|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Does Christianity preclude violence as protest?
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
Nelson Mandela advocated and then led the ANC (or at least MK) into forms of violence against the state which oversaw Apartheid. He justified this on both rational and Christian grounds. His rational argument was that it is the oppressor who defines the terms of the struggle. Essentially the violence was a defensive measure as the state would not negotiate in any other way. As MK's violence was not extreme and, prima facie, successful I guess that most people would at least condone the ANC's methods. The rational arguments in favour are sound.
What is more questionable however is Mandela's justification of violence on Christian grounds. He pointed to the example of Jesus casting the money lenders out of the temple as an analogy with the ANC. It was the only way to get them out, there was no other alternative and, although Mandela did not mention this last point, it was within the temple and thus was a defensive measure.
In view of Jesus' comment that the 'one who lives by the sword dies by the sword' I think it is very difficult to justify any form of violence on Christian grounds. Indeed the early church was persecuted but did not respond with violence, as far as I am aware. Given that the early church's perseverance ultimately led the church to prevail over the state one has to question whether violence was as necessary as Nelson Mandela suggests. Might the ANC have prevailed without the use of violence.
These are difficult issues, as it is very easy to take a detached, moralistic view when you are in easy circumstances. It is only in extreme circumstances that these issues come to the fore.
Disclaimer: Nothing in this OP should be taken as a criticism of Nelson Mandela. He was a great and inspiring leader. However, he would be the first to admit that he had flaws, and I'm sure would be open to debating these issues were he still with us.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is no analogy whatsoever between Jesus' actions in the temple against tables and oxen and necklacing.
And throwing rocks and Molotovs at cops is NEVER Christian.
Jesus NEVER used violence against another human being, NEVER threatened it (yeah, yeah, 'body and soul in hell'), NEVER advocated it and ONLY preached against it.
And of course He'd have defended His mother.
And standing up against injustice is mandatory, with peaceful, obedient civil disobedience. Taking the consequences. Not like Assange and Snowden.
Walk the extra mile and bless the soldier. If he's compelling another who is suffering unduly, take their place. If he wants to be a NAZI about it ... take their place.
When we take loving our enemies seriously it means dying for them by their hand if necessary.
NEVER going to war against them.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece
What is more questionable however is Mandela's justification of violence on Christian grounds. He pointed to the example of Jesus casting the money lenders out of the temple as an analogy with the ANC.
The gospel texts do not say that Jesus committed violence against any human being. Here is Matthew 21:12 quote:
Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.
Here is Mark 11:15 quote:
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
Here is Luke 19:45 quote:
When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling.
Here is John 2:14-15 quote:
In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money-changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
Nowhere does it say that Jesus hit anyone. Only John mentions a whip, and he says that Jesus used it to drive the animals out of the temple. Apparently he drove the sellers out by driving out their livestock. They weren't about to risk losing them. When the money-changers' tables were overturned, it was impossible for them to continue business.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
As mentioned, the money changers thing is a flimsy rational. I would say the answer to the OP title is no.
Originally posted by makepiece
quote:
Given that the early church's perseverance ultimately led the church to prevail over the state
The church became the state.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is that based on any particular example Evensong? Or is it a matter of opinion? Choice?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is that based on any particular example Evensong?
Yes. Jesus'
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
The following came to mind: In Luke 22, Jesus tells his disciples to purchase swords. They show him two swords and he says that is enough. Later on, however, one of them uses a sword to injure a high priest's servant, and Jesus rebukes him (and heals the injured man).
This passage suggests some ambivalence, or perhaps a non-literal reference to swords which was taken too literally by the disciples.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sooooo, is there any other possible 'opinion' inferable from Jesus' example? Anything that can justify Christians violently protesting? I'm astounded that the OP can be asked. And at the same time not surprised at all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sooooo, is there any other possible 'opinion' inferable from Jesus' example?
Very little. Paul goes even further to suggest that any subversion of government, violent or otherwise, is a betrayal of God Himself.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yet Christianity is fundamentally subversive, surely? Yet I understand, I agree. It is not the job of Christianity to bring governments down and create worse. But to transform them from beneath. Like that wonderful scene in the '78 film of The Tin Drum where the Nazis are charmed in to dancing on the street.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Yet Christianity is fundamentally subversive, surely?
That's one of the things Christianity likes to tell itself, yes. I've always found it to be a staunch supporter of the status quo.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You are so right. Guilty.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
If you want to look to someone in our modern era who might have an insight into this, I would suggest Desmond Tutu, rather than Nelson Mandela. Not because I have any disregard for Mandela, but because Tutu was challenging apartheid from a specifically Christian perspective, which Mandela never claimed to.
I think that it is too facile and simplistic to answer the OP question with a plain "no". Until we find ourselves in a place of desperate oppression, we cannot really know what our faith may or may not permit. As I understand it, Tutu refused to condemn the ANC and acts of violence, even though he sought peaceful means to end apartheid.
If oppression is so severe and inflicting terror and misery on many people, and all methods of peaceful opposition have been thwarted, would you or I really condemn a Christian who turned to violence as a last resort, in order to try and prevent longer term suffering of many?
One of my heroes of the 20th century is Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He opposed Nazism and disagreed with others from the Lutheran Church who were too accommodating to Hitler. When he had the chance to stay in the USA, rather than return to Germany at the outbreak of war, he refused to play safe and went back to be with his people. And he reached the point where he felt that the only way to save his people from unnecessary suffering was to become involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. He was arrested and then killed by the SS two weeks before Flossenberg Concentration Camp was liberated by the Russians.
Was Bonhoeffer wrong to become associated with a violent plan to kill Hitler? You're a better man or woman than I if you can make that judgement without a huge amount of equivocation.
I refuse to exclude any possibility that Christians might - in extreme circumstances - be involved in violent protest or action.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
In view of Jesus' comment that the 'one who lives by the sword dies by the sword' I think it is very difficult to justify any form of violence on Christian grounds. Indeed the early church was persecuted but did not respond with violence, as far as I am aware. Given that the early church's perseverance ultimately led the church to prevail over the state one has to question whether violence was as necessary as Nelson Mandela suggests. Might the ANC have prevailed without the use of violence.
...
Hypatia would have been interested to learn about the early Christian non-violence.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OtG.
It's a plain no.
And Dietrich Bonhoeffer - whose feet I'm not fit to kiss and weep on - failed. As Christians have all the time.
Until we submit to this, the Kingdom cannot come.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Hypatia would have been interested to learn about the early Christian non-violence.
Hypatia was not a victim of the original Christian church, but of the distorted form of Christianity which arose when the Roman Empire was formally 'Christianised' during the 4thC CE. A state church ended up adopting the violence of the state in defiance of the teaching of the NT. The fate of Hypatia is, along with a whole string of later wars and perrsecutions, an example of why that 'Christian country' idea was bad and why faithful Christians should follow the NT.
Some in the mob that killed Hypatia may have been genuine Christians but misguided as a result of the state church situation; many of them will instead have been the kind of nominal superficial 'Christians' that a state church policy tends to create, confusing the teaching of the NT about what a Christian is supposed to be.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Hypatia would have been interested to learn about the early Christian non-violence.
Hypatia was not a victim of the original Christian church, but of the distorted form of Christianity which arose when the Roman Empire was formally 'Christianised' during the 4thC CE. A state church ended up adopting the violence of the state in defiance of the teaching of the NT. The fate of Hypatia is, along with a whole string of later wars and perrsecutions, an example of why that 'Christian country' idea was bad and why faithful Christians should follow the NT.
Some in the mob that killed Hypatia may have been genuine Christians but misguided as a result of the state church situation; many of them will instead have been the kind of nominal superficial 'Christians' that a state church policy tends to create, confusing the teaching of the NT about what a Christian is supposed to be.
Apparently when discussing the history of Christianity, all roads lead to Scotland.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Yet Christianity is fundamentally subversive, surely?
That's one of the things Christianity likes to tell itself, yes. I've always found it to be a staunch supporter of the status quo.
I've never found Christianity has much to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Now the teachings of Paul, yes. And the setup created by Constantine the Great at Nicea, that's very clear.
But there is quite a lot of subversion in Jesus' teachings such as Going the Extra Mile, Turning the Other Cheek, Giving Your Cloak, and Rendering Unto God. He was, after all, crucified for sedition (which is what Crucifixion was used as a punishment for).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
Apparently when discussing the history of Christianity, all roads lead to Scotland.
Point one, you'll note that I did in fact say that some in the mob concerned probably were true Christians - but unfortunately misguided as a result of the 'Constantinian' change over the matter.
It is a simple historical fact that there was an early version of Christianity found in the NT and teaching a relationship between Christians and the world which would make such an event as the lynching of Hypatia impossible.
It is also a historic fact that this original position became compromised by the Imperial interference in Christianity starting with Constantine c.311CE and culminating in Theodosius making Christianity compulsory towards the end of the 4th Century CE. This alien influence might mislead and indeed has misled, many well-meaning Christians, and it certainly results in a society filled with nominal Christians who ignorantly use violence rather than following the NT teaching. It sadly led to terrible things being done over the centuries supposedly in the name of Jesus, and can still be a matter of life and death today.
To me, it is really important and something I really care about that those alien 4th C changes be reversed and that Christians should return to the NT teaching, for everybody's real benefit. It is not a trivial matter on the level of salt in porridge or underwear beneath a kilt, and you should be ashamed of using the glib 'no true Scotsman' reference to suggest that it is.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
In view of Jesus' comment that the 'one who lives by the sword dies by the sword' I think it is very difficult to justify any form of violence on Christian grounds. Indeed the early church was persecuted but did not respond with violence, as far as I am aware. Given that the early church's perseverance ultimately led the church to prevail over the state one has to question whether violence was as necessary as Nelson Mandela suggests. Might the ANC have prevailed without the use of violence.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Point one, you'll note that I did in fact say that some in the mob concerned probably were true Christians - but unfortunately misguided as a result of the 'Constantinian' change over the matter.
It is a simple historical fact that there was an early version of Christianity found in the NT and teaching a relationship between Christians and the world which would make such an event as the lynching of Hypatia impossible.
It is also a historic fact that this original position became compromised by the Imperial interference in Christianity starting with Constantine c.311CE and culminating in Theodosius making Christianity compulsory towards the end of the 4th Century CE. This alien influence might mislead and indeed has misled, many well-meaning Christians, and it certainly results in a society filled with nominal Christians who ignorantly use violence rather than following the NT teaching. It sadly led to terrible things being done over the centuries supposedly in the name of Jesus, and can still be a matter of life and death today.
To me, it is really important and something I really care about that those alien 4th C changes be reversed and that Christians should return to the NT teaching, for everybody's real benefit. It is not a trivial matter on the level of salt in porridge or underwear beneath a kilt, and you should be ashamed of using the glib 'no true Scotsman' reference to suggest that it is.
So the early church persevered and prevailed over the state without violence, and in the process was compromised by Imperial influence so that it results in a society filled with nominal Christians who ignorantly use violence.
That seems an odd definition of "prevailed over the state without violence". It would be more accurate to say that Christians did not use violence when they were a persecuted minority, but after they were accepted by the state they routinely did, whether they were not true Christians or misguided or could blame things on the Bishop.
Pointing out that a logical fallacy with the true scotsmen label is perfectly appropriate with very serious issues, even if the anecdote that illustrates the name is about salt in porridge.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You've got to give it to Old Nick haven't you? If you can't beat them, join them.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
So the early church persevered and prevailed over the state without violence, and in the process was compromised by Imperial influence so that it results in a society filled with nominal Christians who ignorantly use violence.
That seems an odd definition of "prevailed over the state without violence". It would be more accurate to say that Christians did not use violence when they were a persecuted minority, but after they were accepted by the state they routinely did, whether they were not true Christians or misguided or could blame things on the Bishop.
Pointing out that a logical fallacy with the true scotsmen label is perfectly appropriate with very serious issues, even if the anecdote that illustrates the name is about salt in porridge.
That is definitely more considered and less glib than Croesos' comment appeared to be. I pretty much know what the answer is, as I've been dealing with these issues since the 1960s, but I don't think I can do your points justice at this time of night,so I'm going to go off and sleep on it to hopefully produce a properly thought-out version tomorrow.
Just as a provisional comment, though, your argument does seem to combine my response and Makepiece's to state the situation in a way that I wouldn't.
I'm not certain what Makepiece intended (and I'll leave him to clarify that), but often the notion that Christianity "prevailed over the state..." is used to mean that Christianity becoming the state religion was a victory. Had things stopped at Christianity becoming a tolerated religion with freedom for people to belong or reject, and as such had continued in its original form, no problem (well, not in this area anyway).
But to become the state religion was a kind of defeat as well, because as a state religion Christianity could not carry on as it was but had to be distorted to fit the needs of the state. So it wasn't that Christianity was originally ambivalent and/or used non-violence just as a tactic until it won. Original Christianity really did teach non-violence as part of a wider view that as a faith based on personal spiritual rebirth which could not be legislated for by an earthly government, Christianity could not appropriately be anybody's national religion.
Rather, the NT depicts the Church itself as "God's holy nation", all Christians throughout the world living as 'resident aliens' (Peter uses a word which translates almost exactly thus) in whatever society they find themselves. Such a body does not need lynch mobs.
And it did in fact take most of the 4th Century to achieve the change from 'free church' to 'state church'; I don't think Constantine could have changed it overnight by decree, because it was a change against the grain of the faith.
I'll leave it there for now and have a refreshed go in the morning....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I did combine the two posts. I see your post as testimony that the "you should used non-violence" because the Christians prevailed without it is not persuasive. They used non-violence and were persecuted. They became a state religion and started using violence and prevailed as the only religion. As you point out in your comment of prevailing taking most of a century, there's no documentation of it prevailing and later abandoning non-violence.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
OtG.
It's a plain no.
What? Not even if the alternative is a certain descent into genocide (a la Rwanda)? If you had a chance to avoid something like that, would you still sit on your hands and say "no violence, no violence"? Could you live with yourself afterwards?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The OP question is almost an oxymoron. Everything about the world is violent. From the wolf slowly strangling the deer as rest of the pack begin to eat its intestines, the wasp whose young eat the caterpillar saving its nervous system for last, the persecution of alleged Christians by other alleged Christians, the destruction of the natural world as we pollute, uproot, burn; what part of creation and life is not integrally part of destruction?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OtG. Yes. Yes. Yes.
--------------------
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
At what point should I have intervened?
1959 - Hutus rebel against the Belgian colonial power and the Tutsi elite. Tutsi King Kigeri V, together with 150,000 Tutsis, forced into exile in Uganda following inter-ethnic violence.
1962 - Rwanda becomes independent with a Hutu, Gregoire Kayibanda, as president; many Tutsis leave the country.
1963 - Some 20,000 Tutsis killed following a military incursion by Tutsi rebels based in Burundi. By the mid-1960s half of the Tutsi population is living outside Rwanda.
1967 - Renewed massacres of Tutsis.
1973 - Purge of Tutsis from universities. Fresh outbreak of killings, again directed at Tutsi community. President Gregoire Kayibanda ousted in military coup led by Juvenal Habyarimana. A policy of ethnic quotas is entrenched in all public service employment. Tutsis are restricted to nine percent of available jobs.
1975 - A policy of ethnic quotas is entrenched in all public service employment. Tutsis are restricted to nine percent of available jobs.
1986 - In Uganda, Rwandan exiles are among the victorious troops of Yoweri Museveni's National Resistance Army who take power, overthrowing the dictator Milton Obote. The exiles then form the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a Tutsi-dominated organization.
1988 - Some 50,000 Hutu refugees flee to Rwanda from Burundi following ethnic violence there.
1989 - Coffee prices collapse, causing severe economic hardship in Rwanda.
1990 - Forces of the rebel, mainly Tutsi, Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) invade Rwanda from Uganda. After fierce fighting in which French and Zairean troops are called in to assist the government, a cease-fire is signed on March 29, 1991.
1990/91 - The Rwandan army begins to train and arm civilian militias known as interahamwe ("Those who stand together"). Throughout this period thousands of Tutsis are killed in separate massacres around the country. Opposition politicians and newspapers are persecuted.
November 1992 - Prominent Hutu activist Dr. Leon Mugusera appeals to Hutus to send the Tutsis "back to Ethiopia" via the rivers.
February 1993 - RPF launches a fresh offensive and the guerillas reach the outskirts of Kigali. French forces are again called in to help the government side. Fighting continues for several months.
August 1993 - Following months of negotiations, Habyarimana and the RPF sign a peace accord that allows for the return of refugees and a coalition Hutu-RPF government. 2,500 U.N. troops are deployed in Kigali to oversee the implementation of the accord.
September 1993 - President Habyarimana stalls on setting up of power-sharing government. Training of militias intensifies. Extremist radio station, Radio Mille Collines, begins broadcasting exhortations to attack the Tutsis. Human rights groups warn the international community of impending calamity.
President Habyarimana signs a power-sharing agreement (after a 20 year dictatorship) with the Tutsis in the Tanzanian town of Arusha, ostensibly signalling the end of civil war; UN mission sent to monitor the peace agreement.
1994 April - Habyarimana killed after plane is shot down over Kigali; RPF launches a major offensive; extremist Hutu militia and elements of the Rwandan military begin the systematic massacre of Tutsis. Within 100 days around 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus are killed; Hutu militias flee to Zaire, taking with them around 2 million Hutu refugees.
A French judge has blamed current Rwandan President, Paul Kagame - at the time the leader of a Tutsi rebel group - and some of his close associates for carrying out the rocket attack.
"A small number of major players could directly have prevented, halted or reduced the slaughter of Rwandans" Organisation of African Unity, 2000
And yes the UN were supine, sacrificing their own men on the ground and at the time I would have used massive force and idolized, lionized Major and Blair for their roles in the Balkans and Sierra Leone.
No more. Never again. As John sang: War is over.
The myth of military intervention by the good guys, INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY in the Second World War, being utilitarian, is no less mythic than it is in the Bible. It's the oldest literary trope we have to justify ourselves.
It's a lie.
But Rwanda is the exception? Really?
[ 28. June 2014, 10:16: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Right – response from last night slightly delayed because my internet access needed topping up; sorry.
This is ‘part one’ and really the easy bit – dealing with the pesky ‘no true Scotsman’ malarkey. Look, it is inherent in the OP that we are asking the question “What is a true Christian?” The OP could quite properly be phrased “Does TRUE Christianity preclude violent protest?” or alternatively, “If as a Christian I engage in a violent protest, am I being a TRUE and consistent Christian, or am I, by that violent protest, failing and being inconsistent, untrue to the teaching of Christianity?”
That being the real question, sniping about the ‘no true Scotsman’ business is just a cheap shot and a confusing distraction. We still have to ask and answer the very real and rather important question whether violent protest is truly a Christian response to a situation, and in relation to Palimpsest’s point, we have to answer that question in relation to the Hypatia episode as well. That is, were the Christians who lynched Hypatia acting consistently with Christian teaching or were they in Christian terms wrong to do what they did? Giving that a serious answer is nothing like the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
IF we establish that violent protest is an improper act for Christians, as I think we will, then we may reasonably ask questions about Christians who have engaged in such conduct – how and why have they failed? Have they perhaps failed because they were never truly Christian at all, because they have never experienced the spiritual rebirth that Jesus said was essential, and so are responding in a worldly rather than Christian way?
Alternatively, are they true Christians? That is, they have as it were the ‘heart of the matter’ in them, but for whatever reason, perhaps simply inexperience, they haven’t ‘got’ the Christian teaching about violent protests or lynchings.
Both of these cases are common in a situation which arose centuries after Jesus, and is itself contrary to the original teaching in many, many ways; namely the idea of a ‘Christian state’. In such a state, where people are designated ‘Christian’ just by being born Roman or English or whatever, there will be many people whose faith is unreal, nominal, and just superficially conformist. In addition, in such a state the teachings about pacifism, rejecting violence, and so on are downplayed and distorted in order to squeeze Christianity against its nature into the role of state religion, and so even people who are truly ‘born again’ may be ignorant about that teaching, and may misguidedly follow the distorted version. We can see both cases to this day in Ulster. My point about the Hypatia episode was that it arose in and from such a distorted ‘Christian state’ situation, and was untrue to the original teaching.
Part Two (and a response to your overnight, Palimpsest) when I can get round to it….
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Christian is as Christian does.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The equivocation about what TRUE Christians would do, as opposed to the vast majority of people throughout history who claimed that descriptor for themselves, always makes me think of some doctrinaire Communist explaining that a TRUE Communist society would never engage in the kind of atrocities committed by the Soviet Union/People's Republic of China/Khmer Rouge/whatever. At a certain point we have to look at what people do rather than relying on what they say.
This seems to come from a peculiarly Protestant view of history, where TRUE Christianity™ went extinct sometime in the late first or early second century and was only revived sometime between the Enlightenment and the twentieth century (depending on tradition and personal preference). It's hard not see this as an incredibly hand-wavy attempt to dismiss fifteen to eighteen centuries of history.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
Apparently when discussing the history of Christianity, all roads lead to Scotland.
Point one, you'll note that I did in fact say that some in the mob concerned probably were true Christians - but unfortunately misguided as a result of the 'Constantinian' change over the matter.
It is a simple historical fact that there was an early version of Christianity found in the NT and teaching a relationship between Christians and the world which would make such an event as the lynching of Hypatia impossible.
It is also a historic fact that this original position became compromised by the Imperial interference in Christianity starting with Constantine c.311CE and culminating in Theodosius making Christianity compulsory towards the end of the 4th Century CE. This alien influence might mislead and indeed has misled, many well-meaning Christians, and it certainly results in a society filled with nominal Christians who ignorantly use violence rather than following the NT teaching. It sadly led to terrible things being done over the centuries supposedly in the name of Jesus, and can still be a matter of life and death today.
To me, it is really important and something I really care about that those alien 4th C changes be reversed and that Christians should return to the NT teaching, for everybody's real benefit. It is not a trivial matter on the level of salt in porridge or underwear beneath a kilt, and you should be ashamed of using the glib 'no true Scotsman' reference to suggest that it is.
Oh don't talk nonsense. Of course it would have been possible for the lynching of Hypatia to happen in the NT church, because it was a church of human beings and not robots. Even people who get 'correct' teaching can go against it, quite easily.
You cannot blame every single mistake by Christians on Constantine - it is just pure prejudice. Christians do bad things because people do bad things.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
OtG. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Pure pacifism is a wonderful ideal. But in the real world, defence of the poor, the oppressed, the persecuted has always shown that pacifism in itself is insufficient.
The tenets of a "just war", as traditionally expounded, struggle in today's world. But at least they acknowledge that sometimes Christians cannot sit on their hands without committing a greater sin of failing those who being attacked.
I am not saying it will happen often; I am not saying that I would be comfortable with it; I am not denying that mistakes are often made; I am not denying that we go to war too easily and for the wrong reasons. All I am saying is that a true Christian response to oppression and evil does not exclude a resort to violence in extreme circumstances.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
OtG. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Pure pacifism is a wonderful ideal. But in the real world, defence of the poor, the oppressed, the persecuted has always shown that pacifism in itself is insufficient.
The tenets of a "just war", as traditionally expounded, struggle in today's world. But at least they acknowledge that sometimes Christians cannot sit on their hands without committing a greater sin of failing those who being attacked.
I am not saying it will happen often; I am not saying that I would be comfortable with it; I am not denying that mistakes are often made; I am not denying that we go to war too easily and for the wrong reasons. All I am saying is that a true Christian response to oppression and evil does not exclude a resort to violence in extreme circumstances.
Pretty much. Particularly for oppressed groups. I can't help but be frustrated by straight, white, mostly middle-class men piously talking about how absolute pacifism is the only option for a mostly non-white, mostly poor global Church. It stinks of privilege. It's all very well for Steve Langton to lecture other Christians, but he is very unlikely to have his family murdered in front of him, or be put on death row for marrying a Christian, or be trafficked. God clearly thought that the oppressed Israelites killing Haman and those trying to kill them was OK - I'm not sure God thinks so highly of oppressed peoples being told what to do by non-oppressed peoples.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There we go, the false dichotomy. Kill or do nothing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
That's just rubbish. Sadly the world is not as simplistic as you might like it to be.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think the thread is being sidetracked. The original post is not about "just war" theory. It is about violent protest. Suppose you are living in an unjust society and an organization of Christians wants to protest the injustice. Are they allowed by their Christianity to use violence?
Perhaps this needs to be refined. When you think of violent protest, does that include:
--- ripping down a poster
--- spray-painting a slogan on a publicly-owned wall
--- spray-painting a slogan on a wall you own
--- spray-painting a slogan on a wall owned by some other citizen
--- staging a sit-in at a government office
--- staging a sit-in at the entrance to a medical facility
--- resisting arrest at the sit-in
--- taking preemptive action against police in support of the sit-in
and so on. (I haven't even gotten to most of the nasty stuff.)
"Violent" is a term that needs some attention.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The word "protest" does not appear in the OP. It refers to struggle. Protest implies a communication to the opposition that their actions are viewed as wrong. While "struggle" does convey a message it's primarily an attempt to achieve physical dominance. Protest requires a belief that the opposition is fundamentally willing to negotiate based on conscience.
Defining "True Christians" as not including the vast majority of people in history who called themselves "True Christians" is disingenuous. Referring back to Hypatia, Cyril who was Bishop and incited the mobs is still a Church Father and Saint in the calendar of many churches. Are these churches not composed of "True Christians"?
It's one thing to say that your new Church tries to recreate the church proposed by Jesus. It's another to both claim all the privileges, doctrines and heritages of the historic Church that followed but not acknowledge their historic violence. Claiming a vast unity of nonviolent True Christians and saying "Oh those weren't real Christians or they were misguided" when the historic acts of the actual people who called themselves "True Christians" is in fact the True Scotsman fallacy. If you think the issue is so important than avoid using the logical fallacy in your argument.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Look at the title of the thread.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
"Does Christianity preclude violence as PROTEST?". How can this question be asked?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jade Constable;
quote:
I can't help but be frustrated by straight, white, mostly middle-class men piously talking about how absolute pacifism is the only option for a mostly non-white, mostly poor global Church.
Then again, maybe we've seen what a mess our privileged lot made of all those holy wars, and we're hoping the rest of the global church will not make the same mistakes....
Also Jade Constable;
quote:
It's all very well for Steve Langton to lecture other Christians, but he is very unlikely to have his family murdered in front of him, or be put on death row for marrying a Christian, or be trafficked.
Mostly true, and I'm sorry I can't personally match up to such heroes of the faith as Dirk Willems and Felix Manz. But I can try to keep alive what they died for. As an academic person courtesy of Hans Asperger's Syndrome, lecturing is my best tool for that. Actually, since some of the recent wars our country has been involved in, I'm not so sure any of us are that safe....
Jade again;
quote:
God clearly thought that the oppressed Israelites killing Haman and those trying to kill them was OK - I'm not sure God thinks so highly of oppressed peoples being told what to do by non-oppressed peoples.
The coming and death of Jesus, and his teaching, make a difference about that for us, though that would be a bigger issue than this immediate post. And actually I'm personally mostly speaking to the 'non-oppressed' and challenging them about their privileges.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Defining "True Christians" as not including the vast majority of people in history who called themselves "True Christians" is disingenuous. Referring back to Hypatia, Cyril who was Bishop and incited the mobs is still a Church Father and Saint in the calendar of many churches. Are these churches not composed of "True Christians"?
It's one thing to say that your new Church tries to recreate the church proposed by Jesus. It's another to both claim all the privileges, doctrines and heritages of the historic Church that followed but not acknowledge their historic violence. Claiming a vast unity of nonviolent True Christians and saying "Oh those weren't real Christians or they were misguided" when the historic acts of the actual people who called themselves "True Christians" is in fact the True Scotsman fallacy. If you think the issue is so important than avoid using the logical fallacy in your argument.
I think we're a bit at cross-purposes here. I don't really recognise my argument in your version of it! So far as that's my fault, sorry. Look, history is messy. On the one hand, ideally 'true Christians' are those who follow Jesus' teaching. On the other hand, I have to recognise the basic 'true Christianity' of lots of people who disagree with me in various ways. I have serious problems with the views of Ian Paisley and the consequences those views have had in NI; I still recognise him as a 'true Christian' - but I would be wrong to pretend that his views which have led to such problems are 'true Christian' views. I have to hold that tension. I don't write off everybody between Constantine and, say, Wycliffe and the Waldensians, nor do I write off everybody since who hasn't shared my Anabaptist views. Au contraire, I benefit enormously from their works.
Obviously I believe the views I put forward about separating church and state; and history goes a long way to show that those views (which are not just 'mine' anyway) are probably right. I see it as my job to try to be right because truth is valuable; it is not my job to judge individuals.
That's enough for now; if I go any further I'll be on a different topic and at length.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In the real world Ghandi defeated the British Raj with pacifism. America was defeated over Vietnam by pacifism. Denmark saved all but six of its Jews with pacifism. Civil rights were obtained in America by pacifism. Apartheid was undermined by pacifism in the form of boycott. How were workers' rights obtained in England?
What world do you live in?
In no instance where Christian minorities have been oppressed has their lot been improved by violent protest.
Name one.
Again, what world do you live in?
And yeah it's easy for me as a white middle class male in England, I just put my hands in my pockets and wear a cross and usually that's sufficient, although it felt like 'Uh oh, here it comes, my face and my glasses are going to become as one.' a month ago. The cops responded to my call amazingly fast. Three car loads.
If a knife comes out I'm going to yell 'KNIFE!' admittedly, then 'CHAIRS!' and grab one as a shield.
If all those who called themselves Christian one hundred years ago today had behaved like their master, I wonder what wouldn't have happened?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think the thread is being sidetracked. The original post is not about "just war" theory. It is about violent protest.
I apologise for my part in that, although part of what I am trying to say is that as soon as you look at "violence" (and I heartily agree that we need to think carefully about what we mean by that word), concepts of "just war" have to come into the equation, unless you make the prior decision that ALL violence is out of the question.
And it is as you bring in some of the just war ideas that (I believe) you can begin to see what a Christian may or may not be involved with. Is it a proportionate response? Have all channels of peaceful means of protest been tried and found wanting? Are the consequences of inaction worse than the consequences of action?
I think it would be very hard to justify Christians involved in - say - street riots where shops and cars get torched. But - unlike Martin - I cannot say hand on heart that a "violent" protest is NEVER possible for a Christian.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In the real world Ghandi defeated the British Raj with pacifism. America was defeated over Vietnam by pacifism. Denmark saved all but six of its Jews with pacifism. Civil rights were obtained in America by pacifism. Apartheid was undermined by pacifism in the form of boycott. How were workers' rights obtained in England?
What world do you live in?
In the world I live in most of my fathers relatives who were peaceful Austrian Jews were exterminated rather than saved by their pacifism.
In the world I live in the Viet Cong and the Tet offensive had a lot to do with America's defeat in Vietnam. They used violence.
In the United States that I live in the Civil Rights was made possible by the Union victory in the Civil War. Without this violence there would not have been any emancipation of slaves, let alone a belated civil rights movement.
While the boycott may have undermined apartheid it would have continued indefinitely without the sabotage and threat of more violent actions of the group led by Mandela.
quote:
In no instance where Christian minorities have been oppressed has their lot been improved by violent protest.
Name one.
The Dutch republic fighting for independence from the Spanish Empire improved the lot of the Christian minorities and even a Jewish Minority. They used violence when the Spanish invaded.
quote:
And yeah it's easy for me as a white middle class male in England, I just put my hands in my pockets and wear a cross and usually that's sufficient, although it felt like 'Uh oh, here it comes, my face and my glasses are going to become as one.' a month ago. The cops responded to my call amazingly fast. Three car loads.
In the world where I live when the Police show up in a dangerous situation they may use violence or the implied threat of violence to re-establish order. Unlike your police, our Police routinely carry guns.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Steve; I don't understand the difference in your terminology between a "True Christian" and a "Christian" since you say True Christians may do unchristian actions. Is the adjective superfluous?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The Civil War delayed civil rights and cost more American lives and suffering than all other wars in American history. Just as the Holocaust was exacerbated at least by Anglo-American total, unconditional war on Germany.
I note you ignore Ghandi's spectacular success. The US was not defeated militarily in Vietnam.
The fact that pacifism saves lives, advances TRUE civilization as if a trans-cosmic law were in operation cannot in any way be offset by Christendom's irrational justification of worse than useless 'just' wars.
This game of rhetoric will continue as an alternative to pursuing the kingdom of God.
And now a word from our sponsor:
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Steve; I don't understand the difference in your terminology between a "True Christian" and a "Christian" since you say True Christians may do unchristian actions. Is the adjective superfluous?
It gets easier to understand if you ignore that pesky Scotsman and just ask questions about what is true, what is false, and how and when certain ideas developed. I'm afraid Croesos introducing that Scot has really taxed my capacity for forgiveness.
Go back to the question in the OP; "Does Christianity preclude violence as protest?" To meaningfully answer that question you need a concept of the nature of Christianity and the basis on which it might include or preclude various things and actions - or in other words, you need an answer to "What is 'true Christianity'?"
The basic answer to that question is that true Christianity is what Jesus and his immediate disciples taught as recorded in the NT. Relevant to this issue, that teaching includes a considerable amount of stuff typified by 'turn the other cheek'; it also includes a considerable amount of stuff about the place of Christians in relation to the surrounding world and the various states in which Christians live around the world.
And as far as I can see, taking those two things together, Christianity does preclude physically violent protest and much non-physical violence as well.
Hundreds of years after Jesus, a view of Christianity arose which people did think allowed such conduct as the killing of Hypatia by a mob. It seems to me to be a perfectly valid question to ask "Is that view, and the conduct resulting from it 'true Christianity'? Is it consistent with the original teaching?" That also leads to the further questions "If such conduct is not true Christianity, what went wrong to enable people to think it was?" and then "And what can we do to put it right and bring people back to what we have found to be original true Christianity?" And if those are valid questions, the gentleman from north of the border is surely irrelevant to how we sort them out!
'What went wrong' happened over the 4thCent CE, starting with the edict in 311CE when Christianity became tolerated by the Roman Empire where previously it had been illegal and sporadically persecuted, sometimes quite severely. With the previous Graeco-Roman paganism in rapid decline, and other still lively religions like Mithraism not universal enough for the purpose, Roman emperors sought to exploit Christianity as the 'social glue' to bind their Empire together, and a creeping change culminated in I think 381CE with an edict by Theodosius making Christianity compulsory in the Empire.
To achieve that it was necessary to ignore/distort that original Christian teaching about the place of the Church in the world. And in the new state of affairs it seemed logical that the Empire's 'Christians' should approve of the Empire's wars with non-Christian states, approve of rebellion by Christians to attempt to set up 'Christian states' and approve of persecution of non-Christians like Hypatia and of Christian 'heretics' like the Donatists. But such conduct was not 'true Christianity', it was an aberration.
In terms of discussing the ideal beliefs, this is fairly simple to sort out. Original Christianity non-violent, the later violent version not true Christianity. To be fair to the 4thCent people, it didn't seem quite so clear when these ideas were slowly creeping into a church recovering from persecution, a church which in turn was being diluted by people joining less from personal faith and more from jumping on the imperial bandwagon.
And that is really the answer to your question about my terminology. In the messy not entirely ideal real world, individuals and churches can end up in positions which are not neat and tidy.
Christianity is not just about keeping 'rules'; it is primarily about your relationship to God through an act of faith, and in a sense that is a 'new birth' whereby a spiritual life is started in the person. The 'baby' Christian doesn't just automatically receive an 'injection/transplant/download' of all Christian knowledge and wisdom about everything. Like a human baby, he has to learn a lot of it the hard way, by personal study and experience and by learning from his fellow-believers - and not only will he get it wrong, sometimes his teachers will have got it wrong too in various areas. Nevertheless he is a ' True Christian' though imperfect and misguided about some things.
In the Imperial Church and its derivatives (Anglican, RC, Orthodox, Lutheran etc) there have been/will be many people who are 'true Christians' in that sense but because they are imperfect and misinformed/misguided will sadly do or be involved in things which are not ideally Christian . Likewise in those Churches there will be many who just assume they are Christian because they have been born in that 'Christian country' but are in reality just superficially conforming for essentially worldly motives. Such a person though superficially 'Christian' is not a 'true Christian'. Either way, the individual's personal situation is for God to judge, not me. But the distinction between 'Christian' and 'true Christian' is valid.
Actually it's a bit more complicated than that, of course, and I know and understand you'll have quite a few detailed questions about it - but that should do to be going on with.
The important thing for Christians in the here and now is to identify that difference between the true and false and try to be on the side of the original teaching rather than on the side of the mob that killed Hypatia. Fortunately this is increasingly happening.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The equivocation about what TRUE Christians would do, as opposed to the vast majority of people throughout history who claimed that descriptor for themselves, always makes me think of some doctrinaire Communist explaining that a TRUE Communist society would never engage in the kind of atrocities committed by the Soviet Union/People's Republic of China/Khmer Rouge/whatever. At a certain point we have to look at what people do rather than relying on what they say.
Ah - the Communist atrocities, therefore austerity / abolish Obamacare argument.
It's odd that see what they do not what they say argument is applied rigourously to religion and communism, but when it comes to capitalism and liberal democracy, we're supposed not to look at the Vietnam War and the bombing of Hiroshima and the Iraq War etc etc.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Dafyd.
That is a complete non-sequitur.
I expect MUCH better from you personally.
--------------------
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
