The Wired Word for 03/15/2026  > [!note]+ Document Notes > ```markdown > > --- > tags: [war, Christianity, Iran] > author: The Wired Word > source: [MISSING] > reference: [mailto:reader-forwarded-email/d49c98fa18347b7461216c9c766a6cca] > date created: > > --- > > # 🏷️ Title: The Wired Word for 03/15/2026 > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - Include links cited in or relevant to the article. ## 📝 Summary - What happened: A devotional lesson reflects on the new U.S.–Israel war with Iran, outlining competing military and political goals and reporting concerns about “end times” rhetoric in the U.S. military. - Why it matters: It guides Christians in evaluating war aims, ethics, and discipleship through Scripture. - Key stakeholders: U.S., Iran, Israel, Gulf states, civilians, Christian communities, military personnel. - Risks and tradeoffs: Civilian casualties, escalation, misuse of theology, economic disruption, injustice in warfare. - Bottom line: Christians are urged to pursue justice, protect the innocent, count the costs of war, and avoid triumphalism or apocalyptic misuse while trusting God’s power. ## 📖 Main Content - The lesson summarizes U.S. aims: destroy Iran’s navy, missiles, nuclear ambitions, and militia networks like Hezbollah and the Houthis, while regional allies seek stability and economic security via the Strait of Hormuz. - It contrasts U.S. and Israeli objectives, including differing emphases on regime change and targeted killing of Iranian leaders, and notes domestic U.S. disagreement about Israel’s influence on policy. - It reports allegations that some U.S. commanders have framed the war as “all part of God’s divine plan” and linked President Trump to an anointed role in triggering Armageddon, which watchdogs criticize. - The piece then “applies” the news by posing questions on nuclear threats, regime change, U.S.–Israel relations, and proper Christian war aims (economic stability, counterterrorism, national interest, etc.). - Biblical exposition follows: - 1 Samuel 17: David and Goliath emphasize trusting God’s power over weapons and recognizing that “the battle is the LORD’s.” - Obadiah 12–14 condemns gloating, looting, and mistreating fugitives, teaching that God judges nations for injustices in war. - Luke 14:31–33 highlights counting the cost before war and links it to the cost of discipleship and sacrifice. - Revelation 16:16 (Armageddon) is treated as God’s delayed judgment against oppression, showing concern for the suffering and offering time for repentance. - The study asks how Christians should relate modern Israel to biblical Israel, how to minimize civilian casualties (e.g., a Tomahawk strike on an Iranian school), and whether the conflict fits Just War criteria (probability of success, last resort, proportionality). - It ends with a call for political reflection, relational self-examination (using “blown up relationships” as a metaphor), trust in God, fairness in conflict, and prayer for justice and the vulnerable. ### 🗒️ Notes - U.S. goals: neutralize Iran’s navy and missile forces, prevent nuclear weapons development, and disrupt support for proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis, while considering but not explicitly adopting regime change. - Israeli goals: prioritize missile threats due to geographic vulnerability and place more emphasis on regime change, including targeting high-level Iranian leaders. - Domestic U.S. debate: Some Democrats and Republicans worry Israel is pulling the U.S. into war and dictating policy; media figures lobby against being “pressured into war by Israel.” - Trump’s stated rationale: to advance U.S. interests, remove Iran as a global threat, and oppose an “evil ideology,” while being unsure who should replace current leaders and fearing equally bad successors. - Gulf allies’ perspective: having suffered over a thousand Iranian missiles and drones hitting bases, embassies, energy sites, and civilian infrastructure, they seek quick conflict termination to restore stability. - Economic stakes: The Strait of Hormuz carries about one-fifth of global traded oil and major LNG volumes; war slows shipping, raising fuel and possibly food prices due to fertilizer disruption. - Security framing: supply chains for energy, minerals, semiconductors, and data are cast as national security assets, not purely commercial. - Religious rhetoric in the military: complaints allege commanders describe the war as part of “God’s divine plan,” cite Revelation and Armageddon, and claim Trump is “anointed” to spark end-times events—language not reflected in official policy. - Discussion prompts invite Christians to weigh nuclear nonproliferation, terrorism, regime change, economic stability, and theological narratives as possible war aims for individuals and churches. - 1 Samuel 17: David rejects Saul’s armor, relies on a sling and stones, and trusts God to defeat Goliath, modeling dependence on God rather than conventional military strength. - Obadiah: God condemns Edom’s gloating, looting, and blocking or handing over fugitives, teaching that God expects restraint and protection of innocents even amid warfare. - Luke 14: Jesus uses a king counting the cost of war to illustrate that disciples must consider the heavy cost of following him, including relinquishing possessions. - Revelation 16: demonic spirits gather kings to Harmagedon, but God delays the battle, signaling both mercy and commitment to judge oppression; cities symbolizing wealth and pride face divine wrath. - Ethical questions: Is modern Israel equivalent to biblical Israel in God’s purposes? Is God automatically on modern Israel’s side in war? How should Christians assess Just War criteria in this Iran conflict? - Civilian harm: a likely U.S. Tomahawk strike on an Iranian elementary school killing many, including children, highlights the moral imperative to minimize civilian casualties and “collateral damage.” - Just War evaluation: proponents argue U.S. strikes meet probability of success, last resort (after diplomacy), and proportionality; readers are invited to critically assess those claims. - Relational analogy: ending the Iran nuclear agreement and then bombing Iran prompts reflection on when “blowing up” personal relationships is warranted and what collateral harm may result. - Closing exhortation: Christians are urged to put faith in God’s power, practice fairness in conflict, remember God’s care for the suffering, and shape political stances and relationships accordingly. ## 📚 References - [Assessing U.S. Progress in the Iran War – The Washington Institute](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/) - [The Goals of the War – The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/) - [From Missiles to Minerals: The Strategic Meaning Behind the Iran Strike – Fox News](https://www.foxnews.com/) - [U.S. Troops Were Told War on Iran Was 'All Part of God's Divine Plan', Watchdog Alleges – The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/) - [Just War criteria discussion – The Washington Stand](https://washingtonstand.com/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Paragraph A paraphrase: The piece reviews the early stages of the U.S.–Israel war with Iran, outlines different national objectives, and asks what Christian goals—if any—should shape support for the conflict. - Paragraph B paraphrase: Using scriptural texts and ethical questions, it challenges believers to trust God rather than military power, reject injustice in warfare, count the costs of both war and discipleship, and avoid misusing apocalyptic language. ## 📰 Newsletter This week’s note looks beyond WordPress and into how faith communities wrestle with war, power, and responsibility. It walks through current events in Iran, contrasts national interests, and then anchors the conversation in Scripture and Christian ethics. For WordPress-focused readers, there’s a meta-lesson here: how we frame narratives, count the cost of major changes, and protect vulnerable users mirrors how nations should weigh conflict. Pair this reflection with your regular learning resources—like developer docs, training sites, and plugin handbooks—to think holistically about responsibility in both code and civic life. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Clarify internal guidance for discussing geopolitics in tech communities so advocacy stays inclusive and non-partisan. - Build educational content on ethical decision-making and cost–benefit analysis for developers (e.g., around feature rollouts that affect user safety). - Improve docs and examples showing how to communicate risk, tradeoffs, and “counting the cost” in technical proposals. - Run campaigns or talks that draw healthy boundaries between personal beliefs and official project communications. - Survey community members on how controversial topics should be handled in official channels. #### OSPO - Draft policies on how open-source projects reference current conflicts, ensuring neutrality and focus on human rights. - Integrate license and policy reviews with ethical guidelines for use in sensitive domains (e.g., surveillance, warfare). - Establish a security and disclosure process that explicitly considers harm to civilians and vulnerable populations. - Maintain an inventory of dependencies used in high-risk sectors and track responsible-use commitments. - Offer office hours to advise maintainers whose software could be weaponized. - Align open-source strategy with organizational ethics, including explicit stances against oppression and injustice. #### Community - Support maintainers with templates for codes of conduct that address harassment around political or religious topics. - Provide clear contributor pathways that emphasize respect across ideological differences. - Give sponsors transparent reporting on how funds avoid enabling harmful uses. - Practice cross-project collaboration on crisis responses (e.g., statements on human rights, coordinated moderation). #### WordPress - Core: Consider guidelines for political content in core interfaces or bundled content. - Core Performance: Ensure performance efforts benefit users in bandwidth- and resource-constrained regions affected by conflict. - Core AI: Establish ethical guardrails for AI features that could be misused for propaganda or targeted harassment. - **Core Program Team:** Coordinate messaging and moderation policies across teams for contentious news cycles. - Mobile: Optimize for low-connectivity environments common in conflict zones. - Playground: Use sandboxes to teach safe, responsible experimentation without harming production sites. - Community: Provide meetups and WordCamps with resources on dealing with polarizing topics respectfully. - Training: Create lessons on inclusive communication and ethical decision-making in open collaboration. - Marketing: Avoid sensational framing; highlight stories of inclusion, accessibility, and support for vulnerable users. - Support: Develop escalation paths for conflicts in forums that involve religion, politics, or war-related trauma. - Design: Emphasize calm, accessible interfaces that support users under stress. - Documentation: Add content on community norms around sensitive discussions. - Photos: Curate imagery with care for trauma sensitivity when depicting conflict or suffering. - TV: Encourage captions and context for talks touching on global crises. - Polyglots: Prioritize translations in languages from regions affected by conflict to broaden access to support. - Accessibility: Ensure resources are usable by people with trauma, cognitive load, or disabilities exacerbated by crisis. - Meta: Strengthen tools that help moderators manage heated discussions fairly. - CLI: Provide guardrails against destructive commands in multi-user or high-stakes environments. - Hosting: Coordinate default security and backups to protect sites in unstable regions. - Tide: Communicate scoring and security recommendations in ways that are understandable under stress. - Openverse: Moderate conflict imagery and provide context in captions and descriptions. - Themes: Offer patterns suitable for NGOs, churches, and humanitarian organizations. - Plugins: Encourage security, privacy, and consent best practices, especially for communication tools used during crises. #### The WPOCC - Programs: Support fellowships and stipends for maintainers building tools for human rights and crisis response. - Projects: Run governance clinics that help communities handle disagreement over political or theological positions. - Funding experiments: Pilot matched grants for projects aiding journalism, humanitarian work, or trauma-informed design. ### FAIR - Technical independence: Track provenance and signatures for critical plugins or themes used by civic and faith groups. - Policies and covenants: Codify funding transparency and anti-capture clauses to avoid geopolitical influence. - Productized governance artifacts: Publish reusable charters and operator agreements addressing ethical use and conflict handling. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - H1: Explicit Christian teaching against gloating, looting, and harming fugitives reduces support for indiscriminate warfare among believers. - H2: Exposure to “end times” war rhetoric increases Christian support for high-risk military escalation. - H3: Framing modern Israel as equivalent to biblical Israel correlates with stronger support for Israeli military actions regardless of civilian cost. - H4: Teaching Just War criteria leads Christians to adopt more nuanced and conditional support for military intervention. - H5: Discussions connecting foreign-policy conflicts to personal relationships improve self-reflection on conflict behaviors. ### 📊 Methodology - Use survey experiments among Christian communities, randomly assigning participants to different theological framings (Obadiah ethics vs. apocalyptic rhetoric) and measuring policy preferences. - Conduct longitudinal studies tracking changes in war-support attitudes before and after Bible-study curricula on Just War and oppression. - Use qualitative interviews and focus groups to explore how believers connect modern Israel with biblical narratives. - Analyze sermons and military chaplaincy materials for frequency of Armageddon framing and correlate with local opinion polling. - Run controlled small-group studies that integrate personal-relationship metaphors and measure changes in conflict-resolution attitudes. ### ❓ Questions - How does emphasizing God’s judgment on oppression reshape Christian views of acceptable wartime conduct? - What guardrails should churches place around preaching about Armageddon during active conflicts? - In what ways does economic interdependence (oil, fertilizers, supply chains) complicate Christian ethics of war? - How can Christians support national security without baptizing every military action as “God’s plan”? - What educational approaches best help believers “count the cost” of war, both nationally and personally? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comparative studies of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teachings on civilian protection in war. - Historical analyses of how apocalyptic preaching has influenced policy during past conflicts. - Empirical work on how church-based discussions of Just War impact voting and advocacy. - Research into trauma-informed pastoral care for veterans exposed to religiously framed combat rhetoric. - Examination of digital media’s role in spreading simplistic or incendiary theological war narratives. ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Churches may need explicit teaching on war ethics, Just War, and civilian protection. - Policy: Faith-informed advocacy could pressure governments to avoid gloating, looting, and mistreatment of refugees. - Security: Military chaplaincy guidelines may need clearer boundaries on apocalyptic rhetoric. - Education: Bible studies can incorporate political and ethical literacy without partisan alignment. - Funding: Donors might prioritize ministries and NGOs that promote peace, justice, and trauma care in conflict zones. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level estimate: Approximately late high school (Flesch-Kincaid around grade 10–11), due to mixed news analysis and biblical exposition. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Clear structural headings, verse blocks, and question lists. - Improve: Add timelines of events, maps of the region, and diagrams of Just War criteria. #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Could be read aloud in class settings. - Improve: Provide a short audio summary or podcast-style overview of the lesson. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Rich narrative explanations, quotations, and reflective questions. - Improve: Include more analogies and contrast tables (e.g., different war aims side by side). #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Discussion prompts that invite active engagement. - Improve: Add role-plays (e.g., peace negotiator vs. military planner) and practical service actions. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Structured arguments about goals, costs, and criteria (e.g., Just War). - Improve: Use decision trees for evaluating interventions and explicit pros/cons matrices. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Strong group-discussion orientation with many questions. - Improve: Provide small-group facilitation guides and peer-teaching activities. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Questions that can be used for personal reflection or journaling. - Improve: Include explicit reflection prompts and space for written responses. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Indirect connections via economic impacts on global resources. - Improve: Tie war ethics to stewardship of creation and environmental impacts of conflict. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Logical headings and paragraph structure in text form. - Improve: Ensure HTML versions have proper heading levels and descriptive alt text for any added graphics. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Plain text is inherently keyboard-friendly. - Improve: On web versions, ensure skip links and clear focus states. #### Contrast and readability - Present: Dependent on host styling; text itself is simple and linear. - Improve: Use high-contrast themes and adequate line spacing in digital formats. #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Text should reflow well in responsive layouts. - Improve: Test at 200% zoom and add support for reduced-motion preferences if animations are introduced. #### Media and captions - Present: Pure text; no media accessibility issues. - Improve: For any associated videos or audio, add captions and transcripts. #### Forms and interactions - Present: None directly. - Improve: If discussion forms or polls are added, ensure labeled fields and large tap targets. #### Standards reference - Map design and implementation gaps to WCAG 2.2 AA (headings, color contrast, keyboard, reflow, media alternatives). ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Focuses mostly on U.S., Israel, Iran, and Gulf states. - Improve: Add perspectives from local Christians and other faiths in the region. #### Inclusive language - Present: Generally neutral and respectful. - Improve: Further reduce assumptions about readers’ nationality or political alignment; define jargon clearly. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Chunked sections, predictable pattern of “news then Scripture then questions.” - Improve: More bullet lists, summaries, and consistent callout formatting. #### Representation - Present: Mentions diverse religious identities within the military complaints (Christians, Muslim, Jew). - Improve: Include voices of women, children, and non-combatants more explicitly. #### Psychological safety - Present: Acknowledges suffering and offers hope and prayer. - Improve: Add content warnings around graphic war descriptions and clear opt-outs for sensitive readers. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Uses inductive reasoning by drawing ethical principles (no gloating, looting, or mistreating fugitives) from Obadiah and applying them to modern war conduct. - Applies causal reasoning when linking slowed shipping in the Strait of Hormuz to higher gas and potential food prices. - Uses analogical reasoning between “counting the cost” of war and counting the cost of discipleship. #### Fallacies - Potential hasty generalization risk when implying specific religious rhetoric complaints reflect broad military culture; could be clarified with scope and data. - Possible equivocation around “God’s plan” if not distinguishing between providence and human policy; would benefit from explicit definitions. #### Tone of voice - Tone is pastoral, reflective, and cautionary. It combines news-reporting language (“more than a thousand missiles and drones”) with devotional framing and open-ended questions rather than dogmatic assertions. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: The piece does not deny harm; it acknowledges civilian casualties and oppression, emphasizing God’s concern for victims. - Attack: It critiques behaviors (gloating, looting, misuse of fugitives, apocalyptic manipulation) rather than attacking individuals as such. - Reverse victim/offender: It resists simple reversal by reminding readers that God’s wrath targets oppressors and that modern nations cannot automatically claim victim status as God’s side. - Overall, the article works against DARVO patterns by centering the suffering and innocent rather than justifying power. ## 🎯 Conclusion The lesson urges Christians to evaluate the Iran war not only through national interest but through Scripture: trusting God over weapons, rejecting injustice in warfare, counting the true costs, and resisting manipulative end-times rhetoric. Practically, readers are invited to examine their political views, relationships, and faith commitments, seeking justice, protection for the vulnerable, and a posture of prayerful humility. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix (append after 🎯 Conclusion) ### 📚 Literature Split Pad - Purpose: Stage Konik CEE units that become per-source Literature notes. - Split level: **H3**. - Include verbatim quotes under 25 words and a [view highlight] link. ### [H1] God judges injustice in warfare > [!quote] [The Wired Word for 03/15/2026](mailto:reader-forwarded-email/d49c98fa18347b7461216c9c766a6cca) by [[The Wired Word]] via [[Communication Resources]]. Published 2026-03-12. Accessed . > “Obadiah teaches us that God will judge nations that wage wars in a manner that tolerates gloating, looting and the mistreatment of innocent people.” Two lines: context and use. Cite data if relevant. [view highlight](mailto:reader-forwarded-email/d49c98fa18347b7461216c9c766a6cca#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_[MISSING] ### [H2] Christians must count the cost of conflict > [!quote] [The Wired Word for 03/15/2026](mailto:reader-forwarded-email/d49c98fa18347b7461216c9c766a6cca) > “What kind of sacrifices are you willing to make as a disciple? How does sacrifice lead to success?” Two lines: context and use. [view highlight](mailto:reader-forwarded-email/d49c98fa18347b7461216c9c766a6cca#H2) #xref ID:rw_[MISSING] --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) - Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. - Split level: **H4**. - Each item: one idea, present tense, specific, testable. #### [Z1] God limits acceptable conduct in war - Scope/condition in one line. - Pointer to page/time or dataset. - Links: [[Just-War-Theory]] [[Biblical-Justice]] #### [Z2] Apocalyptic rhetoric shifts Christian war attitudes - Scope/condition in one line. - Pointer to page/time or dataset. - Links: [[Political-Theology]] [[End-Times-Rhetoric]] --- ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue (Extract by Selection) - Purpose: Capture quick actions or sparks for Fleeting notes. - Extraction: **Select one line** → “Refactor: Extract selection to new note (content only).” - Keep each line short and self-contained. - [F1] Explore how Obadiah’s three “don’ts” map to modern rules of engagement — context/mailto:reader-forwarded-email/d49c98fa18347b7461216c9c766a6cca #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Compare Revelation’s delayed Armageddon with doctrines of divine patience in other traditions — context/mailto:reader-forwarded-email/d49c98fa18347b7461216c9c766a6cca #fleeting #inbox - [F3] Design a small-group exercise linking Just War criteria to current news headlines — context/mailto:reader-forwarded-email/d49c98fa18347b7461216c9c766a6cca #fleeting #inbox --- <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/The Wired Word for 03152026|The Wired Word for 03/15/2026, The Wired Word]] ## Highlights - **1 Samuel 17:45-47 ***But David said to the Philistine, "You come to me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This very day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head, and I will give the dead bodies of the Philistine army this very day to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the earth, so that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not save by sword and spear, for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hand."* (For context, read [1 Samuel 17:26-49](https://u14323725.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=u001.kR2s0BHA4IMM0a9cQYZVPIPMr3QdAndcnhgARhLxPRBMJBYCTolkbvW-2F0TosyGzxFCMNoDo0nIQk1OOuVDrhcSSFolwPEq1oMNSWTj3V9OJaqqPX6hALlZaTNNLC2c3BRAwf_-2FDMt8DmC0b3MPPPEfxHbnxzgfJsbXDNMpwCP9nNwhUmwW6wkyKFLFNgtWOsfoWlqzJWknYznvBlIhQrMvSLcaZdhhbJIKGm-2F5qmCcYPIpJSn2obb9skqJf4MgaypxrLi7oLPa8a7eS7JtzjOXCCX8BHD-2F4cv9wFI-2FUH-2BL75pc25Hbh6RKf8EPZebHASiEu2b1aGXbOqJQ3Dnm6HAk92YmRTjiRIrLAs3n64C2mijJMlcP88bZizU02PiKmN-2F1-2BCagzKa1B092jn3vqtLVqG0dHf0yhTT1nyETUHmpFy1RIUaji8XCIWS9uiyikECl8fRt2tmRMzBpj6i0mcchcaPqceGZXjNP-2FXrOr3LgQ4u1W9Sv50a4tcwExeYNmQ-2BXPiPnR-2Bw2XDBH0Q6ow-2Bm5nz7TqmVv55ZlyGnMoObeCZmsPKKmYnN9I6b0JZAb4q30xO64t6tuK03jgTcNMbOcFLk8HaMfzvqA1ob0gGWPJyFhGE-3D).) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kkvvbakfpsdd7yqr5a5ceb73)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - Obadiah teaches us that God will judge nations that wage wars in a manner that tolerates gloating, looting and the mistreatment of innocent people. Fighting often brings out the worst in people, but warfare does not require unlimited barbarity. God clearly states that there are limits. Human rights must be protected, according to Obadiah, even in the middle of armed conflict. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kkvvbam27bpdd1ca0tg4gzt4)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - Obadiah teaches us that God will judge nations that wage wars in a manner that tolerates gloating, looting and the mistreatment of innocent people. Fighting often brings out the worst in people, but warfare does not require unlimited barbarity. God clearly states that there are limits. Human rights must be protected, according to Obadiah, even in the middle of armed conflict. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kkw06z6pz8jftth0j2z5w96z)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - **Questions:** Where do you see a danger of gloating in the war in Iran? When is there a temptation to steal goods in a time of conflict? In the current war, where do you see mistreatment of fugitives and survivors? Why does God care about such things, and how can we follow God's guidance when we are engaging in war? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kkvvbamn1maq4f9dwhw3chg2)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - **Questions:** Where do you see a danger of gloating in the war in Iran? When is there a temptation to steal goods in a time of conflict? In the current war, where do you see mistreatment of fugitives and survivors? Why does God care about such things, and how can we follow God's guidance when we are engaging in war? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kkw06z8tvc54ebhdjnzxekq6)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted