posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like the right has overtaken Christianity, which bothers me a lot.. It seems, dilluted from its original form.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.)
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DH, you do realize I was responding to Syn's claim that Christianity was diluted by "the right?"
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about something more clear cut, say if the US Navy had attacked Japan's Pearl Harbor strike force en route?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
posted
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*
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love for you to do so, Annie. It is good reading, always. (I take truth wherever I find it. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
