The lectionary this week rolled around to the first Sunday of Lent. That kicks off a set of readings and sermons related to Jesus’ sacrifices on behalf of men, and the debt we owe God for our very existence. There’s a lot in the next few weeks about suffering, dying and the rules we are meant to obey in our lives. How we’re to live.
This week, I was struck by the admonition to “love your enemy.” It’s a fairly unadorned statement, placed like that in the middle of a set of rules we are given.
It takes a certain poignancy during times of war, but even during interbellum periods, the idea of loving one’s enemies is troubling for both individuals and nations.
It got me wondering, if one wanted to find out if a nation is a “Christian” nation, would one look beyond religious affiliation of the majority to actually try to determine if that nation behaved in a Christian way. If you read the OT prophets, they certainly were ready to question the morals and ethics – one might say “the religious nature” – of their nation. And they usually found it wanting.
Here’s what Jesus said (as recorded in Matthew)
quote:Matthew 5: 38You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." 39But I say to you, Do not resist evil. But whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40And to him desiring to sue you, and to take away your tunic, let him have your coat also. 41And whoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two. 42Give to him who asks of you, and you shall not turn away from him who would borrow from you. 43You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." 44But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you, 45so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax-collectors do so? 48Therefore be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.
Should we challenge ourselves to live this way? Okay, that’s one question.
But what should we be doing if we are going to call our nation a “Christian” nation?
If Christians are supporting the war, what attitude should we take toward the enemy? The above quotation seems pretty clear, but maybe some interpret it in a non-literal sense and thus arrive at a call to hate what our enemies do, but love them as people? It doesn’t really say that, of course, but maybe that’s what is being asked of us…
Or, maybe it’s something else. Maybe it’s saying that we don’t view them as enemies anymore. Maybe the only way that a nation could legitimately call itself “Christian” is if it doesn’t ever retaliate.
I think this is important. I think Christianity in this country has turned militant in many ways. Militarized Christianity, I think. And I think it ceases to be Christianity at that point. This lesson from Matthew, for example, is one of my favorites. It doesn’t leave us a lot of wiggle room, seems to me. It says, to me, you don’t go after them EVEN IF…
(and one finishes that sentence with whatever your current view of the worst of the worst is…).
But why? Not for any other reason but that the Kingdom of Heaven matters more than this one. More than this country too. More than anything.
That’s Christianity.
I don’t have it.
I aspire to it.
I believe, however, that many who call themselves Christian don’t have it, don’t want it, and think, like many in Jesus’ time, that anyone who thought that way would be painting a target on themselves. They’d have to be crazy. Right?
And we’re not crazy. So we modify Christianity. Or conveniently remember that God helped the ancient Jews conquer Palestine, so all war is not bad.
Or we just don’t think about it.
But this is Lent. The hard time of the year. Where we’re supposed to glumly realize that we don’t measure up, but that God still loves us, and maybe if we try a little bit harder, we can make things better than they were last year around this time.
Or maybe I’m just crazy.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I would much rather think of this as a secular nation where the majority of its inhabitants are Christian and seem to like to think the rest of the country is as well.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I feel like the right has overtaken Christianity, which bothers me a lot.. It seems, dilluted from its original form.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
I think the US is a secular nation in which a minority are christian and a heck of alot more pretend to be or claim to be.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You mean the original form that advocated slavery and sent men off in "Holy Crusades" to free the Holy Land from its barbarian occupiers? When exactly was Christianity untainted?
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
No matter how often people try to make this country a secular nation, it will always have a hint of christianity to it. i.e. If you look at the monuments in D.C. surrounding the reflecting pool, the measurements form a cross. In miniscule writing on the dollar bills, 'In God we trust' is inscribed.
The problem with the militarized christians is that they hate those that they are fighting. Mathew says not to hate and not to retaliate, but it works out the same.
I don't really know what it is I'm trying to say, some days i feel like America is headed in the right direction, but then other days, i just wanna go back to sleep.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...there's really no litmus test (I mean, really, there isn't) to judge another's "Christian-ness." You either acknowledge Jesus as THE CHRIST or you don't. If you do, you're technically a follower of Christ (barring, of course, the perverse person who says "Jesus is the Savior" and then chooses NOT to be a Christian...).
Everything else is just inter-denominational hair-splitting as far as I'm concerned. Oh, you guys "sprinkle" instead of immerse, so your baptisms don't count. Faith alone versus "faith plus works"...whatever...
It's all academic after the original acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord & Savior.
So, I can't necessarily point to someone with a bellicose attitude and say "you're not Christian."
I can, however, point out that it doesn't quite match with the Christian "ideal" to believe that a strong offensive army and Christianity are defining characteristics of America.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Personally, I also think there are an awful lot of people who are so ignorant of Christianity's "rules" that they truly believe it's okay to maintain a strong offensive military and use it pre-emptively, and in retaliation.
That these things are actually desirable from a Christian perspective.
That the concept of a holy war actually makes good sense theologically.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote:You mean the original form that advocated slavery and sent men off in "Holy Crusades" to free the Holy Land from its barbarian occupiers? When exactly was Christianity untainted?
Oh, you weary me.
There are two true and correct answers to that question. The first is "never". The second is "always". Are you happy now? Or do you need me to explain?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
(NOT saying one way or the other if this applies to Iraq) Does it count as being pre-emptive as opposed to defensive if you know your enemy is going to attack? For example, Israel had correct intelligence in 1967 that Egypt was going to launch a suprise attack with Jordan and Syria and as a result they attacked Egypt pre-emptively. Under Christian theology would that action in and of itself be justified (ignoring ramifications of the war like occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
nfl...If you asking what this passage from Matthew has to say about it, then I guess the answer would be "no, it's not justified." I base this on the idea that whether it's retaliation or pre-emption, the correct action toward an enemy is not to strike them.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
DH, you do realize I was responding to Syn's claim that Christianity was diluted by "the right?"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
By definition the answer should be no. Also, ANY time you attack first, by definition it is preemptive.
Kwea
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
digging...
I get what you're saying, but it isn't really convincing to simply assert that all those Christians who did it wrong weren't Christians. They were, in their own minds and in the minds of the rest of the world...except for a few who saw things differently (among them, probably, Jesus).
The real question, I think, is whether any nation should or ever could call itself Christian.
And...if, as I suspect, the answer to that is "no way!" then the question I have for all Christians is "should we stop it?" Should we ride herd on our fellow Christians and get them to stop claiming that this is a Christian nation?
Should we tell George Bush to stop the war if he wants to show how truly Christian America is?
Or should we just tell him that we've decided NOT to be Christian and to go grind our enemies down?
I don't think we can have it both ways.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Well not necessarily that passage specifically, I'm more referring to what has been generally accepted by Christian theology as just war doctrine, namely St. Augustine's Just War Theory.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
What about something more clear cut, say if the US Navy had attacked Japan's Pearl Harbor strike force en route?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Objection 1: It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.
Objection 3: Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.
Objection 4: Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [*Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [*Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.
Reply to Objection 2: Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."
Reply to Objection 3: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."
Reply to Objection 4: Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [*Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i
[ February 15, 2005, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: The real question, I think, is whether any nation should or ever could call itself Christian.
Perhaps you should read some Abraham Lincoln.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote: What about something more clear cut, say if the US Navy had attacked Japan's Pearl Harbor strike force en route?
Yeah, but that's not a pre-emptive attack, exactly.
Okay, let me use fencing to illustrate this.
My opponent isn't a threat to me if his arm is bent back and he's en guarde. If I attack him while he is en guarde, that could be considered pre-emptive.
However, if my oppenent extends his arm, he has initated an attack. Therefore, my parry/riposte is not pre-emptive, but a defensive move.
If Japan had a strike force moving towards the United States and the US attacked them en route, that would be a defensive move still. They're extending and in that extension, threatening. Quite plainly, actually, if they're steaming across the Pacific.
[edit: stray letter]
[ February 15, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Then what makes Israel's attack "pre-emptive" considering they knew and attack was coming?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Bob_, not that I really want to get embroiled in this convo, but I believe there is a decent number of folks who believe that the Matthew passage to which you refer (and most of what Christ said, in fact) is talking specifically about personal morality, and not civil procedure -- that Jesus spoke directly to how I as an individual should react/respond to other individuals, not necessarily how my country should react to another.
Part of the difficulty I personally have had in determining how, from a Christian standpoint, our actions and laws should reflect our beliefs is that Jesus didn't reference it very much. Most such references I've found in the Old Testament, and since Israel in those days was a theocracy and we are not, I find myself unable (or perhaps merely unwilling) to apply lessons directly.
I think referring to the U.S. as a Christian nation is generally inaccurate, but not in most cases malicious.
Also, there are other interpretations of that particular passage, which I'm sure Dana can tell you about. *smile*
--Pop
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Perhaps you should read some Abraham Lincoln.
Anything you have in mind in particular? I've read a LOT of Lincoln, but I could always enjoy reading some more...
(By the way, were you feeling smug when you wrote that or did you just come off that way?)
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't know enough about the Israeli situation to answer.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
It just came off that way. I wasn't being smug, I was serious.
And I was referring to his second inaugural address.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lincoln never calls America a Christian nation at all in that address. He speaks to that pretty much everyone in the US was Christian (particularly everyone in power), and speaks about what the values of Christianity mean and suggest in America's then-current situation, but nothing about America being a Christian nation in the least.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's fairly brief. We can all just look at it.
quote:Fellow-Countrymen:
AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. 1 On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. 2 One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3 With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
pre·emp·tive 3a Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.
Mac, in the 1967 war the Israelis had good intelligence that an attack was forthcoming. They attacked first in order to suprise the enemy and retain the initiative, crucial to winning battles. The intelligence was subsequently accepted afterwards as essentially correct, by just about everybody--that is, if the Israelis had done nothing, an attack/invasion would have happened anyway.
So it was a preemptive attack, as an attack against the Nipponese Pearl Harbor attack fleet would have been. I think both would meet Christian "Just War" doctrine. Thanks for that link, btw, I was just thinking about that doctrine the other day. How Christ would view those 2 examples is dicier. Beats me.
The war in Iraq is less justified, IMO. The intelligence has since been proven wrong, and even at the time was publicly inflated by the administration. I think pretext is a better adjective than preemptive for the Iraq War.
[ February 16, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Maybe it's some odd connotation of preemptive that makes it seem bad. That preemptive means a strike without just cause. Instead, when you know someone is coming after you, it's a hit them before they hit you kind of thing.
How would you define pretext?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Bob_, not that I really want to get embroiled in this convo, but I believe there is a decent number of folks who believe that the Matthew passage to which you refer (and most of what Christ said, in fact) is talking specifically about personal morality, and not civil procedure -- that Jesus spoke directly to how I as an individual should react/respond to other individuals, not necessarily how my country should react to another.
But what this doctrine says, in essence, is that one should love ones personal enemies, but if the state has an enemy, one should go fight.
In other words, kill or be killed works on a group level, but not on a personal one.
How could any Christian lift a weapon against another human under those circumstances?
I'm sure there are other interpretations, however. The question is whether the obvious one is so certainly wrong that we can safely ignore it and still claim that our nation is "Christian."
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A pretext war is a war undertaken for hidden meanings not well known to the general populace. Instead they are given pretexts or false reasons as casus belli while the government conceals the real reasons for war.
In this example, the casus belli are: links between Iraq and al-Quada/9-11 attacks (always tenous, never amounted to anything) and WMDs (the search for WMDs has been quietly abandoned.)
I don't know what the real reasons for the war were, and I don't want to speculate.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Oh, and the mostly ex post facto reasons hastily plugged (after the other reasons evaporated) are to free the Iraqi people from Saddam and spread democracy to the Middle East.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Bob,
Jesus advised men to turn the other cheek, he also advised his followers to buy swords, even if they had to sell their shirts to get them.
Christianity has always admired pacifists, but it has never, itself, been a pacifist religion and has always equally admired the soldier.
I think you do a great disservice to the soldiers to assume they hate those they fight, though I think very few actually love them.
Reread Ender's Game. It is strongly suggested that the entire reason Ender is so successful as a soldier is that he *does* love his enemies. That may be the most important meesage in the book.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Bob, I don't think I've ever claimed to live in a Christian nation. (My church has a long tradition--though recently we have tended to abandon it--of arguing that no nation can be Christian.)
My response to pacifists who argue from the Sermon on the Mount has always been more or less the same: Our passive obligation not to harm others is matched by an active obligation to prevent harm to others--to do justice to the wronged and aid the oppressed. When only two people are involved, only the first obligation comes into play.
I live alone. I have no dependents, and my family, though they would grieve my loss, fully expect that I will enter into life eternal. If someone were, this moment, to break into my apartment with a gun, the right thing for me to do would be not to resist them, even if they shot me dead. (Whether I could live up to that obligation, I do not know.)
But many people do not live alone, or otherwise have people who depend on them. There are parents of children, and children caring for aged parents. There are police who protect their cities and soldiers who protect their country. There are even rebels defending innocents against unjust governments. For these people to passively stand by would be to ignore their second obligation--to protect those who depend on them from harm.
When I supported the war in Iraq, I argued that as the world's most powerful nation, we have an obligation to rescue people from dictators that oppress them. That I have changed my mind does not reflect a change in this belief, only a change in my understanding of the strength of our military and the competence of its commander. Under some circumstances such as these, only aggressive action against the unjust can fulfill our obligations--not only to do no harm ourselves, but to prevent harm from others.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I've been reading Joseph Ellis' work and it has made me seriously doubt whether our nation was founded with the idea that we were supposed to be a "Christian" nation.
God was assumed, but not a personal God. The God of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence seemed to be a being who set things in motion, then took a seat on the sidelines.
It seems to me that the only true religion that our founders believed in was legacy. They wanted to do the right thing, the great thing and have their names immortalized since they weren't sure or weren't very concerned if there was any afterlife other than one's reputation and progeny.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jim-Me, Ender's Game is a work of fiction, albeit a very good one. I'm not sure how re-reading it...again...is going to somehow educate me on the principles of Christianity better than, say, oh...I don't know...reading the Bible???
Here's the thing about selling garments to buy swords:
Luke 22:36
quote:29And I appoint a kingdom to you, as My Father has appointed to Me, 30that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brothers. 33And he said to Him, Lord, I am ready to go with You, both into prison and into death. 34And He said, I say to you, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day before you shall deny knowing Me three times. 35And He said to them, When I sent you without purse and wallet and sandals, did you lack anything? And they said, Nothing. 36And He said to them, But now, he who has a purse, let him take it , and likewise his wallet. And he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37For I say to you that this which is written must yet be accomplished in Me, "And he was reckoned among the transgressors"; for the things concerning Me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them, It is enough.
Know what happens right after this? They go out to the Mount of Olives. Jim-Me...do you think maybe this was a specific case where Jesus was about to make a point (pardon the pun). Exactly what happened with those swords later in the night? What did Jesus do after the swords were used?
Hmm...Seems like it all became yet another object lesson in peace.
[ February 15, 2005, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Christianity has always admired pacifists, but it has never, itself, been a pacifist religion
Jim-me, that’s just not true. There have been three strands of thought about war running through Christian theology – pacifism, just war, and crusade. At various times each of them has been prominent.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Golly, Lincoln was a good writer.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Not a lot of equivocation there.
Some point this out as being Christianity's big contradiction - wasn't this the same God who ordered the Children of Israel to slay the Canaanites?
To say so is to miss the main point of the Sermon on the Mount and the New Testament. Christ came to fulfill the Mosaic law and bring the higher law. The law of Moses (an eye for an eye) was the lesser law that the Children of Israel were given when they could not abide the higher law. It may be justified to retaliate, but it is Christian do abstain from doing so.
I could go into Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants teachings, but I don't know if anyone wants me to go there.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I would love for you to do so, Annie. It is good reading, always. (I take truth wherever I find it. )
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think the debate here should not focus on pacifism vs just war.
I think it should focus on "Loving" thy enemy.
Whether that enemy is a bunch of terrorists or moderate Democrats, you can have them as enemies, but you shouldn't hate them.
Yet I see a lot of hate spewing from various members of the Republican right. Talk show hosts and politicians both revel in the anger and hatred they stir up against thier foes. They use the passions of hatred and anger to maintain their power.
Tom Delay, the leading Republican in the House of Representatives, and a supporter of all the "Christian Right" causes, has been shown to be vindictive and vengeful to those who oppose him (be they Republican or Democrat).
The new buzz word coming out of the far right is "hate". They claim that anyone disagreeing with the president or another favored politician must hate them. They say it with a wrathful hateful intensity. I think the "Rove" school of spin is to take your own greatest weakness, the one you know most about, and label your opponent with it.
The far Right seems to hate their enemy, and they use that passion to build success. The left is angry, but does not hate anyone on the right. It is against their core policy to actively hate. Hence they have less passion, and they have lost.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The left is angry, but does not hate anyone on the right.
What? Are you serious?
What the hell is up with the ongoing generalizations about political opponents around here?
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The left is angry, but does not hate anyone on the right.
Condeleeza Rice might disagree with you on that point, Dan. . .
At any rate, discussing who hates whom more is futile. It's just too subjective a measurement-- even for Hatrack.
In my opinion, the government was within its (Christian) rights to persue Al Queda to Afghanistan. I'm not sure any longer about Iraq, honestly-- this administration has the oily stains of corruption and favor-mongering all over it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Prominent, but not dogmatic, as far as I know. I'll grant you Pacifism has been a chief point of some Christian groups, but I don't think you can point to a time when it was widely considered *essential* to Christianity... though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.
As far as I know, in all its forms, starting with Christ himself as has already been pointed out here, Christianity has never condemned soldiering.... indicating that loving your enemies is not contradictory to fighting them.
Bob, reading Ender's Game was suggested to reinforce that point, not to substitute it for the Bible.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:The new buzz word coming out of the far right is "hate". They claim that anyone disagreeing with the president or another favored politician must hate them. They say it with a wrathful hateful intensity.
In all fairness, that's been the buzz word out of the "left" for years. Remember the "Hate is Not a Family Value" bumper stickers?
The problem I have with the current political situation has to do with the disdain I see on both sides. I might whole-heartedly agree with someone's claims until they get going and start mocking and then railing against the other side. I'm weary of it and it makes my heart hurt.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Until I posted this, Annie and I had the same post count.
Wow.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'd like to get into this discussion, but I don't have time.
so I'd like to throw this idea out, and see where it goes.
First:
quote: The left is angry, but does not hate anyone on the right.
I definitely fall into the left. This may sound weird, but part of what bothers me about George Bush is precisely that I DO hate him. No politician has ever made me feel this way before. In effect, I hate him for making me hate him, because I don't like the feeling of being a person who is full of hate.
BTW, I don't believe for a second that this war was preemptive, because I don't believe that Saddam had any intention of attacking us. If being Christian means obeying the instructions Christ gave, then Bush is not a Christian (IMO).
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Hate is Not a Family Value
As I understand it, this phrase is accusing conservative of hypocrisy by promoting family values, while preaching hatred of (gays, abortion doctors, etc.)
It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right - they recast the religious and political beliefs of their opponents as hate.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
We didn't make up "godhatesfags.com".
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm not accusing anyone (you used "we" defensively) of being the hatingest. I was expressing the prevalence of the emotion on both sides of the issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We didn't make up "godhatesfags.com".
As other people have already said, neither did we. You're inclusion of that is no more appropriate than throwing up a kkk web site to booster arguments that opposition to affirmative action means Republicans hate minorities.
The left has been accusing the right of hate on a myriad of issues - opposition to affirmative action means Republicans hate minorities, opposition to abortion means Republicans hate women. And they've been doing it since before I went to college in '88, in explicit language.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dag, you post yards and yards of text, and expect people to read your arguments, but you can't read a 3 line post? What part of this don't you understand?
quote: It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
He understands what you wrote, Glenn, it's just manifestly not true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, you post yards and yards of text, and expect people to read your arguments, but you can't read a 3 line post? What part of this don't you understand?
I think you're the one with the comprehension problem here.
quote:It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
First the political party limitation was not put on the hate/angry distinction proposed by Dan, which is what I was originally refuting, so, I fail to see how that's relevant.
Second, in the cases I mentioned on the post on this page, yes, it was between political parties. At least, it was between liberal activists who were also afiliated with the Young Democrats, attacking specific policy planks of the Republican platform.
You had no knowledge of this, so I'm wondering why you think it wasn't related to political parties.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It's manifestly not true that Fred Phelps is a conservative? Or it's not true that Fred Phelps claims to support "family values"?
Or is not true that the bumper sticker is NOT aimed at everyone who preaches "family values?"
How about this one? Is it not true that Dagonee has not examined his own prejudices?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Explain that last question. I'll be back after 8:30 to see if your being rational and fair.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Bzzzzt. Try again Dag
quote: quote: Hate is Not a Family Value
As I understand it, this phrase is accusing conservative of hypocrisy by promoting family values, while preaching hatred of (gays, abortion doctors, etc.)
It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
You seem to be missing the fact that I was commenting on one bumper sticker. Or do you automatically assume that your words must be the only ones here worth commenting on?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The snark-o-meter needle is pegged.
Take it down a notch, please.
It's really not that important. I had a question about whether this nation or any nation could truly call itself Christian and illustrated it with one of the most difficult aspects, for most of us, of Christianity -- the idea of actually LOVING your enemy!
I'm quite convinced that a nation that tried to follow the precepts of non-retaliation and pre-emptive KINDNESS (when sued for the shirt, give the cloak too!!!) would not survive.
Then, I asked if that meant that no nation could call itself Christian.
So far, we've had some apologists for Christian justifications for war or violence make a decent case (following Augustine) that there are just causes for war, or that the balance between pacifism and protecting the weak is such that sometimes war is the only Christian response. And others have made a decent case that what's true for the individual Christian may not apply to the Christian state.
I don't really agree, but at least the arguments are well presented and make logical sense, even if I personally believe that the scripture can't be twisted far enough to support the position that Augustine ended up with.
This business about who hates the most is just not interesting, IMHO. I mean, once you've started it, where can it go? YOU hate the most, NO, YOU DO!
Great. Big. Yawn.
Jesus said "don't hate." Not "don't hate relative to how much the other guy hates."
Right?
So we're all screwed.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
To put it simply, you often accuse me of being in disagreement with you, when I am not. You assume we are on opposite sides of an argument, when we are not.
Those assumptions are prejudices. When I point them out to you, you continue the argument as though my pointing them out was intended to be a continuation of an argument, when in fact what I was trying to do was to point out that we don't need to be arguing in the first place.
With respect to the statement about hatred, you (or perhaps I should say Annie, since the quote is hers) are making a converse error. That is, the bumper sticker doesn't say: If you are a conservative, then you preach family values and hatred.
I wasn't disagreeing with anything you might or might not have said about about anybody hating anybody. I was only pointing out that the scope of the bumper sticker was more limited than people seem to think.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Sorry Bob.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm so confused.
anyway, not a problem. I'm just bored with this temporary line of discussion. It wouldn't be the first thread that went somewhere not intended by the original poster.
We now return you to Bumper Sticker Christianity.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dag,
Now maybe I have done something I just accused you of. This quote came right after my bumper sticker post, and seemed to be referring to my post.
quote: Right - they recast the religious and political beliefs of their opponents as hate.
If you were referring to an earlier post from Dan (it doesn't look like it to me, but I concede it's possible) then I am guilty of assuming that my words were what you were responding to.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think the tough call is whether a nation is different from an individual. Can a nation go to war to defend its members? I think so, because it is not fighting to protect itself, but to protect others. When a soldier goes to war, he does not go to defend himself, he goes to defend those back home (or those in the country he is fighting in). I think this is different than fighting someone for personal reasons. Of course not all wars are just, but I think some can be.
That being said, you should still not "hate" your enemy. Personally, I don't hate Bin Laden, or Saddam. I think capturing them and putting them behind bars where they can't hurt others is important, but I don't feel hatred towards them. In a way I feel sorry for them. I can't imagine living with the hatred that they live with. Making it your life's work to kill and terrorize other people cannot be something that leads to personal happiness.
Personally, when people do things that are hurtful to me, I just try to shrug it off. It helps me get along with most people, because I don't hold a grudge. I'm not saying that this make me a better person than those that do hold grudges...or feel hatred, heck I've got plenty of my own flaws. Its just that I think holding a grudge against someone is a waste of energy. Being mad at a person doesn't effect them, it only effects you. If someone has already done something to hurt you, do you really think they care if you are pissed at them? The only person you are hurting is yourself.
My main flaw in this respect is with my sister. I am very protective of her, and if someone does something hurtful to her, I do hold a grudge. I realize that it is not better than holding a grudge against someone who hurt me directly, nor is it more productive...it is something I struggle with.
I do think it is important to love your enemies, even if it is difficult. Everyone (Christian or not) has flaws. It is easy to point out the mistakes that Christians make...but it is important to remember that while everyone has flaws, the important thing is the journey...or the attempt to better yourself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Now I don't know what the hell is going on. here's the sequence of what I was responding to:
Glenn: "As I understand it, this phrase is accusing conservative of hypocrisy by promoting family values, while preaching hatred of (gays, abortion doctors, etc.)
It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se."
Dag: Right - they recast the religious and political beliefs of their opponents as hate.
Glenn: We didn't make up "godhatesfags.com".
Dag: As other people have already said, neither did we. You're inclusion of that is no more appropriate than throwing up a kkk web site to booster arguments that opposition to affirmative action means Republicans hate minorities.
The left has been accusing the right of hate on a myriad of issues - opposition to affirmative action means Republicans hate minorities, opposition to abortion means Republicans hate women. And they've been doing it since before I went to college in '88, in explicit language.
Glenn: Dag, you post yards and yards of text, and expect people to read your arguments, but you can't read a 3 line post? What part of this don't you understand?
quote: It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
Dag: First the political party limitation was not put on the hate/angry distinction proposed by Dan, which is what I was originally refuting, so, I fail to see how that's relevant.
Second, in the cases I mentioned on the post on this page, yes, it was between political parties. At least, it was between liberal activists who were also afiliated with the Young Democrats, attacking specific policy planks of the Republican platform.
You had no knowledge of this, so I'm wondering why you think it wasn't related to political parties.
Glenn: It's manifestly not true that Fred Phelps is a conservative? Or it's not true that Fred Phelps claims to support "family values"?
Or is not true that the bumper sticker is NOT aimed at everyone who preaches "family values?"
How about this one? Is it not true that Dagonee has not examined his own prejudices?
Here's my current mental state: WTF??? I have no idea what this last post of yours mean.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I identified your prejudices in the post right after Bob's "snark o meter" post.
Based on your sequence in the last post, I see that your comment about recasting beliefs as hate WAS in response to my post, so I didn't make an invalid assumption.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I responded to what you said.
Nothing there indicates that I didn't read or understand your "It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se" quote.
You posted godshatefags, not me. If you had some other reason for posting it, you have utterly failed to make that case. Certainly, "It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se" is irrelevant to my response to that post.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
You didn't respond to what I said. You simply reposted a series of posts as though rereading them would make it obvious that your view of my original post was accurate. And you stopped before the post that describes your prejudices.
And yes, it's clear that you made no attempt to understand my post.
Your claim seems to be that my statement makes a blanket accusation of all conservatives, when it only accuses conservatives who BOTH preach family values and hatred. Fred Phelps doesn't need anyone to recast his beliefs as hatred, he states it explicitly.
You are conflating my explanation that the bumper sticker accuses him (and his ilk) of hypocrisy with a broad accusation that all conservatives are like him, which is precisely what I was not doing.
So as I said, you are creating an argument where there doesn't need to be one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You didn't respond to what I said. You simply reposted a series of posts as though rereading them would make it obvious that your view of my original post was accurate. And you stopped before the post that describes your prejudices.
The reposting wasn't the response I was speaking of.
quote:And yes, it's clear that you made no attempt to understand my post.
No, it's not. Saying it don't make it so. It may be I misunderstood your post, and I'm willing to accept your explanation. But it's ludicrous to pretend that a cryptic, one-line inclusion of an inflammatory site, which came into existence AFTER the bumper sticker in question, is so clearly meant to be used in the way you suggested that any failure to understand your meaning makes it clear one did not attempt to understand the post.
quote:Your claim seems to be that my statement makes a blanket accusation of all conservatives, when it only accuses conservatives who BOTH preach family values and hatred. Fred Phelps doesn't need anyone to recast his beliefs as hatred, he states it explicitly.
The topic being discussed is Dan's contention that accusing people who disagree with one of hatred is a tactic solely of the right. All my posts stand within that topic very well.
quote:You are conflating my explanation that the bumper sticker accuses him (and his ilk) of hypocrisy with a broad accusation that all conservatives are like him, which is precisely what I was not doing.
So as I said, you are creating an argument where there doesn't need to be one.
And you are assuming a clarity of expression you have not achieved in this thread, and making accusations you can't back up.
Dagonee
[ February 16, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: The topic being discussed is Dan's contention that accusing people who disagree with one of hatred is a tactic solely of the right. All my posts stand within that topic very well.
No it's not, the topic being discussed is the meaning of a bumper sticker.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The topic that led to the introduction of the bumper sticker was "Dan's contention that accusing people who disagree with one of hatred is a tactic solely of the right." The bumper sticker was being discussed within that context.
Edit: Annie's post makes this clear:
quote:---------------------------------- quote:The new buzz word coming out of the far right is "hate". They claim that anyone disagreeing with the president or another favored politician must hate them. They say it with a wrathful hateful intensity. ----------------------------------
In all fairness, that's been the buzz word out of the "left" for years. Remember the "Hate is Not a Family Value" bumper stickers?
I interpreted your comments as being relevant to that topic.
Context. It's all about context. If you don't provide enough of your own, it will be absorbed from the preceeding thread of discussion.
Especially with the chronological relationship of godhatesfags and "hate i not a family value."
Dagonee
[ February 16, 2005, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Bob-
I get very confused about what our country is supposed to be. I mentioned the "religion of legacy" because it seems to be the only belief that is consistent with most of our governments honorable actions.
Though I have a very strong set of Christian beliefs myself, I don't know if I'd want the country to act in a Christian way. There is such an powerful evangelical component to the religion that it would seem impossible to encourage acceptance of other beliefs, while holding true to Christianity.
When Bush talks about the US' relationship and hope for the world, he seems to think of the terms Democracy and Christianity as interchangeable ideas. But, IMO, they aren't.
I actually like the idea of living in a country that is concerned with its legacy. I'm proud that we stepped in and fought Hitler even though he wasn't at our door. I'm proud that we as a country continue to be embarrassed that we were the first to use atomic weapons.
Though, on a personal level, I can choose to never seek justice through violence. I don't think that the same can be said for a nation if it expects to guarantee the security of its citizens.
I think that it is dangerous to try and be a Christian nation, but it is imperitive that we be a moral, ethical and honorable nation.
Maybe I'm too naive, but my understanding of being a Christian doesn't require a violation of my moral or ethical codes.
What frightens me right now is that we have chosen a President who is pushing an evangelical, conservative Christian agenda, yet, IMO, does not appear to be using honorable means to enforce his beliefs on the rest of the world.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: You seem to be missing the fact that I was commenting on one bumper sticker. Or do you automatically assume that your words must be the only ones here worth commenting on?
As far as backing up my accusations, I accused you of not bothering to read or understand my posts. And you also missed the fact that the (non)issue of your discussion with Dan had already been addressed. Apparently you failed to read or understand it. Yet you continued to assume that your "context" somehow played into the crux of the argument, while accusing me of not being clear.
This isn't the first time you've accused me of not being clear. It also isn't the first time I've accused you of intentionally misunderstanding me.
I can say that among my professional and educational relations I have a reputation for being very clear. That's part of why I try to keep my posts short, to deal with only one issue at a time.
But I see a pattern here, because you often ignore parts of my posts, and accuse me of saying something I haven't said. Then you accuse me of not being clear, rather than admit that your perception of my posts is colored by your assumption that I must be your opponent. Sorry, but your arguments are starting to smell of intellectual dishonesty.
You know, the funny thing is, my recollection of the first time I discussed something *with you* (as opposed to merely being in the same thread with you) I pointed out that although we are on opposite sides of the issue as far as religious belief goes, I side with you on your school publication case. Yet it seems that was the starting point at which you began to make these accusations. Why is that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I see a pattern here, because you often ignore parts of my posts, and accuse me of saying something I haven't said. Then you accuse me of not being clear, rather than admit that your perception of my posts is colored by your assumption that I must be your opponent. Sorry, but your arguments are starting to smell of intellectual dishonesty.
You know, the funny thing is, my recollection of the first time I discussed something *with you* (as opposed to merely being in the same thread with you) I pointed out that although we are on opposite sides of the issue as far as religious belief goes, I side with you on your school publication case. Yet it seems that was the starting point at which you began to make these accusations. Why is that?
Frankly I think the answer is likely to reside in your mirror.
In other words, I think you're making it up. Intentionally or not, I have no idea.
In fact, you've intentionally picked fights with me before - posting a thread to call me on my suspicions about a news story you posted.
Dagonee
[ February 16, 2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: quote: You seem to be missing the fact that I was commenting on one bumper sticker. Or do you automatically assume that your words must be the only ones here worth commenting on?
As far as backing up my accusations, I accused you of not bothering to read or understand my posts. And you also missed the fact that the (non)issue of your discussion with Dan had already been addressed. Apparently you failed to read or understand it. Yet you continued to assume that your "context" somehow played into the crux of the argument, while accusing me of not being clear.
You seemed to have missed the fact that I don't have to limit my responses to the single things you wish to discuss. The post was made in conjunction with the topic Dan brought up. The bumper sticker was posted as a counterexample to a phenomenon Dan brought up. At least one other person has posted saying they didn't intepret that post the way you apparantly meant it. They seem to have deleted the post for some reason, but this isn't a Dagonee issue. Frankly, you're the one continuing this.
You accused me of intentionally not trying to understand your post. You have no standing to say this, nor any credibility. Now you've accused my of intellectual dishonesty.
So basically, I have no reason to speak with you any longer.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
No, Storm Saxon posted the article. I posted a another article after you had said that you were suspicious of the first. Given that you had declared your suspicions, that seemed like a reasonable thing to do.
So again, you accuse me of picking a fight, which I did not do.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
A thread I did begin was the one about Jim Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, in which I asked if anyone could provide a legitimate news source.
Whe you stated your position that the story isn't a story, I sayed out if it intentionally, because I knew how you'd react if I questioned your skepticism again.
As it turned out, others here questioned your motives. So I didn't have to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think that the pettiness of this arguement stands as the best answer to Bob's question about whether or not we are Christian.
Christ said we would know his disciples by their works. He commanded his followers to "turn the other cheek". If we can not have peacable discourse, can not ignore an insulting word, how can we ever expect to exhibit patience when face with physical attack.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rabbit, I would say there is a distinction between "anger" and "hate", which is why I think it possible to do violence without hatred.
And again, to all, clearly "turn the other cheek" is not the whole of the situation or there would never have been any Christian fighters... and, well, if you want to argue that perhaps there shouldn't have been, perhaps we should also get rid of laws and police forces since Jesus said to give your shirt away when a robber takes your jacket (since we're already not supposed to fight back when attacked)?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Back to Bob's original quesion, I would add that Jesus said
quote: Matt 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Which suggest that the real question Christians should be asking themselves is not "What would Jesus Do?" but "What would I do if this were Jesus?"
If you knew that Jesus were living on the West Bank, or in Falujah, or Bagdad, if you knew that the mines might blow of Jesus' leg, or the shratenel might fly into to his home, how would that influence your attitude toward war?
I still struggle with the concept of pacifism. I am uncertain whether it is justifiable to use violence to protect the innocent. But I do know that as long as we keep war on the table as an option, we make less effort to resolve conflicts peacably. The US has spent trillions of dollars preparing to fight wars, when we have invested that much in non-violent conflict resolution I will have a better idea of whether or not war can ever be justified.
[ February 17, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I would say there is a distinction between "anger" and "hate",
What is that distinction? They feel very similar in my heart. Why is the distinction important to you? Did not Jesus condemn both?
quote:Matt 5:21-22 You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
[ February 17, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As it turned out, others here questioned your motives. So I didn't have to.
Exactly. Because it's easier to question the motives than respond to the actual points. Seems to be a popular pasttime around here.
"Oh, Dag is just defending the administration."
"Oh, Dag is just defending Rush Limbaugh."
"Oh, Dag is just..."
Whatever. You've ignored the chronology argument again, and it's pretty dispositive.
Dagonee
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I also think that anger and hatred are very different things, although I don't have a good explination (yet) as to exactly how.
[ February 17, 2005, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:I am uncertain whether it is justifiable to use violence to protect the innocent.
How else do you propose to protect them? GKC responded better than I about this:
quote:There is a corollary to being too proud to fight-- it is that the humble have to do most of the fighting.
and
quote: the soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.
Going back to Ender for a second, why did he fight? for Valentine. Because he loved what was behind him.
As Jesus himself got both Angry and Violent on at least two occasions (though, I will grant you the second one I have in mind was against a Fig Tree) I'm going to go ahead and say that there's a little more to the equation than the scripture you quote. He also said, concurrent with your quote, that any man who looks at a woman lustfully is in danger of hell... should we therefore make sure every woman never shows herself, like some Islamic countries?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:How else do you propose to protect them?
By building a peaceful world, which in the end is far more effective than war has ever been. War always hurts more innocent people than guilty people.
I said I do not have all the answers, but I do know what doesn't work.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:He also said, concurrent with your quote, that any man who looks at a woman lustfully is in danger of hell... should we therefore make sure every woman never shows herself, like some Islamic countries?
No I would suggest, as Jesus did, that men learn to control their desires and passions. That is the point of that entire section. If you do not believe that is possible, then you do not believe Jesus.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As Jesus himself got both Angry and Violent on at least two occasions.
And he command us to do neither on multiple occasions. Once again, he did not ask us to do what he would do (He has perfect understand of situations and the outcomes of his actions). He command us to treat others as we would treat him.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:If you do not believe that is possible, then you do not believe Jesus.
I thought that the Christian tenet was that it was impossible for even the best of us to be perfect... which, I think you will find, is the widest (both in terms of latitude and acceptance) interpretation of the passages you cite.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
quote:Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
quote:John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;
I think you must be thinking of some Christianity other than the one preached by Christ. I have always understood his teachings to mean that through him, all of us may become perfect and should be striving toward that end.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lady Dove & The Rabbit
Thanks! Good posts...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rabbit, if you can find me an example of a perfect Christian outside of (for Catholics) Mary, I will gladly concede.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Jim-Me -- Show me one spot where Jesus says we should not be striving for perfection and I will conceed.
If you do not believe what Jesus said, can you honestly claim to be one of his followers?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I find it intriguing that the "liberal cabal" (tm) have suddenly gone all fundamentalist, choosing to quote a few lines of scripture and insist it's the whole truth, as it suits their point, and then turn around and question my devotion to my belief system.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jim-Me, I think you're missing a huge point: not all liberals are atheists. And the liberals here who're questioning your adherence to your belief system are not the SAME liberals who think that belief system is silly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you had been around long enough, you would know that I have always been devoutly religious and that Bob is about to marry a minister.
I honestly believe that the few lines I have picked of scripture accurately represent the teachings of Jesus. They are fairly unequivocal and yet many conservative Christians choose to equivocate on them regularly. I have yet to see any of the words of Jesus that would justify that when they are taken in context. If you have, please post them.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
In all the brouhaha, this post has been ignored, and it's
1: more relevant to the thread, and
2: The comment that I really wanted feedback on.
So:
quote: Quote: The left is angry, but does not hate anyone on the right.
I definitely fall into the left. This may sound weird, but part of what bothers me about George Bush is precisely that I DO hate him. No politician has ever made me feel this way before. In effect, I hate him for making me hate him, because I don't like the feeling of being a person who is full of hate.
BTW, I don't believe for a second that this war was preemptive, because I don't believe that Saddam had any intention of attacking us. If being Christian means obeying the instructions Christ gave, then Bush is not a Christian (IMO).
Also, Anger and hate are obviously related, but it seems to me that hate must be directed at something, whereas anger can be a generalized emotion. I know this doesn't really solve the discrepancy, but...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Whoa... wait a minute.
When did I accuse anyone of being not a Christian?
As far as I know, the only person who's belief in Jesus has been questioned here is me...
I think you all should back up and re-read while I go to kung fu class... I'll answer more detailedly later.
[ February 17, 2005, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They are fairly unequivocal and yet many conservative Christians choose to equivocate on them regularly.
More accurate version of that statement: "They are fairly unequivocal and yet many Christians choose to equivocate on them regularly."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
From the OED
quote:Anger: The active feeling provoked against the agent; passion, rage; wrath, ire, hot displeasure.
quote:hate (verb): To hold in very strong dislike; to detest; to bear malice to.
hate(noun): An emotion of extreme dislike or aversion; detestation, abhorrence, hatred.
hatred (noun): The condition or state of relations in which one person hates another; the emotion or feeling of hate; active dislike, detestation; enmity, ill-will, malevolence.
There is a difference between hate and anger, but it is subtle and in the context of this discussion rather irrelevant seeing that Jesus condemned both emotions.
One might be able to be angry with ones enemy without hating them, but Jesus commanded us not to be angry with them at all.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Jim-Me, I think you're missing a huge point: not all liberals are atheists. [Smile] And the liberals here who're questioning your adherence to your belief system are not the SAME liberals who think that belief system is silly.
And for that matter, not all atheists think the Christian belief system is silly.
There's a difference between not believing in the divinity of Jesus, and thinking his teachings are silly. Same thing goes for other non Christians, Jews for example.
Which brings me to this question: Can Christianity be defined as adherence to Jesus' teachings, even if you don't believe in God (or Jesus)?
Because if it can, then "A Christian Nation" doesn't have to base its law in the Christian religion, it only has to have laws that parallel the teachings of Christ, regardless of the source of those laws.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Jim-me,
I don't see where anyone accused you of accusing someone of not being a Christian.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Agreed Dag. Many Liberal Christians also equivocate. I only added the word conservative because I had been occused of being from the "liberal cabal". I should not have added fuel to the fire.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
thinking more on it, if I'm that misunderstood here, perhaps it's best if I let my points stand and let those with ears hear.
For the record, I am well aware of Bob, Dana, and the idea that liberals are often not atheists.
Edit: and good gravy Rabbit! did you not see the wink after the "liberal cabal"?
yeah, I'm definitely done here.
[ February 17, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can Christianity be defined as adherence to Jesus' teachings, even if you don't believe in God (or Jesus)?
"Adherence to Jesus' teachings" is incompatible with "not believing in God," because Jesus makes very definite statements in his teachings about God. Following the greatest commandment requires belief in God; the way we are commanded to pray involves belief in God.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Agreed Dag. Many Liberal Christians also equivocate. I only added the word conservative because I had been occused of being from the "liberal cabal".
Ah, I see. I think it's best if reference to the Cabal be kept to light-hearted threads, myself.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: One might be able to be angry with ones enemy without hating them, but Jesus commanded us not to be angry with them at all.
He said love thy enemy, but did he actually say not to be angry at all? It seems to me you can be angry at someone you love.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm afraid that I may have acused Jim-Me of not being a Christian when I said
quote:If you do not believe that is possible, then you do not believe Jesus.
I did not mean to offend but I still do not understand how one can argue that Jesus's words are not possible to follow and still believe Jesus.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Glen, I posted this passage before. It is the passage that caused Jim-Me to say following Christ was not possible.
quote:Matt 5: 21-22 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Rabbit,
Yeah, it seems to me that you accused him of not believing (or maybe not following) Christ, yet he seems to think that someone accused him of accusing someone else of not believing in Christ. As far as I can tell, no one made that second accusation.
There is a phrase "Salad Bar Christian." From my perspective it's not possible to be anything else, since each person reads the bible on their own terms. So what you take away isn't the same as other people take away. My question before obviously rejects any part of Jesus' teachings that require belief in God. But that isn't a reason to reject the rest of them.
Jim-me's belief is his own. It doesn't make any sense to tell him he doesn't believe what he believes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It doesn't make any sense to tell him he doesn't believe what he believes.
Oh contrare. Most of us proport to believe many things which on closer inspection we really don't accept at all. It is important for us to recognize when our beliefs are inconsistant with our behavior so that we can strivee to be ethical human beings. One of the most important things we can do is to continually challenge each others beliefs.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Most of us proport to believe many things which on closer inspection we really don't accept at all.
True, but he does believe something. But as I've been saying, just because someones beliefs don't coincide with a particular aspect of Christianity isn't justification for accusing him of not believing in Jesus altogether.
In fact, wasn't a big part of this thread earlier about apparent contradictions in Jesus' teachings, with respect to war and loving your enemies? Some people can reconcile those statements, and others can't. If you can't, you have to choose between them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
By the way Jim-Me, Liberal Cabal never offended me, it was the part that followed (have suddenly gone all fundamentalist, choosing to quote a few lines of scripture and insist it's the whole truth, as it suits their point, and then turn around and question my devotion to my belief system.) In that statement, you question my sincerity. I have never posted anything that questioned your sincerity, only your consistency.
[ February 17, 2005, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Ok... gonna try to sort this out. Please bear with and I would ask The Rabbit, Glenn Arnold, and Tom Davidson in particular to be patient enough to try to get something out of this jumble.
First off, Rabbit, I didn't mean to question your sincerity, but to criticize your argument when I said you all were being "fundamentalist". That word has a very specific definiton and I do not throw it around lightly.
You were all quoting specific scriptures and ignoring anything but what you see as the plain sense of the specific verse. It's moderately foolish to talk as if Dag or I do not know what Christianity is about, but to act as if Chesterton, Lewis, Augustine, and Aquinas do not know is to take an extraordinarily narrow and unorthodox view of Christianity. To prefer the text of a few verses in spite of examples given which contradict the blanket interpretation you give to them and *especially* over some fairly authoritative statements from Doctors of the Catholic Church (which, while far from the entirety, *does* make up enough of the Christian population to qualify as not insignificant, theologically speaking) is to be rather extremely fundamentalist.
And this is intriguing and ironic because you are all liberal enough to pride yourself on being open minded, yet you are the ones insisting Christianity has to be your way, where as I, the conservative one, maintained from the beginning that Pacifism had a place in Christianity.
<rambling rant> Were I to imitate your style and argument, I could point to the end of John 6, stories of the last supper, and a passage in 1 Cor and ask how you could be Christian without recognizing the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation because not only were Jesus's words unequivocal in the statement, but you can't find me a passage where he says or does something that contradicts that sense of the reading as I have with your examples. Further, I could question Dana's credibility as a minister, since there are passages in the bible, unequivocal ones, about church leaders being male.
But you don't see me doing that, do you?
Not only are all the words in the bible impossible to follow, there are some that, in the plain sense of them, should NOT be followed. I'm reminded of an old Christian comedy routine in which the person opens a bible to random scriptures and reads "and he hanged himself" and "go ye and do the same". Peter, in one of his epistles, says of Paul's writing that there are subtleties in it that are best left to what we would now call "the theologians". Incidentally, I think this is the only place in the bible where any New Testament work is referred to as scripture. But back on subject, scripture is, by it's own hand, not meant to be just read and then mimicked. One of the beauties of Christianity is that to apply it to your life requires the littlest understanding, yet there are mysteries and subtleties for the greatest intellects to spend a lifetime exploring. </rambling rant>
As for where someone said I was claiming others to be un-Christian, Tom said:
quote:Jim-Me, I think you are missing a huge point: not all liberals are atheists
(which he did smile about, in all fairness to him, but it seemed a condescending smile as his point was "you poor boy, don't you know that I'm not the one you are fighting here?") and The Rabbit said
quote:If you had been around long enough, you would know that I have always been devoutly religious and that Bob is about to marry a minister.
which was doubly galling because I am not only not a newbie, but my original member number (381) is just over half what hers is. I think I have already explained how my "suddenly gone fundamentalist" did not imply that they didn't have faith before that point but was more directed towards a shift in arguing tactics for the convenience of the point being made. Not that they were being religious to suit the argument, but that they were being *fundamentalist* to suit the argument. If I failed to explain it this time, I'm not likely able to do so properly.
For being able to follow all Christ's directives perfectly, then we all need to work on our mountain-tossing and camel-squeezing skills, too, don't we? Striving for perfection is great, but when we can't even agree on what perfection is (as manifest by this thread) it is natural that we should strive against each other, isn't it?
I meant to compliment you, Rabbit, on emphasizing that we should ask more often "what would we do to Jesus?" than "what would Jesus do?" as I think that is a very astute and deeply Crhistian observation that many Christians miss entirely. That is not all, however, we are also admonished to "be imitators of Christ" and He is set forth as our example... so it *is* relevant that He was capable of Anger and Violence without sinning.
Finally, if you needed an example of anger without hatred, last night should serve, as I was quite ticked off, but never once wished ill toward you.
[ February 18, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, I see it now. But it's quite subtle.
quote: As for where someone said I was claiming others to be un-Christian, Tom said:
quote: Jim-Me, I think you are missing a huge point: not all liberals are atheists
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
First, Jim-Me, let me apologize for assuming you were a newbie. My visits here are sporatic and so I had no idea that you were a long term Jatraquero under a new name. Please do not take offense because I did not recognize you.
Second, I think our disagreement here may stem from a disagreement on the meaning of anger.
The OED defines the word in the following way
quote:Anger: The active feeling provoked against the agent; passion, rage; wrath, ire, hot displeasure.
To me, the words passion, rage and hot are intergral to the feeling of anger. I know that it is possible to feel displeased, offended or indignant, with out feeling heated passion. I don't really consider those anger. Perhaps my definition is too narrow, but if you use my definition then the scriptures and my comments are fairly consistent.
Certainly, when Christ drove the money changers from the temple he expressed strong displeasure with their actions, but the scriptures do not say he was angry or give any reason to believe that he felt hot displeasure, wrath or rage. There is no indication that he lost control or that anyone was injured by his acts.
Some translations of Matthew, read "angry with out cause", evidently there is a discrepancy between some of the greek texts from which the translations were made. The older texts, omit the without cause and I prefer this version because I have never been angry when I did not think there was a cause. This phrase makes it far to easy for people justify an unjust response. If you understand anger to include feeling displeased or offended, then I believe the "with out cause is necessary". Although I don't believe that there is any justification for the hot displeasure and rage I associate with the word "anger", I do believe that there are many things which should displease and offend us.
Finally, Jim-Me if you will accept my apology I will believe that you did not intend to question my sincerety. Evidently we both took offense where no offense was intended.
[ February 18, 2005, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
More than willing to make peace... and absolutely accept your apology if you will accept mine for being unclear and indignant
c'mon, every one in the pool! Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
If America was a Christian nations it would be downright communist, except voluntarily so.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
have suddenly gone all fundamentalist, choosing to quote a few lines of scripture and insist it's the whole truth, as it suits their point, and then turn around and question my devotion to my belief system.
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)