DB,

In defining a military threat form another entity, lets say an atheist one, is it then necessary to even have a religious position, prior to action? This postulation is but one of perhaps many (though I’m sure not infinite) possibilities.

Intriguing, this geopolitical stuff. A strategist is faced with only a hand full of basic scenarios, which once an action is launched, can become so diversified as to leave the strategist befuddled.

I guess it is for this reason, some religious states and authorities prefer to side with their Gods, than to try to make do without. We might ask though, is an atheist equally defeatable as a religious entity might not be. Does epistemological pluralcy defeat a theocracy, or a lesser Secularist. A wise king would leave open his options, and not confine his kingdom to monocranististic theorism. As an example, a Darwinian state complete with un-executable humanistic equations.

For that, we could look to Solomon’s temple of wisdom, and skull of knowledge: Proverbs-24 might be of relevance.

It is –however- not my place to enter into nattering over Jacob an Esau; however I found this if it adds to betterment:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/promise_fulfillment_abrogation.htm

Boazy, by way of reciprocation for all those nice verses you exhort us to read, you might like to check these out:

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html

I reckon that little ditty just about says it all about this topic :)

God's on our side, right?

A NATO report published in 1989 and edited by Sloan spoke minimally about E – W relations and recommendations. In the 70’s, political stability in the EastEuro block gave impudence to the Russians. Quote: ‘In response, the allies, with good reason, adopted a more sceptical approach to the East’s willingness to pursue cooperation on terms favourable to Western interests’. Diplomacy continued and sought politico-economical benefits suitable to both E & W. ‘In the 1990s, the allies should not make the mistake of overemphasising one aspect to the detriment of the other. NATO will have to ensure that its defence policies do not undermine security by stimulating responses by the East that only perpetuate the arms race. On the other hand, the allies must ensure that they are not anxious for improved [E –W] relations that they neglect the fundamental defence requirements’.

Kagan & Kagan found NATO a bit fractious, and Rumsfeld saw it as part of Old Europe. Remembering that K&K found the US to be mightily reserved, as did former President Carter, we can turn to Isiah 49:23 where it is said prudent are they that await reservedly. The results of zealotry are found in 49:4 – 26. And, like we see of Babylon: Daniel 11, particularly 3 + 4.

We see now, the better side of prudential speculation, I think. And, as is said, render unto Caesar, that which is Caesers. Wise advice I am sure, but hardly a call to arms these days. Yet it is, in some hemispheres. And the Grecian realm thing. So, the US is faced with the growth of the EU.

What might they do?

C.J. thanx for that Dylan link, I read it and feel it is most appropriate that you offer it for our consideration in this important matter.

I refer you to principle 2 in my list above.

Dylan rightly reflects the idea of 'manifest destiny' which was held by the European settlers, and highlights just how wrong it was.

The thing I'm seeking to open up here, is certainly not that God is on our side, but rather, how can WE be sure we are on HIS side ?
What 'is' God's side, in terms of his providential connection with the wider world. I don't think we would be far from the mark by following the words of Isaiah:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=1&version=31

C.J. please read the whole chapter mate... it should be close to your own heart when you see what it says, though the starting point is "Alienation from God" and then the social repercussions.

Verse 17
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.

QUESTION 1
If the principles I outline in the first post are enshrined in our constitution, can any one see the possibility for wrongful or unjust war ?

QUESTION 2 If we followed those principles, and were aware of a brutal genocide taking place in PNG, would we be "on Gods side" to intervene, based on full adherance to ALL the principles outlined ?

Hi David,

""The thing I'm seeking to open up here, is certainly not that God is on our side, but rather, how can WE be sure we are on HIS side ?""

Which God ? There appear to be many gods around the world. Are you asking if WE can be sure that we are on YOUR god's side ?

QUESTION 1
If the principles I outline in the first post are enshrined in our constitution, can any one see the possibility for wrongful or unjust war ?

Is killing of any sort 'just', or is it 'just' simply because it is sanctioned by the State/Constitution ?

QUESTION 2 If we followed those principles, and were aware of a brutal genocide taking place in PNG, would we be "on Gods side" to intervene, based on full adherance to ALL the principles outlined ?

I think we should be on the side of the 'correct thing to do', god wouldn't even come into that equation.

"I think we should be on the side of the 'correct thing to do', god wouldn't even come into that equation."

That is where I have the same problem as you do when you say "Which god".

In the Biblical Christian view, God does not invade countries to establish the Kingdom of God. This is not the case for Islam.
This one point is so crucial to 'get' that I am posting in just about everywhere save on my own forehead with a post it :)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

read that link.... and come to the part where it says:

"Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

COMMENT there is nothing even remotely like this in the New Testament. This is the expression of outright religious war, which has as its goal the subjugation of people on 'RELIGIOUS' grounds.

So, I suggest we derive our understanding of "God" from the Old and New Testaments, where we see His social will for people to be about Justice. See this from Isaiah about 'religious worship' and 'social justice'

Isaiah 1:13
Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.

Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them

COMMENT: why ? because of this.

Isaiah 1:17

"Your hands are full of blood;
learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow"

So, is not 'this' God, one worthy of our being on His side ?