Moral Courage or Foolishness? Ukraine.

[Marilyn]

I don't correlate the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse with the entities you are using-I just see them as angelic punishments upon a disobedient, rebellious world in the endtimes--actually, in the entire NT era. Whether they line up with specific kingdoms I just don't know.

But the issue of "how to skin a cat" cannot forbid the use of weaponry. In Isaiah God says He presides over the manufacture of weapons that He intends to use. That means that the manufacture of nuclear weapons is something God intends to use eventually.

Isa 54.16 See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc.

But none of this has a thing to do with just or unjust wars--it simply justifies God's right to oversee the development of the weapons of war, and explains that God does use war, whether by the hands of the just or the unjust. Again, determining a just war is a matter of revelation, since God clearly used war in the OT Scriptures.

David was a man of war by God's calling. It was, in a sense, a necessary evil. But it was sanctioned by His word. We just have to make sure that we are on the right side of God and history.

In OT times that was BEFORE the cross, thus they had to physically fight.

We, however, as the Body of Christ are NOT fighting `flesh and blood,` but principalities and powers. (Eph. 6: 12)

 

[Evmur]

Your history of Ukraine doesn't go very deep. They've apparently been a distinct people for a long time and enjoyed a measure of independence long before the Soviet Union. Russia apparently viewed them as "lesser Russians."

If Russia gave them independence, they had already had it in the past--it was not theirs to give, except that they had decided to stop bullying these people. And if they made covenant agreement to let Ukraine be independent, if they gave up their nukes, then what gives them the right to impose their will on Ukraine if an independent Ukraine wishes to find military support from the West? Truly independent states have this right!

was this the prevailing political philosophy of the US in 1962? with regard to Russian missiles in Cuba?

 

[randyk]

Some good thoughts there bro. And yes the word `tabernacle` means to dwell, and Jesus, when manifest on earth, `tabernacled,` (John 1: 14) And in the NHNE God will `Tabernacle,` with those in the NJ and on earth, by His Holy Spirit. We, the Body of Christ, however will be on Christ`s own throne in the highest part of God`s great kingdom. (Rev. 3: 21)

So as you see God has every realm - earth, Universe and angelic realm, all populated with His children, and all rulership under the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sounds good except I don't know about the part where we will be "in the highest part of God's great kingdom." We, His people, are rather small in God's Kingdom, and though we relate to the Most High God, I doubt we will reign in any way close to the way He reigns? But thanks!

 

[randyk]

In OT times that was BEFORE the cross, thus they had to physically fight.

We, however, as the Body of Christ are NOT fighting `flesh and blood,` but principalities and powers. (Eph. 6: 12)

It would inconsistent of God to make people fight in the OT and not in the NT. I do understand that the OT and NT are different dispensations, or ages. However, it was the same Divine Spirit operating in both, the same Divine character, and God does not change.

Only the representations of His work appear differently before that work is completed. You may see the framework of a house appear to be unfinished before it is "closed in," but the frame and the finished house are one and the same.

Serving God in the tabernacle was no different, spiritually, than Christians now worshiping God in Christ. Same God, and same personality.

If men were sinners in the OT, but sanctified by their obedience under the Law, it is the same for Christians who have been eternally sanctified by the redemption of Christ. We still have a Sin Nature, and we still must obey God in the matter of defending a nation for a just cause. We have a responsibility to family or be found to be less responsible than even a pagan.

1 Tim 5.8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Part of our "provision" for our family, or household, is security and protection--not just shelter, but also shelter from criminals, intruders, and hostiles. And this can be extended to a neighborhood, a city, and a country, in my opinion.

I see no basis for pacifism in the NT except that in both OT and NT we do see believers discouraged from participating in anything pagan. The whole idea, however, of an entire nation converting to the worship of a single God is contained in the 10 Commandments where all Israel were commanded to serve one God only. That means the entire nation can act in concert together to fight just wars, if God so leads.

It is much more complicated when Christians live in non-Christian countries or in fallen Christian countries. And yes, things can become very ambiguous in these cases.

 

[randyk]

was this the prevailing political philosophy of the US in 1962? with regard to Russian missiles in Cuba?

Cuba doesn't fit into the "balance of power" among the world's greatest nations. To outfit every little nation as though an outpost of a distant superpower is an effort at intimidation and manipulation.

Ukraine isn't a Cuba, but a fairly large nation, deserving of self-protection when threatened by an adjacent "bully." Setting up a defense shield in the very real threat of Russian invasion is hardly comparable to Cuba's fear of being invaded by a democracy like the US. Though we did invade Cuba, it was because of its effort to be an outpost for an adversary from afar, and not a desire for self-government alone.

And as you likely know, our "invasion" of Cuba didn't turn out nearly like the invasion of Ukraine. How can you compare them?

At that time, having nuclear missiles in that range at the time of the Cold War was a hostile act. I see no comparison between the extension of a defense shield in Eastern Europe to protect democracies with the effort to remove that defense shield by an aggressive, adventuristic autocracy?

 

[posthuman]

Ezekiel 38 seems to indicate that Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria and some others will in coalition attack Israel, in a precursor to Armageddon, seeking spoil and material gain.
It also indicates that 'the young lions' - America, India, etc - former colonies of Great Britain ((the lion)) will object but not actually step in to defend Israel.

Putin is moving towards that and we should not be surprised if it indeed comes soon. If his economy is destroyed and he remains in power he will have to turn to conquest to support it.

 

[Magenta]

2 Corinthians 10:4 plus Matthew 24:6