<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>A &quot;Just&quot; War or Just a War?</title>
		<description>Comments for A &quot;Just&quot; War or Just a War? at http://thenewamerican.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments</description>
		<link>http://thenewamerican.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:10:05 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Larry Mcdonald would be ashamed of you guys</title>
			<link>http://thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/854-a-qjustq-war-or-just-a-war#comment-795</link>
			<description>Larry would be ashamed of you publishing articles from Larry vance. Larry Vance calls U.S. soldiers murderers in his columns. Larry wanted the draft reinstated. - jim rogers</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:37:09 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bush's Christianity</title>
			<link>http://thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/854-a-qjustq-war-or-just-a-war#comment-742</link>
			<description>I think some care should be taken regarding whether Bush is/was a Christian.

I don't know of any Christian who would consider Jesus Christ a philosopher - he is considered a savior by those who call themselves Christian and have even a child's level of understanding of Christianity.  To label him as &quot;philosopher&quot; is to bring him down to simply human form.  Considering that, I don't get the impression that George Bush really understands much about Jesus Christ or Christianity.

Further, Christians are known by their &quot;fruits&quot; (works) and their love, and George Bush didn't seen to exhibit much of that Christian fruit or love.   Sadly, I must admit that many Christians fit into that same mold, but being Christian doesn't make one perfect - just forgiven.

Perhaps George is a Christian - I can't be sure.  But if I consider the evidence that has been put before me, I believe the proper label would be &quot;politician,&quot; and I believe the 'philosopher&quot; statement was politically designed to win Christian votes. - Stephen White</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:05:11 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Well said....but also....</title>
			<link>http://thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/854-a-qjustq-war-or-just-a-war#comment-739</link>
			<description>The country which was attacked must consider whether or not they were guilty of some sin that God was punishing via an attacking army.  If the were guilty of some sin and that God was punishing them for it then they must bear the Rod of God's displeasure without retaliating.  For example, ancient Israel, particularly Judah was told by God that for their sins they were going to go into captivity in Babylon for 70 years and that if they rebelled against that deportation then things would be much worse for them (which is what they did).  

So, it follows that God will use one nation (pagan or otherwise) to punish another nation.  The nation which was being punished by God through His use of secondary means, an invading army, must not rebel against His punishment and attack in response but must bear up under the judgment. - Samuel Rutherford</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:12:56 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/854-a-qjustq-war-or-just-a-war#comment-714</link>
			<description>Excellent! - Norman Dowlen</description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:39:23 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

