Well, I think I have to begin to sing - the appropriate love songs. 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E2El1kdooM[/youtube]
Iām edging close, ever closer, even closer. yetā¦to the cliff I just named the ZAODS.
Zombie Apocalypse Overload Derangement Syndrome.
Iām begging you Randy, help a brother out! - fight the urge to post ZA stuff all over! You have an addiction! Itās hard to have an āinterventionā on a forum but we could try to help you. Iāll send (a small amount) of money to help with therapy! I will pray to whatever saint - wait - let me google it - here: Dymphna - can help you.
God knows I have my quirks, slothalothaphobia (an irrational fear of armadillos); attempts to build a miniature but highly-detailed Byzantine church out of cat hair (could not find a scientific name for that one, except, maybe, the technical term ānutsā), and a more understandable, though troubling, desire to play ping-pong with Kate Upton. And oh yes, there are more items yet in the multi-quirkdom over which I reign.
Nonetheless, though itās a struggle, I do not give free rein (ha) to these 'interesting, colorful, somewhat curious, seriously debilitating, charming little hiccups in an otherwise gloriously endowed Character.
There may be a little bit oā hyperbole in the above.
Oh, I donāt know, Donā¦ Itās hard to know what exactly is in another personās mind. I would like to see NoKo free. I and just about everyone else, want the people there to be free and prosperous and out from under the thumb of this evil man. No one knows how to accomplish it and hardly anyone is willing to sacrifice our own societies in order to save their poor beleaguered one (and then have them all perish in misery as the slaves of Kim anyway). A surgical preemptive strike that could somehow spare SoKo from retaliation (and Japan, too) would be a mercy, I think. Iām pretty sure though, that it canāt be accomplished. Our govt canāt seem to find their hinies with both hands, let alone do something as tricky as this. Iām afraid weāre going to blow the whole place up (I mean the planet) and that will be the destruction with fire literally accomplished. Itās not like the 1940ās and itās not like Reagan, who had Maggie Thatcher to help him. Unless God puts His finger on the scale in some way, Iām not sure how we get out of this mess in this life.
As for John Bolton, though, I think heās a good choice. I hope Iām right about that. It wonāt work to do the Nevil Chamberlain thing with Kim any more than it worked with Hitler. Kim is a bad, bad man and heās not going to listen to people he perceives to be weak/cowering/frightened in any way. He remembers what BHO did to Gaddafi and he doesnāt want to die in some ditch somewhere. Heās holding a knife to the throats of not only his people, but also those of SoKo and to a lesser degree, Japan. Heck, maybe even China is afraid of him. You get a vicious dog next door and yes, a big vicious dog is scarier than a small one, but the small one can still put a big lot of nasty holes in your ankle. Especially if he has a nuclear bomb in his back pocket. So you can send enough ordinance back to turn the whole place into a nuclear waste dump? You still have a big gaping hole in Shanghai. Maybe more than one. Not to mention the whole area is poisoned for decades to come.
I really think some bluster and acting like a crazy person might be in order.
<Randy, I was joking above, of course. Not about the armadillos, but the rest of it>
Hey, Dave.
Iām just following my calling. Everyone has their quirks here. For some, it might be Panrellism or Full Preterism. Others it might be No Free-Will Universism or Ultra Universalism. And other such theological and philosophical oddities.
I just found the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse (especially as seen by some, with the āallegedā gift of prophecy)ā¦to be my cup of tea. And it MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
Especially after watching ALL the episodes, of the AMC shows - The Walking Dead and Fear The Walking Dead. It makes PERFECT theological and philosophical senseā¦ as the most PROBABLE, end times model.
But I keep having problems, āsellingā it. The 70 AD folks, want to align them with the futurists. The futurists here, want to align them - with the 70 AD, completion folks. You canāt win for losing. 
So Iām just their marketing guy. And if I am right, I am performing a GREAT service - for humanity. 
Youāre lucky Iām not on boardā¦ with the Peter Popoff, miracle spring water.
Oh my!!
Cindy, I donāt have to be convinced as to how evil Kim is, or the fact that the people in his regime are suffering horribly. I just donāt believe that nuking the country, including the suffering people, would be the solution that Jesus would recommend. Surely His instructions to āLove your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who abuse you,ā has a universal application, and was not meant to be limited to His immediate disciples.
Of course I realize that some Christians are sure that Christās instructions do not apply to international relations, or even to individuals. They always bring up the objection (and I used to do it myself), if you saw that a man was about to kill your spouse, and you had a gun in your hand, would you not shoot him? Or would you just let him kill your spouse?"
After my experience living as a teacher in a Hutterite community for three years, and having read Tolstoiās short stories concerning this very matter, I have changed my thinking on the matter.
No doubt, one should do what is necessary to save the life of oneās spouse. But killing another person in order to do so, is not a Christian option.
Hi, Don. I have spent many years, with the Quakers silent meeting. It was a part, of my spiritual growth. I respect ALL their peace efforts. And I think if there are, any non-war options available ā¦to resolve the North Korean crisisā¦they should ALL be explored. Whether itās working with China, the UN, Europe, having face-to-face meetings (between Trump and Kim), etc. Iām all for it.
I respect the men and women, of peace. But I also have respect, for Christian friends I know - in the armed forces.
May we find a way out, that respects balance and peace.
Nah Randyā¦ you just have to take full ownership and be accountable for your own sales pitch, i.e., YOUāRE the one for a LONG time now whoās been flogging thisā¦ āthe zombie apocalypse is COMINGā ā future
No doubt, one should do what is necessary to save the life of oneās spouse. But killing another person in order to do so, is not a Christian option.
Paidion
I think if we wish to sacrifice ourselves for someone thatās Christlike but making the decision to sacrifice others to evil is not something we are called to do or should do. Just my opinion but a President has a duty to protect the citizens and this issue with Kim may extend to whether we should protect Japan or South Korea. Kim has threatened Japan several times and has said their existence is unnecessary and he feels South Korea is part of North Korea.
I wasnāt talking about a NUCLEAR preemptive action, Don. I said a surgical strike on missile sites (I think I didāif I didnāt make that clear, I apologize). Surgical strikes are carried out with conventional weaponsāI donāt know why anyone would want to use nuclear for that, but maybe Iām wrong. Unfortunately, I donāt believe we can be sure we know where all of those missile sites are, and some are apparently mobile. Taking out a missile site would be more like shooting the gun out of the hand of the aggressor though no doubt people attending the sites could be killed or hurt in the process. The goal is to kill missiles, not to harm people.
As for ACTUALLY shooting a gun out of someoneās handāIām no genius, but Iām smarter than trying to do that. Center mass. I will absolutely pull that trigger for my husband if needed and for anyone else who might be under threat from a bad guy. Iām not a Hutterite. My dad fought in WWII and Iām proud of him and if he and others hadnāt done that, and no one else intervened, the Nazis and Japanese imperialists (or which-ever group survived a subsequent struggle between the two) would now be ruling the world (unless someone ELSE took THAT regime down.) John the Baptist told the soldiers to be satisfied with their wages and not to take advantage of the locals (or something similarāI canāt remember exactly). He could have told them to lay down their weapons and willingly suffer the consequences. Just because many of them were essentially slaves to Rome doesnāt excuse obeying orders to use physical forceāif thatās never justified. Maybe the Baptist was wrong.
If he WAS wrong, then we should immediately disband all police forces, military forces, and even disciplinary practices that require the (often violent) use of force such as the prison system. One should NEVER call 911 in case of a crime, because one might become implicit in a police officer feeling forced to do evil by using violence to protect one. One should not approach a suspected bomber because of the high probability one might push him to injure or kill himself by detonating a bomb to prevent his own capture (which would no doubt also have required violence to achieve.)
The Hutterites can have their beliefs and live by them and survive in nice little communities because most of the world does NOT live by Hutterite beliefs. Hutterites and other pacifists are protected by the violence of others who are willing to keep the violence of those of evil intent away from them. They are protected, ultimately, by violent men. Thatās not their fault (unless they pay their taxes). They canāt stop the police from protecting their communities although they can refrain from calling for help (and maybe they WOULD refraināI donāt know). Itās like the parents who refuse to have their child vaccinated against life-threatening disease. As long as the child stays in communities in which most of the people have been vaccinated, he will be unlikely to be exposed to the diseases for which he has little in the way of defense (that defense is also so microscopically violent that doctors have named one of our white blood cell types Natural Killer Cell). His safety is in the fact that others have done what he (his parents) will NOT do for whatever reason. Same with the Hutterites. Theyāre (more or less) surrounded by a cushion of potential violence on their behalf, which allows them to live in relative safety while refusing to personally commit violence on their own behalf on on behalf of others. IMO, itās kind of hypocritical. Not their fault. They canāt do anything about itābut it still allows them to live in a way that would otherwise not be possibleāor at least not possible for long.
āWe sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.ā
I think that is a true statement.
Paidion is correct. Vengeance belongs to God. If that means undergoing violence like the Christian martyrs and the apostle Paul did - so be it.
We are not actually talking about vengeance.
It is vengeance. Never repay evil with evil but overcome evil with good. We are to love the enemy. Even if it means torture and death like Paul and the martyrs went through. Thatās Christianity. Jonathan Edwards saw it clearly:
We are not actually talking about repaying either.
If a man were attacking my wife, I would defend her. If he attacks me, I would defend myself. It is silly to think otherwiseā¦just think it through.
If my neighbor is building a weapon and yelling that he is going to use it on me, and I see him constructing it, and I see him already performing horrendous acts on other people - well, I could (and would) pray; but that is not all I would do. His right to be violent and kill my loved ones will be overridden by my righteous right to stop him, pre-emptively. It does not pay to be stupid in this world.
We can moan about violence - but the reason you are free to moan is that there are weapons of unimaginable power protecting you.
Sorry Dave I go along with the Christian martyrs , the apostle Paul and Jesus.
Good for you. My point still stands - YOU are living a protected life because others are willing to protect you.
And further:
āThe right to life generates the right to defend oneās life and in consequence the right to the means of self defense. The right to the means of self-defense is protected, not conferred, by the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. As I said, that right is logically antecedent to constitutions and such. It follows that the question whether or not said amendment protects an individual citizenās right to keep and bear arms is a question of constitutional interpretation that is strictly secondary to the question of whether the individual citizen has a right to the means of self defense. Of course he does, as I have argued.ā - Bill Vallicella
One thing I found interesting, is the philosophy behind TRUE martial arts. Take, for example - The Karate Kid (volume 1). Thereās the martial arts school, by the bad teacher. Who teaches violence. Then there is the teaching, of the old Japanese man. Where Karate builds character, inner strength, and calmness. The same can be said, for jiu-jitsu and Aikido.
A person trained in REAL martial arts, is a man or woman of peace. But they are prepared to fight, if given no other choice.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7YDcLP2DeY[/youtube]
If I wasnāt protected and I was to live the life of a martyr I would be a Christian in the likes of Paul and Jesus. Iām willing to suffer and die as they did. Iām a Christian not a corrupt politician in the footsteps of Trump.