we don’t have to agree or even “get along” to have peace. why is it that extremists don’t understand such differences?
“we can’t because we each have our own agenda and can’t look beyond own self-interest to put the needs of the world above our own”
speak for yourselves, righties. we know that many of you can’t put the needs of the world above your own, you’ve proved it time and time again. but you don’t speak for me or for half of the planet.

“God decrees, he doesn’t dream.”
btw – i’m glad to see that you haven’t given up claiming to know god more than anyone else might.

Pastor Bell? Sounds like Pastor Pusillaminous.

Nuclear Weapons = Bad. All weapons also equal bad, but nuclear weapons are more bad.
God’s Dream = Poetry. A symbolic way to describe God’s desire for peace on Earth, a desire that is clearly not currently “decreed”, or else it would BE.
Over at Dreher’s blog, we have Christians for Torture. Here, we have Christians for Nuclear Weapons.
This would of course be God’s nightmare.

Only in “liberal speak” (or perhaps Michele-hate speak”) does “Wouldn’t all weapons be a “direct affront to God’s dream of shalom?” Why only nuclear weapons? ” get translated into “Michele supports nuclear weapons.
You liberals (here) are too funny.

Over at Dreher’s blog, we have Christians for Torture.
We’ve probably all seen this by now:
“A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same [torture is never justified], compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.”
Yikes.
Maybe this was communicated to Bell in a dream.
But even if I interpret Matt. 5:9 like you, in the indicative, the children of God are peacemakers. There is such a thing at work in the world. You must be acquainted with some in your life … as I am in mine.
Aside: does Bell have universalist leanings?

Aside: does Bell have universalist leanings?
Yes. Or more like “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.”

It must be pretty obvious if I picked up on it.

“He has decreed a time of peace when the Prince of Peace returns to rule his kingdom in righteousness.”
True. But I take it that does not mean we should be involved in blowing up God’s world in the meantime.

I translated into Michele supports getting rid of all weapons.
Dreher’s blogs on torture have been interesting.
6 in 10 “evangelical protestants”,
4 in 10 “people unaffiliated with any religious organization”, and
3 in 10 “mainline protestants” support torture.
Bush and Cheney ignored their mainline church that said “Tell Bush That United Methodist Do Not Torture”

Apparently many weapons aren’t a “direct affront to God’s dream of shalom”. Many conservative Christians seem to put a huge amount of faith in their pistols and rifles, and their ability to use them skillfully.
If the political positions were reversed, I would expect at least some people to call such lust and fealty a false idol.

Thank God the Atomic Bombs ended the Pacific conflict of WW2. Thank God that we were able to be the peace makers and now peace between Japan and The United States has existed since then!
Next Please!

I translated into Michele supports getting rid of all weapons.
I thought it meant that it makes to sense to say that one type of weapon is an affront to God and another is not.
We could wipe “weapons” off the face of the earth and people would use…rocks, or scarves, or insulin.
The problem is not weapons, the problem is sin.
The solution is not getting rid of weapons, the solution is Jesus.
The enemy is not nuclear weapons or guns, the enemy is death.
We (humans) cannot defeat the problem or the enemy. Only Jesus can.
“Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”
This does not mean that we do not work to suppress evil in our time and it doesn’t mean that we (Christians) are to be idle in the face of those who violate “good” (whether that is torture, abortion, abuse or any other violation).
(I wish the folks who had covered that survey had broken it down a little more – there can be a vast difference between supporting torture on a general level and seeing that there are rare times that desperate people might resort to it.)

Mz. Ellen is right. Weapons are not the problem; sin is the problem, and the solution is Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, many excellent Christians have not liked nuclear weapons. From an infantry soldier’s point of view, nuclear weapons remove opportunities for valor and make the fight unfair. Medieval Christianity praised the knight in shining armor, but the nuclear bomb makes the knight obsolete. I think Pope John Paul II had this in mind when he excoriated nuclear weapons. And biological / chemical weapons are even worse. Hitler refused to use gas. Remember the anthrax scare? May the LORD protect us!

I think Pope John Paul II had this in mind when he excoriated nuclear weapons.
“Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unhesitating condemnation.” (GS No. 80)

Weapons creation/use is the result of the sin of not loving God, ourselves and others. Since we followers of Jesus are commanded to give up our hateful ways we advocate for the beating of swords into plowshares by those who follow Jesus. Let our protection be the God of jesus, the God of love. Perfect love drives out fear and jesus calls and commands us to perfection – be you perfect therefore as your Father in heaven is perfect.
.