Miss USA says to love the terrorists..

[PureX]

fine - it's a challenge

how do we meet that challenge?


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

I think perhaps the first step would be to try and understand that we are no better than they are. We assume we are, because we are not "murdering innocents". But in reality, that tends to be a matter of perspective. And our perspective is always biased in our own favor.

Secondly, we could try and understand that if we return their violence with violence, we become the equivalent of those we condemn. Because their violence is justified in their minds, just as our violence is justified in ours. The only difference between killing and murder is the presumption of justification. And everyone presumes that for themselves from the outset. Don't they.

Lastly, it may be that there are occasions in this life in which we simply cannot avoid responding to violence with violence. But when that happens, if we understand that it will condemn us just as surely as we condemn the aggressors, then we will perceive no glory in it, nor righteousness in it, for anyone, for any reason. And should we prevail over our enemy, we will hold no parades, nor pat ourselves on the back and hand out medals, nor say prayers thanking God for "being on our side". Because we will know that, in truth, no one "won", and everyone involved stands condemned for their sins.

I'm thinking these might be a good place to start.

 

[PureX]

Ahhhhhh! You cherry pick Scripture to show that nothing is provable and ultimately that nothing is plausible!
One may choose from any number of avatars for basis of life? One may choose only a few of an avatars statements and make a way of life from it?
On the one hand you seem to contend that we can't really know anything for certain and on the other hand you condemn us for not knowing anything for certain.

Such is the dilemma of the human condition. We are not omniscient, yet we can imagine that such a state could exist. And so we bestow it upon our "God", who we then claim uses it to condemn us. But it's all really just a clever pretext upon which we judge and condemn each other, in our ignorance, for our ignorance.

Humanity is insane.

 

[bybee]

Such is the dilemma of the human condition. We are not omniscient, yet we can imagine that such a state could exist. And so we bestow it upon our "God", who we then claim uses it to condemn us. But it's all really just a clever pretext upon which we judge and condemn each other, in our ignorance, for our ignorance.

Humanity is insane.

I disagree. As a daughter, sister, wife, mother, grandmother, auntie and nurse, I know what sanity is. It is meeting the vicissitudes and necessities of the day no matter what. It is driving through a snow storm to pick up someone at the airport. It is tending a sick child through the night and still showing up for work in the morning. It is forgiving the lapses in loved ones and lending a hand, a dollar a moment of time as needed. It is outreach at church helping to fund a home for raped and abused girls in Kenya. It is supporting Habitat for Humanity and the Salvation Army. It is being available based on the needs of others and not necessarily one's own comfort. My world is filled with good people.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. As a daughter, sister, wife, mother, grandmother, auntie and nurse, I know what sanity is. It is meeting the vicissitudes and necessities of the day no matter what. It is driving through a snow storm to pick up someone at the airport. It is tending a sick child through the night and still showing up for work in the morning. It is forgiving the lapses in loved ones and lending a hand, a dollar a moment of time as needed. It is outreach at church helping to fund a home for raped and abused girls in Kenya. It is supporting Habitat for Humanity and the Salvation Army. It is being available based on the needs of others and not necessarily one's own comfort. My world is filled with good people.

Insane people are capable of all sorts of wonderments. The Bible says that we are, "wonderfully and frightfully made". And that we are.

But we are also nuts. Every one of us. In that we have no idea at all what's really going on in us and around us the vast majority of the time. We live in an imaginary "world" that we create in our heads based on our very limited experiences of reality, and we call that "reality". And then we actually defend it against further contrary experiences! In the name of "truth"!

I love humanity. And I wouldn't rather be any other life form. But we are so insane that we have no idea how insane we really are.

 

[bybee]

Insane people are capable of all sorts of wonderments. The Bible says that we are, "wonderfully and frightfully made". And that we are.

But we are also nuts. Every one of us. In that we have no idea at all what's really going on in us and around us the vast majority of the time. We live in an imaginary "world" that we create in our heads based on our very limited experiences of reality, and we call that "reality". And then we actually defend it against further contrary experiences! In the name of "truth"!

I love humanity. And I wouldn't rather be any other life form. But we are so insane that we have no idea how insane we really are.

We have been created by a power greater than ourselves.
What would be the point of creating entities not capable of apprehending reality?
For you is "All the world a stage..."?
Who is writing your script?
Mathematics as a basis for comprehending the truth of the world is one way to stay grounded.
Of course, I've never taken a drug that affects my perceptions so, I don't know... maybe you are all screwed up because of drugs?
I am in reality. I know that I cannot leap tall buildings in a single bound. But I can climb stairs one at a time.

 

[Town Heretic]

So at what point in your narrative does the Bible become something more than speculation/justification for one people and the Word of God proceeding into the world?

It doesn't. The ideas that humanity presents itself through scripture are true only to the degree that they align with reality as we experience it.

I appreciate the honesty, but that's antithetical to the gospel, so whatever you're advancing, it isn't Christianity. It's the gospel of Pure.

God has said no such thing.

Hebrews 13:8
John 10:30

Christianity differs with your perspective.

I did not "make God a pacifist". I simply pointed out that Jesus told us to return violence with non-violence, and did so himself.

I answered on the point. You lacked the context for understanding the turning of cheek and what was being done by it. And he went to the cross for something else you likely don't believe, but not to illustrate how we should meet violent opposition.

But this was the Christ who drove men from the temple violently, not with long suffering. And this was the Christ who said to see him was to see the God of the OT you'd rather relegate to the dust bin of myth, apparently.

I further pointed out that the ideal of non-violence works, though not immediately and in all cases. So that it makes it very difficult for us to practice.

And I responded that the Nazis weren't defeated with peaceful resistance and that those who met them in any resemblance of that fashion became victims, not conquerors of the evil of that particular.

On the difference between murder and killing...

Since the only difference between the two is justification, and everyone presumes themselves to be justified,

There's where you make a mistake that goes to your general approach. It isn't about what the individual feels or thinks that distinguishes between murder and killing, that founds whether an act is right or wrong, evil or good. Even within the purely secular courts there is an understanding of a context that defines as against the individual's sense of justification.

I don't really see any difference, here, except the difference between 'us' and 'them'. A difference that God apparently has no interest in.

If you don't see a difference between the Nazi and the liberator of a death camp I'd say you have a serious contextual problem to resolve.

There's no glory in death, except in Christ's, to be sure.

That's an irrational perspective.

No, it's a contextual one. For a Christian that death, that sacrifice is the beginning of man's reconciliation with God.

 

[PureX]

So at what point in your narrative does the Bible become something more than speculation/justification for one people and the Word of God proceeding into the world?

I appreciate the honesty, but that's antithetical to the gospel, so whatever you're advancing, it isn't Christianity. It's the gospel of Pure.

Of course it is. We're all interpreting it according to our own experiences, and our own reasoning. How could it be else-ways?

Christianity differs with your perspective.

Christianity is being defined by my perspective just as much as it's being defined by yours. Christianity is a collective perspective.

You lacked the context for understanding the turning of cheek and what was being done by it. And he went to the cross for something else you likely don't believe, but not to illustrate how we should meet violent opposition.

And I think you're just lawyering your way out of having to face the very difficult challenge that the Christian ideal poses.

But this was the Christ who drove men from the temple violently, not with long suffering. And this was the Christ who said to see him was to see the God of the OT you'd rather relegate to the dust bin of myth, apparently.

The temple incident has nothing to do with responding to violence. And the fact that Jesus was a Jew is likewise irrelevant to the fact that I am not.

And I responded that the Nazis weren't defeated with peaceful resistance and that those who met them in any resemblance of that fashion became victims, not conquerors of the evil of that particular.

We will never know what might have happened if people responded to nazism with non-violent resistance. A reasonable guess would be that the Nazi war machine would have had a lot more difficulty justifying and peddling it's aggressive intentions to the German people. It becomes quite difficult for most people to act violently toward others when those others are not acting or threatening violence in return.

On the difference between murder and killing...

There's where you make a mistake that goes to your general approach. It isn't about what the individual feels or thinks that distinguishes between murder and killing, that founds whether an act is right or wrong, evil or good. Even within the purely secular courts there is an understanding of a context that defines as against the individual's sense of justification.

Whether it's individuals or groups of individuals, the justifications are still self-centered and selectively biased. The ISIS individual believes he is justified in killing 'infidels'. The ISIS collective believes it's justified in killing 'infidels'. We as individual believe we are justified in killing them. We as a collective believe we are justified in killing them, collectively.

Regardless, the killers have all justified themselves.

But if that justification were not morally possible, regardless of the circumstances … What then?

 

[resodko]

We will never know what might have happened if people responded to nazism with non-violent resistance.

non-violent resistance dint work out so good for anne frank, did it?

 

[bybee]

Of course it is. We're all interpreting it according to our own experiences, and our own reasoning. How could it be else-ways?
Christianity is being defined by my perspective just as much as it's being defined by yours. Christianity is a collective perspective.
And I think you're just lawyering your way out of having to face the very difficult challenge that the Christian ideal poses.
The temple incident has nothing to do with responding to violence. And the fact that Jesus was a Jew is likewise irrelevant to the fact that I am not.
We will never know what might have happened if people responded to nazism with non-violent resistance. A reasonable guess would be that the Nazi war machine would have had a lot more difficulty justifying and peddling it's aggressive intentions to the German people. It becomes quite difficult for most people to act violently toward others when those others are not acting or threatening violence in return.
Whether it's individuals or groups of individuals, the justifications are still self-centered and selectively biased. The ISIS individual believes he is justified in killing 'infidels'. The ISIS collective believes it's justified in killing 'infidels'. We as individual believe we are justified in killing them. We as a collective believe we are justified in killing them, collectively.

Regardless, the killers have all justified themselves.

But if that justification were not morally possible, regardless of the circumstances … What then?

Violence is begun by someone. It is the initiator of violence who is a danger to all around him.
A violent husband who is much stronger than his wife tends to escalate his violence because he can.
You can be a patsy and let people abuse you and the people who may be in your charge but I shall not! I will protect you if necessary.

 

[Town Heretic]

Of course it is. We're all interpreting it according to our own experiences, and our own reasoning. How could it be else-ways?

It feels that way to you because you don't see the Word as the Word. It might as well be the Upanishads, provided you find parts you agree with. That's a perspective, Pure, but it isn't a Christian one.

Christianity begins with the authority of Christ and that is found in the Word. When you reduce that authority you make something new out of it.

Christianity is being defined by my perspective just as much as it's being defined by yours.

Rather it isn't defined by either of us. It is accepted or rejected by either of us. Either Christ is the son of God and the gospel the good news or it's something else.

And I think you're just lawyering your way out of having to face the very difficult challenge that the Christian ideal poses.

Understanding the cultural and historical context isn't "lawyering out" which is itself a misapprehension of what lawyers do. In the same way you need to understand who Samaritans were to the Jews to understand the full message of the good Samaritan and any number of likened points made within the gospel.

I had a joke here years ago in illustration. "And Judas went out and hanged himself...go thou and do likewise." Context can be important.

The temple incident has nothing to do with responding to violence.

That makes it worse for you. Jesus responded to an offense against the Holy with violence. That's not pacifism. And what did he say of those who attempted to stop children from coming to him?

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6

That does't sound like your notion of God.

And the fact that Jesus was a Jew is likewise irrelevant to the fact that I am not.

And both are irrelevant to any point I made. But Jesus was the God incarnate of the Jew, which is a bit different.

We will never know what might have happened if people responded to nazism with non-violent resistance.

I don't know why you think that's true. We can look and see what happens when good people do nothing to literally stop evil of that sort. Millions die. Many more than need be. What would have happened? The virtual end of the Jew, the gypsy and others found inferior by a people who had no problem sending them into death camps.

A reasonable guess would be that the Nazi war machine would have had a lot more difficulty justifying and peddling it's aggressive intentions to the German people.

It's not reasonable if you're a student of the period. They were doing better under Hitler than they had in generations. It's amazing the good will you can engender when you're redistributing the wealth of your victims and creating public works from them.

It becomes quite difficult for most people to act violently toward others when those others are not acting or threatening violence in return.

Not only isn't that true, it's frighteningly untrue. You need to look into psychological tests involving fake shock treatments being given to individuals by the actual test subjects. The horror people will often willingly induce in the name of any purported good is remarkable.

In Germany it was cultural and racial purity of the Fatherland. The German people were helping to rid their society of a dehumanized and declared source of their social problems. And because people love feeling better than the next guy, especially when they've been under heel long enough, because we love having someone to blame and scapegoat, a country no better or worse than their cousins lovingly embraced a sociopath and were more than happy to be untroubled by whatever it was he had in mind for them.

Whether it's individuals or groups of individuals, the justifications are still self-centered and selectively biased. The ISIS individual believes he is justified in killing 'infidels'. The ISIS collective believes it's justified in killing 'infidels'. We as individual believe we are justified in killing them. We as a collective believe we are justified in killing them, collectively.

Again, when you can't distinguish between an act of murder and an act to prevent murder you have a serious contextual problem. Killing is neither moral nor immoral. It's an act. The morality is found in the context. God has one. Man frequently has another.

Regardless, the killers have all justified themselves.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe many a killer simply satisfies a perverse itch. Maybe most prisons are filled with men who know they did wrong and knew it going in. Doesn't really alter the point.

But if that justification were not morally possible, regardless of the circumstances … What then?

Then the person believing that would be utterly and completely irrational, would be incapable of acting if they saw a child at a distance about to be ax murdered while they stood there with their hunting rifle, philosophically torn.

 

[The Barbarian]

Violence is begun by someone. It is the initiator of violence who is a danger to all around him.

And God says, from the front seat, "I don't care who started it. Stop it now."

 

[bybee]

And God says, from the front seat, "I don't care who started it. Stop it now."

It is not stopped until both parties stop.
And I don't think that God says that.

 

[resodko]

And God says, from the front seat, "I don't care who started it. Stop it now."

dint work when the nazis were stuffing the jews into ovens :idunno:

 

[PureX]

Violence is begun by someone.

Yeah, and it's always someone else. "A" sees "B" moving into "his territory", and taking "his land" (or whatever). And thereby threatening the lives of "his people". This is perceived as an act of violence against his people, thereby justifying a violent action in return. "B" thinks the land belong to whomever lays claim to it, and makes use of it, and therefor sees "A" as an unprovoked aggressor. And thereby deems himself justified in the use of violence in defense of himself and his people. So everyone is now self-justified, and the violence begins. And each time one inflicts suffering on the other, the other is all the more "justified" in his desire to inflict even greater suffering in return. On and on it goes. Someone else always starts it. And someone else is always to blame. And everyone sees themselves as justified in using violence in their own "defense".

This is mankind's "reasoning". As it has been for centuries. And I understand it very well. But mankind's reasoning is not God's reasoning. So perhaps God declares that no one is justified in using violence against others, ever. And in fact, if we were to heed this divine admonishment, violence would in fact, cease.

But we won't heed it. We'll continue to blame the other guy and justify ourselves, and even claim that God is 'on our side'. And that our violent behavior is God's will, and that the suffering we cause others is God's righteous punishment upon them.

A violent husband who is much stronger than his wife tends to escalate his violence because he can.

And all the while he convinces himself that she is making him do it. She is bringing it on herself by provoking him to violence when she knows he is violence-prone. Because we humans always find a way to justify our violence toward others.

And perhaps that's why a wise God would deny ALL our justifications.

 

[resodko]

And perhaps that's why a wise God would deny ALL our justifications.

gee, if only God had written something like "Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good...jk :chuckle:

really, go ahead and do whatever you want - there is no good or evil :thumb:"

 

[bybee]

Yeah, and it's always someone else. "A" sees "B" moving into "his territory", and taking "his land" (or whatever). And thereby threatening the lives of "his people". This is perceived as an act of violence against his people, thereby justifying a violent action in return. "B" thinks the land belong to whomever lays claim to it, and sees "A" as an unprovoked aggressor. And thereby sees himself as justified in the use of violence in defense of himself and his people. So everyone is now self-justified, and the violence begins. And each time one inflicts suffering on the other, the other is all the more "justified" in his desire to inflict even greater suffering on their "attackers". On and on it goes. Someone else always starts it. And someone else is always to blame. And everyone sees themselves as justified in using violence as their "defense".

This is mankind's "reasoning". And I understand it very well. But mankind's reasoning is not God's reasoning. So God perhaps declares that no one is justified in using violence against others, ever. And in fact, if we were to heed this admonishment, violence would cease.

But we won't heed it. We'll continue to blame the other guy and justify ourselves, and even claim that God is 'on our side'. And that our violent behavior is God's will, and that the suffering we cause those other guys is God's righteous punishment upon them.
And all the while he convinces himself that she is making him do it. She brings it on herself. Because we humans always justify our violence toward others.

And perhaps that's why a wise God would deny ALL our justifications.

Try eliminating "always" from your vocabulary for a month. See what happens.

 

[PureX]

It feels that way to you because you don't see the Word as the Word.

It doesn't "feel" that way to me. It is that way to me. God's logos (word) is written into the fabric of everything. It is not a collection of religious texts.

Christianity begins with the authority of Christ and that is found in the Word.

I agree completely. But the "word" is not the Bible. It doesn't exclude the Bible. But it's not the Bible, in itself.

Rather it isn't defined by either of us. It is accepted or rejected by either of us.

It is defined by each of us in the way we come to understand it, and then it's accepted or rejected as we choose.

Jesus responded to an offense against the Holy with violence. That's not pacifism.

No one said anything about "pacifism".

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6

That does't sound like your notion of God.

It sounds like Jesus' notion of God. But Jesus, himself, neither passed judgment nor inflicted punishments on those who presumably did not heed his warning.

I don't know why you think that's true. We can look and see what happens when good people do nothing to literally stop evil of that sort. Millions die. Many more than need be.

No one said anything about doing nothing. Jesus was not a "pacifist". He did not pacify anyone, that I am aware of.

 

[PureX]

Try eliminating "always" from your vocabulary for a month. See what happens.

"Always" is a term representing an idea. I don't eliminate ideas from my vocabulary. Maybe you should try not being so resentful of ideas that indicate that we are not as righteous and unique as we so often think we are.

 

[PureX]

gee, if only God had written something like "Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good...jk :chuckle:

really, go ahead and do whatever you want - there is no good or evil :thumb:"

Unfortunately, God doesn't write books. Probably because we humans would only misinterpret them if He did.

 

[republicanchick]

non-violent resistance dint work out so good for anne frank, did it?

yeh, good point

(I like the way you don't meander on and on, just make a point and let people deal with it... one point @ a time... others can learn from that...)