|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: IS have turned me into a hawk
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Of course we should take the 1st Century Jewish cultural / religious context into account when we look at Jesus. It is through this context that He lived, acted and spoke.
But I also happen to believe that He is the Son of God, and that what he did and said has something to say to me. I try (with all my failings) to take this into account in the way I live my life, and this includes my political positions. Not in a "What would Jesus vote?" kind of way, but more like "How can what Jesus said and did inspire me in my present-day context?"
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
For me, scripture and tradition do not teach pacifism. Pacifism doesn't seem reasonable to me. So, I reject it for both political and religious reasons.
My problem with pacifism is that it doesn't seem workable in many (most?) contexts. (Bearing in mind the non-violent resistance movements of MLK and Gandhi, which nonetheless wouldn't work with a savage force like IS.) Yet I wrestle with that and the immense power of what He says: "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course we should take the 1st Century Jewish cultural/religious context into account when we look at Jesus. It is through this context that He lived, acted and spoke.
Yep.
quote:
But I also happen to believe that He is the Son of God, and that what he did and said has something to say to me. I try (with all my failings) to take this into account in the way I live my life, and this includes my political positions. Not in a "What would Jesus vote?" kind of way, but more like "How can what Jesus said and did inspire me in my present-day context?"
I agree.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
MPC: If Jesus is inextricable from His ancient Jewish context, then we're lost. I can't accept that proposition.
... Laurelin: I can because the Church's denial of His Jewishness has had catastrophic consequences.
..... M: It still does. But what do you mean by that? Antisemitism?
... L: And Marcion was wrong.
...... M: Of course He was. For the right postmodern reason. If God IS Killer, then we don’t and can’t know Him, apprehend Him. He is completely other, completely alien to us. For me anyway. I cannot know Him thus. I used to and it completely distorted Him, as I see Him now. It’s all about what we bring to the party I know. Disposition. Mine has changed. The gift of faith hasn’t been taken from me. How nauseatingly pious ... mine HASN'T changed as you know, but another way, another possibility of disposition has become apparent. One in which I can ONLY see God through Jesus and Jesus divine in VERY human indeed.
... L: Of course Jesus transcends his own culture's rules, Martin. He is Torah-observant and yet often subverts the Torah, thus giving it a yet deeper meaning. He embodies it.
...... M: Inextricably? He ‘spiritualizes’ the law? Ethicizes it? He made it completely obsolete in, dead at, His death. The postmodern, emergent proposition is greater than that.
M: But for you - both? - any attempt to do so leaves nothing coherent behind? The baby goes with the bathwater?
... L: It depends on what you think the baby is ...
...... M: The baby for me is what’s left once one deconstructs Jesus’ culture.
... L: I can't co-opt Jesus for any of our frightful war-mongering. Nor would I attempt to do so. I'm with Ad Orientem on this (his posts on this subject are excellent) - arguments for so-called 'just wars' rarely work for me either.
As you often point out, Christianity has had 1700 years of being a state religion and a world power and the results are ... yeah, often
And yet I'm still left with this quandary: I don't believe that Jesus sanctions killing, but I do believe in using the power of Caesar sometimes if it means defeating an enemy like IS. And they ARE an enemy. They want to be our enemies, they enjoy it.
It's impossible to be completely pure on issues of war and peace. And yet Christ demands purity of us.
...... M: Aye. Caesar was IS. Caesar was the enemy of Christ for three hundred years and enjoyed it very much. And Jesus did NOT sanction the killing of Caesar by His followers or any other force, by Caesar even in civil war.
In fact Caesar still IS.
Beeswax Altar - you next!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry (and it won't be for the last time as I want to respond to Beeswax Altar in my new, perfect irenicism ...), there was a question you raised to me Laurelin that I didn't answer and went off half cocked on a tangent from.
What would I do about IS if I had the power to save the Yazidi and others?
I would do what President Obama is doing. It's perfect. For an imperfect world. And with my armchair warrior instincts unleashed I'd deploy all the black ops guys at my disposal to squirrel people out and disappear bad guys. I'd be itching to use drones and cruise missiles and daisy cutters, but I'd have to get ALL the other parties to sign up. And maybe I'd just do a Putin and put in a ghost army.
Which is why I don't have or want the power.
So, in my armchair, I can say God bless America, God bless Caesar in not carrying the sword in vain.
I can have my cake and eat it and cite the apostle Paul, happy to have a military escort. I can sit in my armchair not of this world and praise God for the world ... much as I used to when Stormin' Norman went in.
The difference is now I do not see Jesus itching to revert to being God the Killer and I do see Him being exemplary in pacifism including to Earthly kings who one day WILL bow the knee. But not to His violent coercion.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Let's dispel a myth or two, because that's twice I've seen Special Forces or "black ops" people be called upon to quickly and cleanly eradicate IS.
That cannot happen. If we are defining SF troops as small teams operating clandestinely in behind the enemy lines, then they are not effective in closing with mass concentrations of enemy soldiers.
They are mainly used in intelligence gathering, demolition or search and rescue. They typically try to avoid contact with the enemy because they are compromised and will need extracting.
They are not super heroes. They are very well trained soldiers who do a specific job.
If you want to defeat a sizeable enemy then SF troops, just like airpower, will not do the job. You need boots on the ground in large numbers. You need a large force of regular infantry, armour and artillery. Sorry, but you need thousands and thousands of soldiers to defeat thousands and thousands of enemy soldiers.
So lets stop saying "send in the seals or the SAS or...." Because they are not troops capable of defeating a force like IS with approximately 30,000 men.
There was a cartoon that appeared in Red Star, the Soviet Army newspaper back in the 80's. Two Soviet tank officers were sitting in a Parisienne cafe and one says to the other "Who did win the air war?". It is still true, and SF is in that same category.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I was thinking of the two man teams who went in to Bosnia at take out war criminals. And other black ops, by men in black, with which I am horse's mouth familiar (I had company in my arm chair), where lethal force was used surgically. Not up against large numbers. At a time ... usually ... it's amazing how many can be killed serially in one op. Especially when they are unarmed ...
I believe two squads of SAS were all that was necessary to change the hearts and minds of Soviet backed insurgents in Muscat and Oman in the '70s. While the US lost in Vietnam with half a million men. No wonder they wanted us after Malaya. Two in Sierra Leone - 15 men, one went down - who left only the radio operator of the enemy alive out of 200 fully armed men in broad daylight, so he could tell his mates.
As for Operation Claret, Northern Ireland, The Falklands, Iraq, Tora Bora ... the official accounts are kids stuff.
These guys are AWESOMELY deadly. And very, very discrete about it. The point is made.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But I also believe, as the Wicked Witch of the West said (and, I think rightly), "These things have to be done delicately."
Name one war which has been conducted delicately.
It hasn't, but my point was actually that the US can't do it the way it did last time around. I still genuinely, truly believe that Cheney should stand for his actions before the Hague.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course we should take the 1st Century Jewish cultural / religious context into account when we look at Jesus. It is through this context that He lived, acted and spoke.
But I also happen to believe that He is the Son of God, and that what he did and said has something to say to me. I try (with all my failings) to take this into account in the way I live my life, and this includes my political positions. Not in a "What would Jesus vote?" kind of way, but more like "How can what Jesus said and did inspire me in my present-day context?"
Amen, amen, and amen. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I was thinking of the two man teams who went in to Bosnia at take out war criminals. And other black ops, by men in black, with which I am horse's mouth familiar (I had company in my arm chair), where lethal force was used surgically. Not up against large numbers. At a time ... usually ... it's amazing how many can be killed serially in one op. Especially when they are unarmed ...
I believe two squads of SAS were all that was necessary to change the hearts and minds of Soviet backed insurgents in Muscat and Oman in the '70s. While the US lost in Vietnam with half a million men. No wonder they wanted us after Malaya. Two in Sierra Leone - 15 men, one went down - who left only the radio operator of the enemy alive out of 200 fully armed men in broad daylight, so he could tell his mates.
As for Operation Claret, Northern Ireland, The Falklands, Iraq, Tora Bora ... the official accounts are kids stuff.
These guys are AWESOMELY deadly. And very, very discrete about it. The point is made.
But they're still *not* superheroes. Without straying into Official Secrets Act territory I've worked alongside elements of both SF and the Spooks. Deano is much closer in his post than you are in this one.
Just on the examples you state, the SAS det in Muscat/Oman was woefully undermanned for the job it was sent to do and eventual success had far more to do with it being a small, sparsely populated absolute monarchy than the sheer awesomeness of the SAS.
You may also remember that the key event, the Battle of Mirbat, saw th SAS forced to behave as conventional infantry in what was basically a rerun of Rorke's Drift.
Sierra Leone and the capitulation of th West Side Boys was partly down to SF disruption of command and control, but also the Paras, Royal Marines, Royal Irish and the entire RN Amphibious Ready Group turning up in Freetown.
It's not one or the other. Success (in military terms) requires both.
Ditto the valuable but not decisive contributions to NI, the Falklands, etc.
We have special forces for the same reason we have artillery, or the Logistic Corps. Because they're AN answer. No one of them is ever THE answer at a strategic level. Tactical maybe, but not strategic.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But I also believe, as the Wicked Witch of the West said (and, I think rightly), "These things have to be done delicately."
Name one war which has been conducted delicately.
It hasn't, but my point was actually that the US can't do it the way it did last time around. I still genuinely, truly believe that Cheney should stand for his actions before the Hague.
I don't think they are doing it like last time. Obama has been derided for not having a strategy, but there seems to be a pretty good one emerging to me. Help those forces fighting IS (e.g. Kurdish fighters), encourage a unity government in Iraq, which will not imprison thousands of Sunni tribesmen, and put out feelers to those tribal leaders, who are now going off IS. Some of these guys fought against AQ, so they are possibly ripe for turning.
Maybe this all emerged accidentally in one sense, never mind.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye betjemaniac. All acknowledged. But ... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, I make ethical judgments based on all of scripture coupled with tradition and reason not based on some of Jesus actions divorced from all the rest.
Me too and I don't divorce the proposition of pacifism from any of Jesus' actions.
quote:
Two, Jesus wasn't an earthly ruler. So, none of his action or lack of actions say anything about how earthly rulers should handle a threat like ISIS.
They do if they claim to be His followers. Or is it not possible to be an earthly ruler and a Christian?
quote:
Now, we do have his words comparing the kingdom of heaven to rulers who use violence. We have the descriptions of judgement that will happen when Jesus comes as a ruler. I know you don't like those. I don't care.
I loved them literal and now that's not how I can understand them. If I could, I would love them literal again. Happy to go round the Heraclitean loop if someone can lead me. But the pacifism of God is a new synthesis for me and a superior antithesis is required to overturn that.
quote:
Scripture, tradition, and reason support legitimate rulers fighting just wars for the protection of those they govern. Not every war is just. However, a war against ISIS would be a just war.
Predicated on a literal interpretation of Jesus' words struggling in the yet more ancient mud of the myth of redemptive violence, among the oldest literary archetypes of imperial culture. Which is fine. That's as far as you and Laurelin and IngoB and many others here can honourably go. There is no way I can overcome your conservative, literal syntheses.
quote:
WWJD if Jesus were POTUS? Jesus wouldn't be POTUS or hold any similar office. That's the whole freaking point.
So a Christian cannot hold such office? Caesar cannot be Christian. But Christians can wholeheartedly support Caesar in his imperial violence against violence that he begat in the first place?
Since when? When did Christians start that tradition?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I don't actually think the goal is to take out IS or anyone else in the region. The goal is to keep it unstable, such that no one country or entity can control it. Instability is the goal not the problem. This is why Iran has been a problem, why Iraq was - they could possibly dominate - and not really Afghanistan except they hosted Bin Laden. It is also why Russia isn't really a problem with Ukraine; Russia has its own reasons for pushing south and as long as it really doesn't dominate, it is part of the instability which is really the plan. IS is only troubling because they are using media well and kill a few people in ways that resonate with the public. Thus to retain public support it is needful to be seen to do something, but maintaining tension and not solving the problems is the goal. (George Friedman of stratfor.com predicted this in his book The Next 100 Years published in 2009, and I thought he was nuts back then, but in re-reading some of it today, apparently he isn't and wasn't.)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Planned instability, like familiarity, breeds discontent. If there was less discontent, there would be less extremism.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Me too and I don't divorce the proposition of pacifism from any of Jesus' actions
You don't make ethical decisions based on scripture, tradition, and reason. You already said the words of Jesus don't matter. What you are left with is an argument for pacifism based on your interpretation of Jesus actions or inactions. Again, if you observe just my actions as an adult, you would come way thinking I was a pacifist as well.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
They do if they claim to be His followers. Or is it not possible to be an earthly ruler and a Christian?
And here is where the circular reasoning begins. Jesus actions as earthly ruler would indeed say something to his followers who were earthly ruler if he was in fact an earthly ruler. He was not. His words might. The rest of scripture does. Tradition does. But, you want his followers to ignore all that in favor of your interpretation of Jesus actions and inactions.
quote:
originally posed by Martin:
I loved them literal and now that's not how I can understand them. If I could, I would love them literal again. Happy to go round the Heraclitean loop if someone can lead me. But the pacifism of God is a new synthesis for me and a superior antithesis is required to overturn that.
The circular reasoning continues. Not are you rejecting literal interpretations of Jesus words but whatever meaning you would assign to them is so removed from what Jesus actually said that it makes no sense why Jesus would use such words even metaphorically. Pacifism is superior by what measure? Superior as defined by you. You say it is based on Jesus. However, you reject everything about Jesus that is't acceptable to you. So, I fail to see how it really is about Jesus. I ask again why bother. I note you didn't respond to the following:
quote:
Let's try this. You refer to the God of the OT as God the Killer. This God killed thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children all by Himself. He orders the deaths of even more men, women, and children. On multiple occasions, this God orders genocide. If we judge God by human standards, this God is like Hitler and Stalin.
Up thread, you acknowledge that Jesus believed in God the Killer. We can go further than believed in Jesus the Killer. Jesus worshiped God the Killer. Jesus claimed God the Killer was his father.
Are you telling me that if a guy walked around your town calling Hitler or Stalin his father that you would look at him as a shining ethical example? I don't think you or many others would. I don't think it would matter how nonviolent he was or how many good deeds he did. What if that guy talked frequently about establishing his father's kingdom or reich?
Wouldn't it just be easier to disregard Jesus entirely?
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Predicated on a literal interpretation of Jesus' words struggling in the yet more ancient mud of the myth of redemptive violence, among the oldest literary archetypes of imperial culture. Which is fine. That's as far as you and Laurelin and IngoB and many others here can honourably go. There is no way I can overcome your conservative, literal syntheses.
Circular reasoning doesn't suddenly become a rational argument if you couch it in terms of Hegellian philosophy.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
So a Christian cannot hold such office? Caesar cannot be Christian. But Christians can wholeheartedly support Caesar in his imperial violence against violence that he begat in the first place?
Since when? When did Christians start that tradition?
I say Jesus wouldn't be POTUS because Jesus isn't interested in establishing a republic. On the other hand, nobody but Jesus should ever be given the power of an absolute monarch. Every form of government humans establish will be flawed until such time as Jesus establishes His kingdom in it's fullness.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Jesus couldn't be your president even more so today because your presidents and country have given up multilateralism entirely since Bush #2 and John Bolton.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I see absolutely nothing in scripture that suggests Jesus supported multilateralism.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
A civilian police force using military weapons and pointing guns at unarmed citizens who were exercising their constitutional rights to assemble and speak shows that hawkish responses create more trouble than they resolve.
I agree. However, if I had decapitated someone so clearly that I went around bragging about it, would a civilian police force coming after me be "hawkish?" Even if they had to shoot me dead before I could be arrested and tried because, far from being unarmed, I was heavily unarmed and aiming my guns at them?
What's the difference between a police force stopping murderers and rapists, and an army assigned to the same task when the police have been hopelessly outnumbered?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar. Aye, they don't matter in themselves, alone. And I do no less than you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I see absolutely nothing in scripture that suggests Jesus supported multilateralism.
So he was only wanting to save the Jews? The extension of salvation beyond that group was an error?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What does that have to do with multilateralism?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Beeswax Altar. Aye, they don't matter in themselves, alone. And I do no less than you.
Huh?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What does that have to do with multilateralism?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Really? Exceptionalism being a characteristic of the opposite end of the continuum.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
I'm a bit sick and tired of people claiming God is a genocidal killer. If you look at the context of the removal of Sodom or the tribes Israel took out they were described as entirely wicked and received many warnings to repent. In the case of the Canaanites they were warned for over 400 years which they chose to ignore. That is not the same as deciding to wipe out people in the way IS is doing, which is without any justification other than they like killing people and taking their property.
Most of the atheists who keep moaning about God being a genocidal killer would be the first to complain about God doing nothing in the face of evil if THEY were on the receiving end of Hitler's SS, IS, or any number of other state killing machines. You can't have it both ways.
God has made it very clear that those nations that try to destroy Israel will come off worse. That includes IS or any other Islamic state that picks a fight with them. So far this has proven true over recent history. Israel should not have won the six day war - but I believe God saved them, and there are plenty of anecdotal stories to that effect.
The killing of so many Christians is not going to go unnoticed by God and any nations or individuals helping IS are heading to their own destruction either in this life or the next one. I guess the message from Jesus in the NT would be to pray for these killers that they come to their senses and repent. It is not that they can continue as they like killing and destroying without anyone trying to stop them.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Exceptionalism is not the antonym of multilateralism, and neither have to do with excluding people from the Kingdom of Heaven.
(I absolutely think that the approach to IS should be multilateralist, and I consider the doctrine of American exceptionalism to be dangerously close to idolatry, but I thought I should point that out.)
Heck, one could be exceptionalist and not believe in war at all--whether multilateral or otherwise.
And one could be non-exceptionalist but think that taking on the burden of fighting an enemy should not involve one's allies, too.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Arminian wrote:
quote:
In the case of the Canaanites they were warned for over 400 years which they chose to ignore.
Yes, but I don't think the infants and children among the Canaanites had any say in the decisions made by their parents and ancestors.
In commanding the slaughter of innocents, the OT God becomes the equivalent of the Bolsheviks, deciding that they might as well mow down the royal children along with the Czar and Czarina. If you want to worship a deity who is the the moral equivalent of Lenin and Stalin, well, all the more power to you. Not someone I'm particularly interested in venerating.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Who warned the Canaanites? And how? We don't have that recorded, do we?
I have to point out that the history we have has been filtered through the perceptions of the victors.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What does that have to do with multilateralism?
Really? Exceptionalism being a characteristic of the opposite end of the continuum.
One, this is proof texting at it's worse. Getting from the point where you start to the point where you want to end requires days spent on the non sequitur interstate. You can't really get there from here.
Two, if proof-texting is what you want, the neocons win this one easy. Obviously, Jesus didn't wanted the entire world to be saved. He didn't want salvation to be just for the Jews. However, salvation only comes through Jesus. You can't get more exceptional than, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." So, Jesus sends his disciples into the world to spread his message and tell people they need to change. Doesn't care about what they currently believe. Doesn't tell the disciples that one way is right for them but other ways are right for other people. Doesn't tell the disciples to check what he's telling them versus what other religious people believe. None of that. Go out and make disciples. Well, the neocons don't believe democracy is just for the West. They believe everybody should live in a democracy. The world should be safe for democracy.
Three, even if I accept that Jesus was a multilateralism, what would prevent Jesus from being president of the United States? The US is all about multilateralism. I can't remember the last time the US used military force unilaterally. What I'm guessing you mean is the US sometimes acts without consent from all the nations that matter namely Western Europe and Canada. NATO is not mentioned in scripture. Well, some "biblical prophecy experts" find the EU but I'm guessing you don't share their opinion of that.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US is all about multilateralism. I can't remember the last time the US used military force unilaterally.
Without thinking about this for more than about 3 seconds: Panama and Grenada. With the note that there is much pretence of multilateralism so as to appear that way, with token forces of others.
With limited additional thought, probably the most important attacks on mulilateralism is the USA's ongoing desire to limit the application of international law, the ICC (international criminal court), the Ottawa Treaty (bans on landmines).
I have no idea why anyone would suggest Jesus could be a country's president (or king), a topic I didn't introduce. I also don't see any possibility of arguing that Jesus approved of violence. Or that Jesus is exclusively the property of any human organization, nation or country.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US is all about multilateralism. I can't remember the last time the US used military force unilaterally.
Without thinking about this for more than about 3 seconds: Panama and Grenada. With the note that there is much pretence of multilateralism so as to appear that way, with token forces of others.
The United Kingdom didn't get co-opted into Vietnam (for which we have to thank Harold Wilson), but it has kow-towed to successive Washington governments at just about every opportunity since. I suppose that justifies many instances of "multilateralism".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US is all about multilateralism. I can't remember the last time the US used military force unilaterally.
Without thinking about this for more than about 3 seconds: Panama and Grenada. With the note that there is much pretence of multilateralism so as to appear that way, with token forces of others.
With limited additional thought, probably the most important attacks on mulilateralism is the USA's ongoing desire to limit the application of international law, the ICC (international criminal court), the Ottawa Treaty (bans on landmines).
I have no idea why anyone would suggest Jesus could be a country's president (or king), a topic I didn't introduce. I also don't see any possibility of arguing that Jesus approved of violence. Or that Jesus is exclusively the property of any human organization, nation or country.
I said Jesus wouldn't be an earthly ruler. You made the still totally unsupported claim that Jesus believed in multilateralism which is akin to saying that if Jesus walked the earth today he would like Polka music. It is rather easy to argue that Jesus would support violence in some instances by reading the parables. So, the last true instance of US unilateralism which happened 25 years ago, lasted a few week, and ended with Panama in far better condition than it started. Grenada was not unilateral. True, the US didn't get the permission of all the nations you think they should but that doesn't mean their actions were unilateral.
Do I think Jesus would have invaded Panama or Grenada? Once again, I don't think Jesus would be an earthly ruler. Scripture advocates neither multilateralism nor unilateralism. Saying it does is simply projecting ones on political opinions back on Jesus and that is wrong on so many levels.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So which kingdom should I serve?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Depends on what you mean by kingdom and serve.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What should I mean by kingdom and serve?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Theologically the alternative is peace. Only, always, ever peace. Peace conquered the Roman Empire. ...
Actually, Germanic tribes conquered the Western Empire and the Turks conquered the Byzantine Empire. Neither used nonviolent means. Did you mean Christianity conquered the Roman Empire through pacifism? Well, persecution only stopped when Christianity became the religion of the empire and the Roman Empire became Christendom. Normally, you rant against Christendom but apparently here it is a good thing. I suppose that's only a problem if you are troubled by incoherence.
I'm only troubled by yours.
Tell me that this isn't deliberate Talk about incoherence. Can you join up the dots for me please? Can you REASON how Christianity's subversion of the Roman empire by actually being Christian - pacifist - for three hundred years justifies Christendom's subsequent failure to be pacifist in the thinking you - hopefully deliberately - illogically impute to me?
The incoherence is entirely yours. And that MUST be a chosen rhetorical device. Is that chosen - lazy? - absence of any actual dialectical logic: just three broken legs of rhetoric that you could be bothered with? Or is it unfortunately worse than that.
And if this looks passive aggressive, that's because it is my brother.
Perhaps you've mellowed and I shouldn't have gone from the top down rather than bottom up, opening old wounds?
Or you really believe what you say? In which case God bless you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And I congratulate you on being able to admit that peace liberated India but make it look like you didn't.
And congratulate you on exposing the pacifist civil rights movement as a failure because Caesar decided to use troops to protect them. Presumably the apostle Paul's pacifist missions were also failures because he invoked his rights as a Roman citizen to the point of getting a military escort?
Pacifist Christians are hypocrites if they call the cops?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Tell me that this isn't deliberate [Smile] Talk about incoherence. Can you join up the dots for me please? Can you REASON how Christianity's subversion of the Roman empire by actually being Christian - pacifist - for three hundred years justifies Christendom's subsequent failure to be pacifist in the thinking you - hopefully deliberately - illogically impute to me?
I reject the notion that Christianity was pacifist or trying to subvert the Roman Empire. You said Christianity defeated the Roman Empire. Christians were only completely free from persecution when Christianity became a state religion and you see that as a bad thing. Arguing that Christians were pacifists as the term is used on this thread because the Christians didn't fight the Roman Empire in battle is just silly. When the Romans were persecuting the Christians, nothing would have pleased the Romans more than for the Christian to make it easy for the Roman soldiers to kill them.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
The incoherence is entirely yours. And that MUST be a chosen rhetorical device. Is that chosen - lazy? - absence of any actual dialectical logic: just three broken legs of rhetoric that you could be bothered with? Or is it unfortunately worse than that.
You admit below this passive aggressive. So, I don't really have much to say. I will only repeat that couching circular reasoning in terms of Hegellian philosophy doesn't make valid reasoning.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
And I congratulate you on being able to admit that peace liberated India but make it look like you didn't.
Peace might have been one factor in liberating India. Other historical factors contributed to the success of peace in India. Absent those factors, and all of those factors are absent in Iraq and most other places, pacifism hasn't and won't work.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
And congratulate you on exposing the pacifist civil rights movement as a failure because Caesar decided to use troops to protect them. Presumably the apostle Paul's pacifist missions were also failures because he invoked his rights as a Roman citizen to the point of getting a military escort?
Wait...Paul was trying to subvert the Roman Empire yet the Roman Empire was willing to protect him? That doesn't make any sense. What makes Paul's mission pacifist? The fact he didn't try to convert people with force? That he didn't fight everybody who disagreed with him? Again, by that definition of pacifism, most people are pacifists.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Pacifist Christians are hypocrites if they call the cops?
Absolutely!
Asking others to use violence on your behalf is not a rejection of violence. You are calling for the Iraqi Christians to allow themselves to be slaughtered rather than call other nations for help. How dare you then call the police to come with their weapons and use violence to protect you when you are danger.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I see that the game is changing a bit in the UK. A significant group of Muslim spokesmen have branded ISIS as an "unIslamic state" and are asking that David Cameron and other leaders refuse to legitimise an organisation that does not uphold actual Islamic values.
This something that people have been calling for, for some time now - that The Muslims should speak up against terrorist activity. Will this request actually make any difference?
Do the Muslim clerics, who can see the dangers at first hand, have a chance to "de-terrorise" their flocks? Or will the fundies of Islam continue to copy the fundies of Christianity, and pull us all into outright war? Is this their
"war of the reformation" that will go on for another Thrity Years?
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This something that people have been calling for, for some time now - that The Muslims should speak up against terrorist activity. Will this request actually make any difference?
One can live in hope, but you will forgive me if I view their outrage with a little cynicism.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
(Or) will the fundies of Islam continue to copy the fundies of Christianity, and pull us all into outright war? Is this their
"war of the reformation" that will go on for another Thrity Years?
Every religion or philosophy has had its zealots that use the faith they adhere to as a crutch for hatred, exploitation and cruelty. The fault is as ever with man himself, and any attempt to shift the responsibility to a Supreme Being, an earthly founder or something they may or may not have written distracts from the natural state of man, which, at best, is selfish and greedy, with a side order of stupidity.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I dare. Got three squad cars last time. Of UNARMED British police. Thank God we don't have the insanity of a second amendment despite our revolution. And so should Iraqi Christians. Invoke any help they can get. However any Caesar chooses to respond to help them, God be with Caesar in that. God bless Caesar. No matter how complicit Caesar is in creating the society around Christians who are part of it and trying to come out of it in its imperialist, Babylonian ways. Victims and beneficiaries of those ways. Interesting isn't it? Ways which they MUST NOT emulate. That's what Iraqi Christians MUST not do. Make war. Be de facto pacifists as they are being just like you. If Christians go to war, they are not following Christ in that regard. It's quite simple really, quite coherent. Uncomfortable certainly. Christianity is at the sharp end.
I'll HAPPILY add my voice to say 'SAVE THEM!', 'DO SOMETHING!', whilst condemning war. I watched the obscenity of an American mechanized unit watching Sunnis butcher Christians in Iraq in 2003 whilst the Christians - women - were begging the Americans to intervene. In English.
Watching Syrian Christians using automatic weapons as Sunni insurgents tried to take their village was certainly uncomfortable. All very understandable. But not Christ-like.
That's NOT what Jesus would have done. Or His disciples. I know that you can't know that. Due to the impossibility of squaring your literalism with His circular reasoning. I can. Know it. I don't have the problem of literalism to overcome any more. It's been given to me. The knowing. Not you. Yet.
How's that for passive aggression mate ?
You will get it. But it may take dying first.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oh, and Moo.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And rolyn, on September 5th you 'wondered what the world would look like now if the West had simply done nothing after 9/11' - apart from beef up security. It would look Scandinavian. Which is geopolitically reasonable. Taking out The Base and the Students in Afghanistan was realpolitikisch reasonable too. Invading Iraq was not. And as a liberal interventionist who couldn't see the pacifism starting me in Jesus' face at the time I was ALL for it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
If Jesus is inextricable from His ancient Jewish context, then we're lost. I can't accept that proposition. But for you - both? - any attempt to do so leaves nothing coherent behind? The baby goes with the bathwater?
Separating Jesus from his culture is impossible.
For you, yes. Not for me. And as the Ed Koch quote, on is it Evensong's sig, says, I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you. It's a postmodern imperative and it's happening as Jack Lewis saw. Literalists, such as I was for four decades, can't possibly internalize it. It takes head space you don't, can't yet have. But it will happen. Whatever you do, do NOT become an Oxford man and pray 'Dominus illuminatio mea'
quote:
For you, the bits about Jesus that you call the baby are those bits which support a rather broadly political ideology.
I'm not sure which came first, the baby or the bathwater. To be honest it was the bathwater. The bathwater of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Alan Hirsch, Peter Rollins, Tony Campolo, Phyllis Tickle, Tom Right topping up the vast depths of neo-orthodox Baxter Kruger, Joe Tkach Jnr., the Torrances, Karl Barth, the Gregories.
Bathwater that the deeper and hotter it got the more I recoiled against. Positively, angrily, personally - to Brian McLaren, Rob Bell - pulled BACK from. And in the middle of that, I suddenly saw Jesus. Clearly. Once and for all the perfect man of peace. Regardless of His culture. His words. His beliefs (although I've only vertiginously seen that very recently). His narrators. His witnesses. His followers. Peter. Paul.
quote:
Thus, you are using what you consider the best ideas of your own culture to judge Jesus.
Of course I am. Who isn't? You certainly are. For if it's impossible for you to differentiate the timeless truth of Jesus from Jesus it certainly is from yourself. Why do you say things as if you were immune, as if you are Olympian, true, faithful above me? More scriptural? More traditional? More reasoned? Why are you oblivious to the fingers pointing back as you accuse? Because you blatantly are. You are helplessly, innocently, fecklessly as trapped in literalism as IngoB or any YECist. You're not just being rhetorically lazy.
quote:
Not only do I think this is a bad way of doing theology. I think it is a potentially dangerous way of doing theology.
Then you are hoist with your own petard.
Now what follows IS the crux:
quote:
Let's try this. You refer to the God of the OT as God the Killer. This God killed thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children all by Himself. He orders the deaths of even more men, women, and children. On multiple occasions, this God orders genocide. If we judge God by human standards, this God is like Hitler and Stalin.
What other standards are there? The standards in those myths are HUMAN. They are HUMAN myths. HUMAN rationalizations. He's worse. Far, far worse. And it's millions. As proportions of humanity at the time alone He is worse than they. They are merely human. He is us on steroids.
quote:
Up thread, you acknowledge that Jesus believed in God the Killer. We can go further than believed in Jesus the Killer. Jesus worshiped God the Killer. Jesus claimed God the Killer was his father.
YES!
quote:
Are you telling me that if a guy walked around your town calling Hitler or Stalin his father that you would look at him as a shining ethical example? I don't think you or many others would. I don't think it would matter how nonviolent he was or how many good deeds he did. What if that guy talked frequently about establishing his father's kingdom or reich?
YES! You do. The vast majority of Christians do. I DID without reservation. I was THE champion here of God the Killer for a decade and more. I'm now the champion of the MAN Jesus, the FULLY human, FULLY inculturated container of God. Who believed EXACTLY that. And yet transcended it. He held the very same things in tension that I did for decades and that you still do. He died as penal substitutionary atonement. He died to assuage the wrath of God. For our narrative that HE swam and DROWNED in, fought to breathe above until he suffocated.
quote:
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Beeswax Altar, I see the consistency of your approach in your refusal to ask WWJD in politics. A position I have held. That implies I think I've got a 'superior' one now. Well, I do and I don't. Like pacifism being further along the arc of the moral universe in ALL situations. As a proposition.
For me, scripture and tradition do not teach pacifism. Pacifism doesn't seem reasonable to me. So, I reject it for both political and religious reasons.
Which is a fine position along the arc. Furthermore I FULLY AGREE with the first sentence. It's a LITERAL fact. Neither do scripture and tradition teach gay marriage. The arc re-STARTED with Jesus. He kicked it OUT of orbit. He didn't, couldn't follow it as a man.
quote:
Look, if you want to hold political positions because you think Jesus would support those positions, go right ahead. Good luck trying to convince those who don't already agree with those positions that they should hold those positions that they should change their mind because Jesus said so especially since you are willing to ignore stuff Jesus said that you don't like. Personally, I think you are fooling yourself. Other people disagree with your political positions and claim they do so because of what they believe Jesus would support. I think they are fooling themselves too.
You include yourself of course. Without realising it I know.
I am willing to ignore NOTHING Jesus said. That would be a fearfully stupid thing to do.
If I blaspheme Him He will show me. I PRAY that He does.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
That's NOT what Jesus would have done. Or His disciples. I know that you can't know that. Due to the impossibility of squaring your literalism with His circular reasoning. I can. Know it. I don't have the problem of literalism to overcome any more. It's been given to me. The knowing. Not you. Yet.
His circular reasoning? I objected to YOUR circular reasoning. Now, you could be claiming to be Jesus. Come to think of it that would explain everything. Martin is Martin's own personal Jesus.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Beeswax Altar, Hell or knock it off.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I see Jesus in you Beeswax Altar, in more ways than one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted Martin:
For you, yes. Not for me. And as the Ed Koch quote, on is it Evensong's sig, says, I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you. It's a postmodern imperative and it's happening as Jack Lewis saw. Literalists, such as I was for four decades, can't possibly internalize it. It takes head space you don't, can't yet have. But it will happen. Whatever you do, do NOT become an Oxford man and pray 'Dominus illuminatio mea'
Oh but God has illumined me. God has confirmed to me that I am right and you are wrong. Praise be to God. Unfortunately, you can't know that yet. You'll just have to take His word for it.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm glad you confess it mate. It is the same for all of us: God meets us where we are.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
