to inquire deeper into their own beliefs.

Preterist Prespective: Many people know that I truly believe we live in the Reign of God age, and in doing so, we are kings and shepherds of the world, but not kings akin to the rulers of the Old Testament, nor shepherds of animals. It is my firm belief that our only option to teach the world is pure peace, love and charity. If we walk away from those 3 teachings, we quickly succumb to the worship and support of a mortal king to drive our lives, rather than the Immortal King who provides grace, love and charity through our hands, minds, mouths and bodies./Preterist