Christian hostages murdered by Somali Pirates

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Yep, better stop worshipping BIG NAME preachers, those with the best voice, FOOD, who gives the most money, people of success in the finest attire, the politically powerful, and ya know, that lucky fishing pole or certain rifle.

Better get rid of all those hobby magazines, classic cars, antiques, and that house you primp up to look better than all those other neighbors. Don't forget that certain breed of dog that is KING, or that Harley Davidson with ALL of the chrome!

Sorry kids, no more dolls. No more super heroes. And you can just forget it, no more Match Box cars or trophies if you win!

And AFFer’s the AVATAR (Avatar; most often refers to a manifestation or appearance of a Hindu deity) is history! No more bowing to your little deceptive, iconic, picture that leads people to their knees. We’ve had enough people in time worship things like the Sun, Moon, and Stars. Burn every Cross and statue you own. No images, no pictures, nothing which might portray a false image.

And last but not least, the MIRRORS have got to GO!!! Can't be looking at that old sinner, gettin all spoofed up for Church or a night out, you little devil, you!!

All that excuses idolatry?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"Blood" and "war" need not necessarily involve "revenge." Making war against the pirates could be argued as a means of preventing future bloodshed. These pirates have shown themselves to be willing to kill their hostages in the past.

Of course, effectively wiping out the murderers without resorting to carpet bombing of the coast is going to be dicey. Somalia is a "nation" in name only. It's not a state and has no government outside of the warring tribes. Which tribes are more friendly toward Western and International interests and which are more prone to violence and bloodshed?

It's a mess where no warlord has been powerful enough to get the others to bow - so it remains a mess. Add to it, there is really little short term interest for anyone over there to change things. At least as things stand now. The people need hope. They need to see that civilized behavior can be at least as rewarding as piracy and their eternal feuds.

I think there's no question that a greater military presence (internationally) is required in this region. More than what we have there. That's also risky and vulnerable for the US, anytime we have sizable forces somewhere. Right now, it's almost best to have alternative routes (which is what this one was) and to secure those waters. Picking and choosing battles.

Either way, as a Christian, the idea of me screaming "WAR!" just never settles right.

[Jermyn Davidson]

If you want your rights violated, decide to go sailing in international waters.

You can be confident that your government will do nothing to defend you.


Maybe the Christian response would be to do nothing about it.

Maybe mention them at prayer in between the time we take up our offering and the preacher takes the podium tomorow night-- yeah, that would be the Christian thing to do.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Socialite

This is an international crisis, not exclusively USA.

Your call for invaded a sovereign border is a lousy precedent at already unstable times. Greater military presence is probably best. Still never fool-proof. These are first civilian casualties.

To be fair, Somalia has nothing that can be really called "sovereign." That's the problem. I would be against any "invasion" simply because we're a little busy right now trying to build other failed states.

How about this? What if NATO, the UN or some other international coalition established themselves as the "Somali Port Authority." All ocean going vessels would be inspected in the ports (two or three ports at most) and licensed to fish or engage in commerce.

Any vessel sailing to or from Somalia and not checking in with the "Port Authority" would be sunk. Period.

We create "bottlenecks" where we can monitor the marine activities of this "nation." Everyone not going through the "bottle neck" gets blasted. The operations of the "Port Authorities" would be relatively small and in easily guarded compounds.

The limits to which the pirates could operate would be about the limit of an outboard skiff - not much, certainly nowhere near the coast of India and the Maldives where they've been operating. The pirate "motherships" would no longer be part of the equation. A much smaller and a much more easily patrolled corridor of "pirate activity" would be created and the pirates themselves would be denied the open seas.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

All that excuses idolatry?

We covered your idolatry claims in another thread. The one when you said Mother Teresa was headed to hell. Remember?

It's unfounded. N4S pointed out very REAL cases of idolatry instead of the one's where you oppose images being made.

It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.

People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.

It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).

The bottom line is are they worshipping another God, represented or thought to literally be that object? N4S pointed to more practical ways idolatry is rampant today.

So your raining on the thread parade of throwing these guys in hell can, well, go to h... nevermind.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If you want your rights violated, decide to go sailing in international waters.

You can be confident that your government will do nothing to defend you.


Maybe the Christian response would be to nothing about it.

Maybe mention them at prayer in between the time we take up our offering and the preacher takes the podium tomorow night-- yeah, that would be the Christian thing to do.

Nothing? Where are you being informed?

Christianity is not a country, a political state or a physical nation. Keep that in mind...

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If you want your rights violated, decide to go sailing in international waters.

You can be confident that your government will do nothing to defend you.


Maybe the Christian response would be to nothing about it.

Maybe mention them at prayer in between the time we take up our offering and the preacher takes the podium tomorow night-- yeah, that would be the Christian thing to do.

Having a government "failing to defend" you while you are living on a pension cruising around the world is not, technically, a violation of one's "rights." It is however, a "violation" of one's retirement.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How about this? What if NATO, the UN or some other international coalition established themselves as the "Somali Port Authority." All ocean going vessels would be inspected in the ports (two or three ports at most) and licensed to fish or engage in commerce.

It is absolutely IMPERATIVE for the American government to respond.

We should not leave this incident as an example that emboldens those who do wish to do Americans harm.


America really needs to take the lead on this-- with or without the help of the international community.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Nothing? Where are you being informed?

Christianity is not a country, a political state or a physical nation. Keep that in mind...

Vatican State would have us to believe otherwise.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Having a government "failing to defend" you while you are living on a pension cruising around the world is not, technically, a violation of one's "rights." It is however, a "violation" of one's retirement.

lol


Pel, it has happened before that Americans have been victimized by these pirates. Now they are killing Americans.


The U.S. Marines took on the Barbary Pirates in history.

We can take these guys out too and bring law and order to that region.


The minute Americans were killed, it should have become our mandate.

If a Conservative, Chrsitan Republican was President right now, I DOUBT things would have gone this far and if they did, there would be NO DOUBT about our response to their actions.