Miss USA says to love the terrorists..

[The Barbarian]

Is it sometimes justified to use violence? Yes, I think it is. But it's not what he told us to do.

Moral dilemmas are the kind that are hardest to solve.

 

[PureX]

And our neighbors as ourselves. I was speaking to how we treat the enemies of our neighbors.

All I was really trying to point out from the start is that we like to imagine that our moral reasoning is synonymous with God's moral reasoning, when very often, it is not. And this is one of those instances where this becomes obvious: imagining that because we judge and condemn "those bad guys", and because we think they should be "erased from the Earth", we assume that God has judged and condemned them and God wants us to erase them from the Earth. So that when we do erase them from the Earth, we can then wallow in our own imagined righteousness for having done so.

But this was not the lesson of Christ, at all. Nor is it the lesson we receive from God in the way God treats all of us the same. And in the way that God does not erase 'sinners' from the Earth except in the ancient religious stories written by men who really wanted to believe that God does that sort of thing.

The fact is that God did nothing while those ISIS guys burned a human being to death, because God's love is universal and absolute. But we can't really grasp that, and we sure can't emulate it. And yet Jesus showed us that it works, if we will just try. That when people are willing to stand on the principals of love and forgiveness, even to their own destruction, the principals win in the end. The Christian martyrs did it, and Rome was converted to Christianity. Ghandi and his followers did it, and India was freed from the British empire. MLK and his followers did it in the U.S. and racial inequality was shamed out of public acceptability, and out of legal precedent.

But people died in the process. People were humiliated and beaten, and suffered great hardship and injury in the process. Nonviolence in the face of hatred and aggression doesn't work immediately, nor in every instance. But it does work persistently and collectively.

Jesus practiced what he preached, and he was killed for it. Yet now he 'lives forever'.

 

[Town Heretic]

All I was really trying to point out from the start is that we like to imagine that our moral reasoning is synonymous with God's moral reasoning, when very often, it is not.

I think Christians should be especially wary given we're told explicitly that His ways and reason are above our pay grade.

And this is one of those instances where this becomes obvious: imagining that because we judge and condemn "those bad guys", and because we think they should be "erased from the Earth", we assume that God has judged and condemned them and God wants us to erase them from the Earth. So that when we do erase them from the Earth, we can then wallow in our own imagined righteousness for having done so.

None of that represents my thinking, which is a simpler, "Hey, those people are murdering women and children. We should stop them from doing that." Defending people who cannot defend themselves is a moral good. Murdering someone isn't. That has a way of drawing a fairly clear distinction and justification to it.

The fact is that God did nothing while those ISIS guys burned a human being to death, because God's love is universal and absolute.

I think we're given will and the ability to choose and to bear the consequence of our choices, which should upon mature contemplation lead us to a knowledge of our natures and the need for grace and reconciliation. I don't think God loves anyone more or less, but I don't believe that has much to do with Dachau, by way of.

But we can't really grasp that, and we sure can't emulate it. And yet Jesus showed us that it works, if we will just try. That when people are willing to stand on the principals of love and forgiveness, even to their own destruction, the principals win in the end. The Christian martyrs did it, and Rome was converted to Christianity.

The martyrs died defending their faith in the only way that they could, relative to the power of Rome. I don't think that's an argument for pacifism, only an example of courage and conviction put to the best use given.

Ghandi and his followers did it, and India was freed from the British empire. MLK and his followers did it in the U.S. and racial inequality was shamed out of public acceptability, and out of legal precedent.

Non violence wouldn't have stopped the Nazis. If you have a fundamentally just system with a corrupt problem attached you can cure it. When you have a fundamentally unjust and evil system and a people willing to suffer it your opposition, your response must be different.

Jesus practiced what he preached, and he was killed for it. Yet now 'lives forever'

Well, he'd do that in any event, but he was killed for a different reason if you believe him and if you don't then any lesson he might have taught you is steeped in madness or lie and neither is a good teacher.

Lewis had it, if incompletely.

 

[PureX]

I think Christians should be especially wary given we're told explicitly that His ways and reason are above our pay grade.

Do you think that excuses us from the responsibility and challenge 'God's ways' present to us?

None of that represents my thinking, which is a simpler, "Hey, those people are murdering women and children. We should stop them from doing that." Defending people who cannot defend themselves is a moral good. Murdering someone isn't. That has a way of drawing a fairly clear distinction and justification to it.

But this is YOUR reasoning, not God's, and not Jesus', as exemplified by both Jesus' and God's response to violent aggression.

Jesus lived his whole life in close proximity to the violent aggression of Roman "terrorism". And not once did he fight to stop it: not on his own behalf, and not on anyone else's.

Nor did God do anything to stop even the most heinous crimes, sins and abuses of the Romans, or of anyone else, since. So although your reasoning sounds very logical and appropriate to you and I, it is not exemplified by the teachings or response of Jesus, nor by the non-interference of God.

I think we're given will and the ability to choose and to bear the consequence of our choices, which should upon mature contemplation lead us to a knowledge of our natures and the need for grace and reconciliation.

I agree completely. I think it is very nearly impossible for us to live up to the challenge that Jesus presents to us when he tells us to forgive our enemies, and to return violence with non-violence. I do not believe, however, that the difficulty of that challenge relieves us of it. And so our failure does 'convict us', as you say, and makes it apparent that we need forgiveness, ourselves, as well and for those who trespass against us.

Having said that, then, I stand convicted of my imperfection. I may defend myself, and others, as I believe appropriate. But as I do so, I fall short of the perfect love and forgiveness of God. And I am no better than those I might vanquish in my quest for continuance.

I don't think God loves anyone more or less, but I don't believe that has much to do with Dachau, by way of.

I think it has everything to do with it. If God did not love us, truly, he would not allow us to determine our own natures, and fates, as He does. This is very hard for us to grasp.

The martyrs died defending their faith in the only way that they could, relative to the power of Rome. I don't think that's an argument for pacifism, only an example of courage and conviction put to the best use given.

I disagree. I think they were deliberately non-voiolent when confronted by the threat of violence and death. Not because they did not have the courage to fight an impossible battle, but because they truly believed in the teachings of Jesus: to love and forgive their enemies, and to "turn the other cheek" (respond to violence with non-violence). And it was this inexplicable behavior on the part of these martyrs that captured the attention and moral consternation of the Roman empire.

Non violence wouldn't have stopped the Nazis. If you have a fundamentally just system with a corrupt problem attached you can cure it. When you have a fundamentally unjust and evil system and a people willing to suffer it your opposition, your response must be different.

Not being God, we don't really know what might have happened. We do know that on the rare occasions on which deliberate non-violence was practiced, it eventually prevailed.

Arguing with me or with history about it isn't really the point. The point is that it is what Jesus taught, and what He practiced. The jury is still out on whether or not it will succeed as He promised. So far, humanity hasn't really found the will to put it to the ultimate test.

 

[republicanchick]

All I was really trying to point out from the start is that we like to imagine that our moral reasoning is synonymous with God's moral reasoning, when very often, it is not. And this is one of those instances where this becomes obvious: imagining that because we judge and condemn "those bad guys", and because we think they should be "erased from the Earth", we assume that God has judged and condemned them and God wants us to erase them from the Earth. So that when we do erase them from the Earth, we can then wallow in our own imagined righteousness for having done so.

But this was not the lesson of Christ, at all. er'.

What the..??!!!!

Are you competing for Moron of the Year Award?

for one thing, you are a hypocrite, telling us that we should not do things like retailiation against the Islamic Barbarian State in the name of Christ and then telling us we should do (whatever) in the name of Christ..

Who are YOU that we should listen to YOU about what Christ wants and not, oh... say, Christ's Church?

the Church teaches there is such a thing as a just war. If it is not just to end the senseless killing of tend of thousands of people who just had the bad luck of being children, or Christians or whatever...

then what could possible be termed a just war?


you liberals... you would almost be comical if you didn't cause so much damage..



+++

 

[Town Heretic]

Do you think that excuses us from the responsibility and challenge 'God's ways' present to us?

I'd say we should follow as best we can what we can understand while recognizing that when our expectations and God's action or inaction conflict where the fault must lie.

But this is YOUR reasoning, not God's, and not Jesus', as exemplified by both Jesus' and God's response to violent aggression. Jesus lived his whole life in close proximity to the violent aggression of Roman "terrorism". And not once did he fight to stop it: not on his own behalf, and not on anyone else's.

He didn't come to raise an earthly army or kingdom. But to the Christian faith Jesus is God and that same God commanded armies before the shadow of the cross ever fell across us. To make of God a pacifist is to mistake Him.

Nor did God do anything to stop even the most heinous crimes, sins and abuses of the Romans, or of anyone else, since.

He didn't stop many from abandoning Him after He brought them out of bondage to Egypt, though there were consequences. It appears to be fairly important to God that we make those choices. That we are free to make them.

Having said that, then, I stand convicted of my imperfection. I may defend myself, and others, as I believe appropriate. But as I do so, I fall short of the perfect love and forgiveness of God.

Where I'd say you fall short only of a mistaken impression of God as a one dimensional being.

And I am no better than those I might vanquish in my quest for continuance.

Fundamentally, in the sense that whatever you are is willfully insufficient absent grace, I'd agree. But to suggest there is no difference between killing in self defense or the defense of others and murdering is to speak contrary to God's own clear commandment on the point. It isn't thou shalt not kill, but thou shalt not murder.

I think it has everything to do with it. If God did not love us, truly, he would not allow us to determine our own natures, and fates, as He does. This is very hard for us to grasp.

I've always believed we are the objects upon which God expresses His nature. And we in turn express our natures upon one another, which absent grace is a sort of horror show that should lead us to it.

Not being God, we don't really know what might have happened. We do know that on the rare occasions on which deliberate non-violence was practiced, it eventually prevailed.

We know what happened to those who went to those camps non violently.

 

[aikido7]

Is it sometimes justified to use violence? Yes, I think it is. But it's not what he told us to do.

Moral dilemmas are the kind that are hardest to solve.

A violent reaction to life is caused by an inability to process our own human suffering.

We would rather blame others for our own behavior instead of being accountable for our own strong feelings and expressing those feelings in mature and wise ways.

Don't tell me that nonviolent action does not work. It does. If we look at the percentage of the world's people who have used nonviolence to change their circumstances, we have more than 60% of all humanity.

The key is connecting with our opponent in a way that connects us to what is alive in them. That process involves using other choices than our "giving in or fighting back."

And, of course, in my view us Christians need to pick up our own cross and follow Jesus.

 

[PureX]

We know what happened to those who went to those camps non violently.

Yes, the same thing that happened to Jesus, who also went to his unjust death without a fight. And yet the nazis are gone, now. Resigned to history in their failure and their shame. While Jesus and the victims of the holocaust will live in our hearts and minds, forever.

 

[aikido7]

If you care about what Jesus said I hope you will tighten up your knowledge and understanding.

***How, specifically, would you advise me how to communicate Jesus' ethics and social vision in a way that will "tighten up" my "knowledge and understanding"?

***How would you talk about the "belief-based" faith of Christianity as differing from the "action-based" ethic of Jesus without provoking defensiveness such as your own?

Jesus (and the Baptizer before him) would have found the notion of a blood sacrifice for sin to be disgusting.... So please let me know the best way to show this major difference between the unique voiceprint of Jesus and the priest-based theology of the shedding of blood.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The fact that the incident at the Jerusalem temple is mentioned in all four gospels (although the details are different in each version) is proof to me that Jesus was a human being who chose a God of integrity that desired "mercy not sacrifice." Instead of a blood-drenched ritual on the temple's altar, Jesus (and John the Baptizer before him) believed in the ancient Hebrew notion of repentance by forgiveness by a God of mercy.

One thing I try to keep in mind that Jesus was declared Son of God, the Messiah, Born of a Virgin, etc. after his death. Obviously, the temple uproar (like perhaps his denouncement of the fig tree) is a testament to his anti-clergy, anti-bureaucracy and even an "anti- religion" vision of reality.

The fact that these elevated titles such as Lord, Prince of Peace, etc. were applied to Jesus just shows how his early followers literally saw "God in him."

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, the same thing that happened to Jesus, who also went to his unjust death without a fight.

To redeem mankind and make reconciliation and grace possible. That work is finished.

And yet the nazis are gone, now.

And how was that actually accomplished again?

 

[PureX]

To redeem mankind and make reconciliation and grace possible. That work is finished.


And how was that actually accomplished again?

So, your argument, here, is that Jesus' actions were not intended for us to emulate, but only to magically absolve us from 'sin'? And that his teaching us to love our enemies only meant that we should love them as we kill them if they attack us or those we care about? Am I getting this right?

 

[The Barbarian]

the Church teaches there is such a thing as a just war.

Indeed. Was it just to bomb Nagumo's fleet, on the way to Midway?

How about incinerating Nagasaki? Was that just? Do you see any difference between the two?

Is there a difference between self-defense and vengence? Are both of these legitimate uses of "just war?"

If it is not just to end the senseless killing of tend of thousands of people who just had the bad luck of being children, or Christians or whatever...

Funny you should mention that.

then what could possible be termed a just war?

Would not a war to prevent even greater horrors than would happen in the absence of that war be "just?"

you liberals... you would almost be comical if you didn't cause so much damage..

The world is difficult and filled with moral dilemmas. Trying to make it less so, is the way to greater horror.

 

[bybee]

So, your argument, here, is that Jesus' actions were not intended for us to emulate, but only to magically absolve us from 'sin'? And that his teaching us to love our enemies only meant that we should love them as we kill them if they attack us or those we care about? Am I getting this right?

You would not defend yourself against an attack?
What about a woman being attacked?
What about a child being attacked?
Loving one's enemies means to always treat them as human beings.
It does not mean to value your own life as of any lesser value than theirs.
It means being careful to be as just as possible as well as loving as possible.
After all God is not only Love but He is Moral Arbiter, Paraclete and Judge.
It means understanding that life is rarely black and white. We are obligated to do our best in defense of ourselves as well as the vulnerable and the needy and the defenseless.

 

[PureX]

You would not defend yourself against an attack?
What about a woman being attacked?
What about a child being attacked?

This isn't about me. I'm no one's role model. What did Jesus do in these instances?

Loving one's enemies means to always treat them as human beings.

How should human beings be treated? How do we decide this?

It does not mean to value your own life as of any lesser value than theirs.

I don't believe Jesus died on the cross because he valued his own life less than he valued the lives of those who killed him. Do you? And I don't think that's why he told us to "turn the other cheek" when assaulted by our enemies.

It means being careful to be as just as possible as well as loving as possible.

I don't recall him saying that, though.

Ghandi said that; "lying is the mother of all violence". What he meant by this, is that inevitably, before the violence ensues, we humans justify what are about to do in one way or another. So that we will then have no moral qualms about it, during it, or thereafter. And everyone, on every side of the "fight", does this. The aggressor does it. The defender does it. And both their supporters and detractors do it. Everyone lies to themselves about how their participation in the violence is justified. And everyone believes their own lies.

And this is how violence escalates, perpetuates, and poisons everyone involved, spiritually. We may claim we are only defending ourselves, and that we still "love our enemies" in the face of the violence. But that is not the truth. Violence causes hate just as much as hate causes violence. Even when we act, initially, in defense.

After all God is not only Love but He is Moral Arbiter, Paraclete and Judge.

I have seen absolutely no evidence whatever that would lead me to believe that this is the case. I choose to believe that God is expressed in my world as love, and forgiveness, and kindness. and generosity. But I see no evidence that would suggest to me that God is the least bit interested in what I call "justice", or fairness, or morally right.

It means understanding that life is rarely black and white. We are obligated to do our best in defense of ourselves as well as the vulnerable and the needy and the defenseless.

I understand. But our best too often results in ongoing and escalating violence while everyone claims and believes they are doing God's will. While God remains inexplicably silent.

If we believe that Jesus is the Christ, and thereby does exemplify God's love and forgiveness in human manifestation, then we are being faced with a very difficult challenge. Because Jesus told us to love and forgive our enemies, and to turn them the other cheek when they act against us. And then he did it, himself, even to his own death. So that the question to each of us is: do we believe Jesus represents God in human form, and therefor sets the precedent for how we should live (and die, if necessary), or don't we?

It's not just about whether or not we can live up to it. It's about admitting and accepting that this is the challenge before us, as Christians. Then, when we accept that fact, and see that we cannot live up to the challenge, we must also accept our failure. Our unrighteousness. And our constant need of forgiveness, and help.

Seems to me a lot of 'Christians' these days don't want to do this. So they make up excuses and obfuscations about the challenge, so that they don't have to face their own failure in the face of it. And therefore their own unrighteousness, and sin, in the face of violence.

The point being: that violence makes sinners of us all. There is no "just war". There is only the sad necessity for a violent defense (as viewed from our perspective). A violent defense that will almost certainly taint us, spiritually. And that I think we should view, accordingly.

 

[resodko]

Jesus taught us to love our enemies.

He either said it or he didn't.

You can't have it both ways.

and how do we "love" evil people who are murdering innocents?

 

[PureX]

and how do we "love" evil people who are murdering innocents?

Therein lies our spiritual challenge.

But first we must accept that this IS our challenge. Then we can perhaps begin to work through it.

 

[resodko]

fine - it's a challenge

how do we meet that challenge?


how do we "love" evil people who are murdering innocents?

 

[Town Heretic]

So, your argument, here, is that Jesus' actions were not intended for us to emulate,

His literal sacrifice for sin? Right. Or, as I put it plainly enough:

To redeem mankind and make reconciliation and grace possible. That work is finished. We don't have to be nailed to a literal cross. We aren't expected to attempt to walk on water, rise from the grave in three days, any number of things he did.

but only to magically absolve us from 'sin'?

Believe in grace and reconciliation or don't, but if you don't you're carrying a misleading user designation.

And that his teaching us to love our enemies only meant that we should love them as we kill them if they attack us or those we care about? Am I getting this right?

I think you know you aren't which is why you don't engage my actual answers/points and instead try to lump sum and distort the way you do here. I notice you stepped around how that Nazi plague was actually ended, by way of.

Otherwise, what I've actually noted is that you can't love your neighbor and allow him to be slaughtered when you have the capacity to stop it. And God distinguishes between the unrighteous act, murder, and the righteous act, preventing it--which is why the commandment goes, "Thou shalt no murder" instead of kill.

And the God you'd mistakenly brand a pacifist sent armies into the field and slew the first born of Egypt to free His people.

Whether you actually think Christ divine or not you can't ignore that he understood that God and said, "I and the father are one" that where you see one you see the other.

 

[bybee]

This isn't about me. I'm no one's role model. What did Jesus do in these instances?
How should human beings be treated? How do we decide this?
I don't believe Jesus died on the cross because he valued his own life less than he valued the lives of those who killed him. Do you? And I don't think that's why he told us to "turn the other cheek" when assaulted by our enemies.
I don't recall him saying that, though.

Ghandi said that; "lying is the mother of all violence". What he meant by this, is that inevitably, before the violence ensues, we humans justify what are about to do in one way or another. So that we will then have no moral qualms about it, during it, or thereafter. And everyone, on every side of the "fight", does this. The aggressor does it. The defender does it. And both their supporters and detractors do it. Everyone lies to themselves about how their participation in the violence is justified. And everyone believes their own lies.

And this is how violence escalates, perpetuates, and poisons everyone involved, spiritually. We may claim we are only defending ourselves, and that we still "love our enemies" in the face of the violence. But that is not the truth. Violence causes hate just as much as hate causes violence. Even when we act, initially, in defense.
I have seen absolutely no evidence whatever that would lead me to believe that this is the case. I choose to believe that God is expressed in my world as love, and forgiveness, and kindness. and generosity. But I see no evidence that would suggest to me that God is the least bit interested in what I call "justice", or fairness, or morally right.
I understand. But our best too often results in ongoing and escalating violence while everyone claims and believes they are doing God's will. While God remains inexplicably silent.

If we believe that Jesus is the Christ, and thereby does exemplify God's love and forgiveness in human manifestation, then we are being faced with a very difficult challenge. Because Jesus told us to love and forgive our enemies, and to turn them the other cheek when they act against us. And then he did it, himself, even to his own death. So that the question to each of us is: do we believe Jesus represents God in human form, and therefor sets the precedent for how we should live (and die, if necessary), or don't we?

It's not just about whether or not we can live up to it. It's about admitting and accepting that this is the challenge before us, as Christians. Then, when we accept that fact, and see that we cannot live up to the challenge, we must also accept our failure. Our unrighteousness. And our constant need of forgiveness, and help.

Seems to me a lot of 'Christians' these days don't want to do this. So they make up excuses and obfuscations about the challenge, so that they don't have to face their own failure in the face of it. And therefore their own unrighteousness, and sin, in the face of violence.

The point being: that violence makes sinners of us all. There is no "just war". There is only the sad necessity for a violent defense (as viewed from our perspective). A violent defense that will almost certainly taint us, spiritually. And that I think we should view, accordingly.

It is about you! And it is about me! How is God's purpose to be worked out in this earth except that you and I do our best to be good role models?
You sit up in your pristine ivory tower and make sweeping judgments about human kind and all are condemnatory yet those of us working where the rubber meets the road are busy taking care of business as best we can.
Life is lived here, now, in this place.

 

[PureX]

It is about you! And it is about me! How is God's purpose to be worked out in this earth except that you and I do our best to be good role models?
You sit up in your pristine ivory tower and make sweeping judgments about human kind and all are condemnatory yet those of us working where the rubber meets the road are busy taking care of business as best we can.
Life is lived here, now, in this place.

First, how do you tell the difference between God's purpose, and your own, if you assume that your job on Earth is to carry out God's purpose?

Second, I live in the same world you or anyone else does. I don't have to be in an "ivory tower" to see how we humans so often and easily deceive ourselves. Nor do I have to be as righteous as God to say something about it.