Can a Christian Support War?
|
It seems to me that since the dominant image of Christianity in the US media is of right-wing Christians who predominantly vote Republican, one would think that this group would generally be in support of the current military operations in Iraq. On the other hand, I personally find that I cannot count myself as a follower of a Jesus who always practiced non-violence himself, and support violent actions of my state. Another view of the issue is that a Christian ought to support war if and only if every other possibility has been exhausted. So, perhaps this would make the Second World War justifiable, but one would want to let the inspections process finish before finally coming out in support of military action in Iraq. I have heard this called “Just War Theory.” Must a Christian be a pacifist? Must a Christian support war in some cases? Is Just War Theory a workable solution to the problem? Are there other possibilities? |
Comments
War and peace
The thing that isn’t clear to me is why the people of God living in a secular state need to adopt the same mindset as the secular leadership on this issue. I obviously say this not to condemn secular leaders in any way, or that worldview, just to point out that their worldview is clearly different.
I wouldn’t say that the believer has to adopt the same mindset as the secular leadership. My point is only that we cannot automatically assume that a policy of non-violence developed for the particular context of first-century Israel provides a universal paradigm. If the American government were to oppress the church in America, then the church should pursue the same course that Jesus urged for Israel under Roman oppression. The militant, insurrectionist response, whether in self-defence or out of ‘zeal’ for the Lord, is not an option for the church under these circumstances. But it would be a very different situation if, say, America was threatened by a violent internal force or invaded by a foreign power. Under such conditions it would seem to me to be illogical to appeal to the example of Jesus in support of a political stance of non-violence. If violence is the only way for a civil or national power to ensure justice (whether internally or externally), I don’t see any biblical objection - indeed, I see biblical precedent (eg. Rom.13:1-5).
The difficult question, of course, is what constitutes justice in any particular situation. Because governments get things wrong and often behave unjustly, we always have to balance cooperation as citizens with prophetic challenge and critique as God’s people. The church benefits from the security and prosperity afforded by the society in which it is embedded - we live in two worlds - and it would be hypocritical to refuse to participate in the means by which that security and prosperity is assured. But this certainly does not mean that we have to share our society’s moral and political values. If the government chooses to pursue a clearly unjust cause through violent means (or through any other means), then I would have thought the responsibility of the church is to object and not cooperate.
Jonathan Bartley in his book The Subversive Manifesto, 22-23, offers a curious reinterpretation of the parable of the talents (Lk.19:11-27), partly on the grounds that at the end the king orders his enemies to be killed (19:27). Bartley argues that the traditional identification of the king with Jesus cannot possibly be right because the king acts so unfairly, and he suggests instead that the hero is the servant who challenges the king’s authority. The parable is a warning against power and its abuse.
This interpretation cannot be sustained. If the disciples are curious to know when the kingdom of God will come and Jesus immediately tells them a story about a nobleman who goes into a far country to receive a kingdom (19:11-12), the actions of the king must in some way tell us about the rule of God. Also in Luke the word ‘faithful’ (the first servant who does what the king asks is described as faithful) is always used in a positive sense, to describe those who do what is right. We cannot, therefore, escape the fact that the king acts violently. But the destruction of the enemies is the destruction of Jerusalem - God’s judgment on Israel through the extremely violent instrumentality of Rome. This does not mean that Rome was morally right to behave the way it did (and later Rome itself is judged - Habbakuk is very relevant here), but it must surely have some bearing on how we evaluate war from a Christian perspective. America and its allies may have pursued war against Iraq for all the wrong reasons, but biblically we may still want to regard the destruction of the regime as an act of divine judgment.
Judging the nations
Thanks - you raise some important questions and make it clear that these matters need careful thought.
Does this mean that the Lord is always on the side of the victors in military conflicts?
No, of course not. If the argument is valid at all, the church would need some sort of prophetic guidance in determining whether or not, and in what way, a particular international event constituted an ‘act of God’ - and I have to say, I would not be very confident at the moment that the church (which church?) would reach prophetic consensus in such an event. The OT paradigm was more straightforward, mainly because the nations that came under judgment tended to be those that oppressed or attacked Israel. The basic pattern is that Israel is judged through the instrumentality of some foreign power, then that foreign power is itself judged. There are, however, some instances where a nation is judged, or threatened with judgment, independent of any threat that it may pose to Israel - Nineveh is the obvious example. Even then, Jonah’s ambivalence about the whole thing indicates how difficult it was to make clear, unequivocal prophetic statements about the nations. And there was no shortage of false prophets around to confuse people.
God clearly has the power to judge regimes in a literal sense, but has not done so since the times of the Old Testament.
The judgment on Rome (at least according to my reading of NT eschatology) is at least one exception to that. But I’m not sure it’s so difficult to see the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, a power explicitly hostile to the idea of God, as an event like the fall of Rome or the fall of Babylon before that. If we can say that this enemy of God has not finally triumphed, surely we can also say that God has judged and overthrown his enemy? If we baulk at this sort of language, perhaps there are better ways of saying it, but I’m not sure the point is wrong in principle.
After sending us a messiah who liberates humanity on a spiritual level, and not on a military level as the religious establishment of the time expected, God no longer intervenes directly in geopolitics. Instead, God shows us glimpses of the Kingdom on an individual level.
What bothers me about this sort of argument is that it appears to reinforce the privatization of faith that I think has contributed hugely to the irrelevance of the church in the West. I agree it is extremely difficult to evaluate what’s good and bad at the level of national and international politics. But maybe the response to that is not to retreat into private visions of the kingdom but to learn how to ‘judge’ properly - learn a credible and coherent (and humble) public theology. Isn’t the emerging church struggling towards just that? For now prophetic reticence may be in order - but I do believe that God called the church into existence, placed it among the nations of the world, for a purpose that cannot be achieved by withdrawing from an engagement in public discourse. It’s a massive challenge, but isn’t that what we have the Spirit of God for?
Who judges the nations?
Your concern about “the privatization of faith” is well taken. However, the response to this may not be to develop a public theology that gives us the idea that we can discern which nation is good or bad.
At the moment of a conflict between nations we do not know how God is working. His ways are beyond tracing out. Who would have figured that the New Exodus for Israel and the welcoming of the Nations would have occurred the way it did through the Jewish rejection of their Messiah. I think I am with you that God is involved on the geo-political stage (contra Sbryan) but I do not think we can know how. In other words, judging between the nations is like picking fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And we know where that gets us.
But it seems to me that we do know how we (the church) should respond to our enemies in the time of conflict: love. This Andrew is what I think the Spirit of God is for. I would expand Sbryan’s point about “glimpses of the Kingdom” from the individual level to the corporate level of the church. We are the foretaste of the Kingdom. This is the glimpse of the Kingdom the world needs to see and experience.
These are fair comments. I di
These are fair comments. I didn’t quite mean that the church should put itself in the position of judging the nations - that’s why I put ‘judge’ in quotation marks. It’s more a question perhaps of speaking wisely into complex situations - which may mean not passing judgment sometimes. But I do want to push a bit further the thought that the church has a responsibility to speak from God in the public sphere.
War and Peace
“America and its allies may have pursued war against Iraq for all the wrong reasons, but biblically we may still want to regard the destruction of the regime as an act of divine judgment.”
How is it possible that one may beleive man, as imperfect as he is, can judge divinely?
Imperfect instruments of judgment
The point is not that man judges, certainly not ‘divinely’ - I agree that people and governments are very imperfect. That is why I said that America and its allies may have pursued war for all the wrong reasons. But we may still want to say that God uses imperfect, unjust governments and nations as instruments of his judgment. This is exactly what happens in the Old Testament (eg. imperfect Babylon is the means by which Israel is judged) and I would argue what happens in AD 70 when very imperfect Rome is the means by which Israel is judged.
Participation in war and Christian vocation
I think what Andrew was saying was that Jesus offered Israel (the people of God in their own nation state) a way of surviving catastrophic judgement (though not with their own nation state) if they trusted and obeyed him. (Actually Jesus said the obverse of this: that the nation was heading for catastrophic judgement because it was not responding to him, but insisting on meeting arms with arms). Today, the players are different, and catastrophic judgement for refusing to ‘repent’ and follow Jesus is not held out as an imminent national reality (though it may eventually become one).
From the point of view of vocation, we face a challenge whenever the nation-state requires of us the obligation of ‘resolving’ conflict by physical violence. It is diffcult to see such a ‘resolution’ as an option consistent with ‘new creation’ realities. To put it another way, there comes a point at which ‘old creation’ courses of action enjoined on us as citizens of nation-states run counter to our calling to participate in a ‘new creation’ identity and therefore course of action.
This is a particular challenge to the state church - which has something like a contract to participate in war and support its nation’s armed forces. No surprise where the ‘just war’ theory came from and tends to be upheld today.
Our vocation in relation to the secular state is not so different from the vocation Jesus offered to Israel - to become members of a new kind of nation - and the words: “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” become more than metaphors. We may indeed die, or pay a severe price, for exercising such a privilege.
This leads to the infinitely more difficult arena of expressing ‘new creation’ realities in a proactive way (rather than abdicating from action altogether). Gandhi showed Christians that following Jesus in ‘passive resistance’ could change history, but not without cost to those who did so, and in the context of a colonial regime which to an extent permitted the kind of mass protest that proved effective in hastening its downfall.
In a creative sense, there may be many ways in which the values of the kingdom can be expressed in times of national conflict, without abdicating, or pronouncing judgement on others for failing to do the same. I think of Derek Prince in the Medical Corps in the Middle East during world war 2. Equally for others, it may involve imprisonment, and death - as it did for Mennonites during world war 1 in the U.S.
But for me - the issue of vocation has to do with the determining principle of being part of a ‘new creation’, and whether that would be consistent with exercising my responsibilities as a citizen in an ‘old creation’ way. I hope I am never put in that situation - because I suspect it might lead to being required to express my ‘new creation’ identity in ways that I would find much more difficult and costly than pointing a gun at someone and shooting them.
I have to add that some of the finest Christians I know of are in the armed forces, and that when Colonel H. Jones was killed in a suicidally heroic attack on an Argentinian machine-gun nest in the battle for Fort Stanley (The Falklands war), his successor walked off into the night, prayed, and received from God an impression that he should parley with the Argentinians for their surrender. The capitulation was immediate and many lives were spared (on both sides). Would this have happened if God did not have his people at the heart of the conflict?
The Cross and the cellar
I’m logged onto something called Daily Dig - a kind of ‘thought for the day’ drawn from a wide range of writers, sacred and secular, provided by the Bruderhof communities, www.bruferhof.com
These German Mennonite communities were founded by Eberhard Arnold, a German evangelist at the time of world war 1 and the inter-war years. They are a rich mine of spiritual depth, and a prophetic voice to church and state in our times. Very appropriate to the emerging church (which they are, in themselves).
I would like to draw attention to this particular article, The Cellar and the Cross, which was itself linked to today’s Daily Dig - 21 March. It seemed appropriate to the discussion on whether a Christian can support war.
The address is www.bruderhof.com/articles/TheCellar.htm?source=DailyDig
You can access other parts of the website from here.
http://www.unionoffaiths.com
mertfaruk
Please tell us about yourself, mertfaruk. There is a compilation of autobiographies on the ‘Nothing to do with Mary‘ thread.
Let's make it more personal
When questioning whether Christians should ever support war/do to war, etc, it’s easy to set up the Iraq war to take pot shots.
To understand the difference, consider this scenario. You’re sitting on the couch with your wife/husband at 1am. You’re up late talking, when suddenly the door flies open and there are armed men who invade your home. You’ve heard about home invasions in the area - the MO is that they rape everyone in the house in front of the father. (I use this because it’s actually happened in my area).
What do you do? For me, I don’t think God would expect me to "turn the other cheek", but to protect my family. If I can flee, I should. If I can’t I should fight.
The point is, there is a time for every purpose under heaven. There is a time for war. Unfortunately, the US tends to use it selfishly. We sit by when the widows and the orphans need us (Rwanda in 1994, Sudan today) but we intervene when our economy is affected.
But let’s not be so hard on our government. Let’s take equal stock in ourselves - the Church. Doesn’t the Church proper set by in the same way and ignore the needs of widows and orphans? How many of us are willing to subjogate our own lifestyle in order to feed or clothe the poor?
My point is that we’re not going to change our government by complaining about it. What we can do is let God start his transformative work in our own lives and be part of the solution. So we don’t like the war in Iraq. How has God used that in our lives to motivate us to love and good works?
bloodshed, rape, and the Christian virtues
Let’s revive an old thread, shall we?
Grifgraf’s scenario makes my blood boil, fallen as I am, and my first instinct is to say I’d slaughter the sons of bitches. If the point is to remind us that theological positions must translate into concrete practices with concrete implications, then the scenario is (somewhat) helpful.
If, on the other hand, it pushes us to ground all ethical deliberation in gut responses to emotionally potent scenarios, then it may well be useless.
I commend to you the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas who (among others) have endeavered to show that Christians should avoid ‘quandary ethics’ (which seeks to answer questions of the form ‘what is the right thing to do in more or less contrived scenario S?’). They argue that Christian communities should rather seek to instill Christian virtues in their members. These virtues are Kingdom/Spirit-virtues (peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, love, creativity, etc.). How Christians will behave in certain scenarios then, is not governed by in-the-moment reflection on supposed moral absolutes, but rather is the outworking of the ‘training’ they have received in the Christian colony. Andrew’s call for a ‘new framework’ is helpful here, as is Peter’s reminder that we are called to embody New Creation.
If we do reject quandary ethics (as we should), the question then becomes ‘what kind of people are Christians called to be?’. The creative Kingdom nonviolence bill seems to fit well in this scenario (I wouldn’t shy away from calling it ‘pacifism’, as long as it is distinguished from ‘passivism’). If we teach our (biological OR spiritual) children that ‘violence can be used for good’ (as in the provocative movie V for Vendetta), then their human nature will incline them, as this happens to all of us, to use it coercively as often as possible. If, on the other hand, we teach them that we are to emulate Christ who, when being crucified, prayed for the forgiveness for his crucifiers… then we’ll be more likely to become a peace-making community which seeks nonviolent alternatives to admittedly difficult dilemmas. Brother Lawrence’s exhortation to ‘practice the presence of God’ could surely generate some Spirit-inspired violence-defusions.
Ultimately though, since our calling is to be faithful (over and above being practical), this does mean that in a fallen world, the innocent will suffer (although of course, this is true even when one is not a pacifist). Only God can make that right in the long run.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
just war...
My answer is NO.
I just can’t imagine a reasonable scenario where fighting back somehow helps the situation. We always strike much before the last resort. Diplomacy is rarely ever given a real chance.
I’ve never lived in Europe so some of you across the pond will have a different and valuable perspective, but one of the problems we have in America is that we won our freedom through violence. Therefore, we will always see violence as a reasonable solution to economic and systematic problems. Every other nation figured out how to end slavery without war, but not America. Great Britian solved it with money, but we needed blood. We have suffered much great racism as a result. You never really resolve the underlying issues when violence is used to “solve” the problem. WWI resulted in WWII because of this same issue. Violence creates injustice which creates more violence. The same thing will happen in the middle east even if we “won”.
Imagine for a minute what would have happened if all the money spent on WWII AND the costly Marshall plan would have been spent on a “pre-war rebuilding plan” making Germany a healthy nation with justice for its people BEFORE Hitler came to power. Hitler never would have gained power in a prosperous nation. Europe could have invested a fraction of the money proactively and NONE of those lives would have been lost. If you invest in justice then you won’t have to make these kinds of decisions. When you turn a blind eye to injustice you end up knee deep in a bloody mess.
Why don’t Christians give money to build mosques in war torn Islamic nations? Better yet, what if we decided to sell all our churches in America and use the money to build mosques in Iraq! How long could they continue to be our “enemies” if we lavished them with grace and generousity?
The point of Christian non-violonce is not about the decision to fight as a last resort, instead it is about thinking proactively about the value of loving your neighber BEFORE they become your enemy and if they already are your enemy you love them back into the status of neighbor. All these disussions are dealing with issues that arise because somebody failed to love their neighbor and now they have made them an enemy.
We often overlook that the goal of the Roman Empire was peace and economic development. The goal of Hitler was to create peace and economic development. The problem was not their goal, but it was their method. They used violence, descrimination, and exclusion in attempts to create a peaceful and prosperous world. That is a major flaw and America is making some of the same mistakes. The kingdom of God has the same goal, but it uses a much different method… love and self-sacrifice. The cross is a wonderful symbol of contrast between the way of Jesus and the way of empire.
Re: just war...
I just can’t imagine a reasonable scenario where fighting back somehow helps the situation.
Fighting back is not about helping, it is about surviving. I could agree with a claim that the gospel demands we abandon our desire for self-preservation, but I don’t see that here.
Every other nation figured out how to end slavery without war, but not America. Great Britian [sic] solved it with money, but we needed blood. We have suffered much great racism as a result. You never really resolve the underlying issues when violence is used to “solve” the problem.
We also don’t solve the problem by oversimplifying history. The Civil War was not, despite what nearly every history book for high school students says, about “slavery”. Slavery was the catalyst issue for a much more complex underlying problem which had been simmering in this country since the founding fathers debated the nature of our governing constitution (nearly 100 years).
We suffer racism in this country not because of lingering wounds of the Civil War, but because people of color continue to be trapped in cycles of poverty which those in power and prosperity refuse to break because they prefer to ensure dynasties for their own children.
Imagine for a minute what would have happened if all the money spent on WWII AND the costly Marshall plan would have been spent on a “pre-war rebuilding plan” making Germany a healthy nation with justice for its people BEFORE Hitler came to power. Hitler never would have gained power in a prosperous nation.
This does not necessarily follow. A charismatic and power hungry despot could just as easily have used his nation’s newfound prosperity to stoke the fires of nationalism and imperialism.
Why don’t Christians give money to build mosques in war torn Islamic nations? Better yet, what if we decided to sell all our churches in America and use the money to build mosques in Iraq! How long could they continue to be our “enemies” if we lavished them with grace and generousity?
Forever? Why must a change of heart follow acts of charity and kindness?
All these disussions [sic] are dealing with issues that arise because somebody failed to love their neighbor and now they have made them an enemy.
That is the world in which we find ourselves. We have enemies and few neighbors. It is too late to go back and change that. Thus, the discussion is necessary.
~jhimm
—
nothing lasts.
nothing is finished.
nothing is perfect.
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
Maybe the question should be: how can Christians support war?
I mean, there is little doubt that Christians have supported war. So, we should try to understand how they went about justifying the war. What reasons did they give? What verses in the Bible did they cite? And so on.
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
After reading
all these convoluted and labyrinthine arguments it makes me truly
appreciate my distaste for religion.
The
bible, like every holy book or scripture I have ever come into
contact with, is SO full of contradictions, vague language, poetic
ramblings, and all sorts of philosophical and metaphysical
schizophrenia that it is a wonder that anyone takes them
seriously.
This is the exact reason
non-theists like myself not only don’t participate in religion, but
actively wage intellectual war upon it. Life is complicated enough
without making or believing in all sorts of crazy rules and laws, or
worse, cherry picking only the ones that fit your own personal views
on the matter.
If the WORD OF GOD is so
mailable, corruptible, and hard to understand, how on earth can
anyone see it as divinely inspired?
www.theGODscam.com
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
“After reading all these convoluted and labyrinthine arguments it makes me truly appreciate my distaste for religion.”
Not all followers of Jesus are religious.
“The bible, like every holy book or scripture I have ever come into contact with, is SO full of contradictions, vague language, poetic ramblings, and all sorts of philosophical and metaphysical schizophrenia that it is a wonder that anyone takes them seriously.”
Life is full of “contradictions, vague language, poetic ramblings, and all sorts of philosohphical and metaphysical schizophrenia” and one can’t help but take some of it seriously. What books have you ever come into contact with that didn’t have some contradictions, some vague language, some poetic (or other) ramblings, and some sort of competing and overlapping philosophical and metaphysical implications?
“This is the exact reason non-theists like myself not only don’t participate in religion, but actively wage intellectual war upon it.” As I mentioned, many followers of Jesus don’t participate in religion either. So, with militant “non-theists like” yourself, we are sure to have some great engagements.
“Life is complicated enough without making or believing in all sorts of crazy rules and laws, or worse, cherry picking only the ones that fit your own personal views on the matter.” Yeah, those pesky laws or rules of physics are “crazy.” “Cherry picking,” while frowned on by systemic theologians, may not be all that bad in religion or life. Indeed, you might call it pragmatic—use what works.
“If the WORD OF GOD is so mailable, corruptible, and hard to understand, how on earth can anyone see it as divinely inspired?” Because basically everything is corruptible and hard to understand—this is life, my friend, nothing is pure and shining. You sound naive to even suggest as much. The scientific method, for instance, was corrupted by the Nazis, wasn’t it? Yet I bet you still go to the doctor when you are sick and I bet you trust what the doctors say. The point is, I guess, trust is why I follow in the way of Jesus. Who do you trust?
Can it ever be more than just-a-war and not “just” war?
“Even if the correct basic principles of morality were somehow in need of foundations, the Bible would be too nefarious for the purpose.”
That from atheist, Matthew Kramer, Professor of Legal and Political Philosophy, Churchill College, Cambridge (his letter about atheist bible interpretation posted in full on my blog, http://intellogos.blogspot.com/). This is not an advertisement. Because the stuff on my blog is not otherwise relevant here. Either in general or to your focused post. But Kramer’s comment is noteworthy because it’s from an atheist who studies the bible several hours a day. Relative to intersections in moral and legal philosophy.
I take a different tack than Kramer. In jurisprudence. And in theological hermeneutics. I don’t think this has to be answered foundationally. It’s not worth bantering over my differences with Kramer here on this blog. Except that both of us would likely agree that the sheer combinatorics of the factors that you noted here concerning biblical propositions, after factoring for normativeness, are probably on the order of combinations into the trillions. And that quite easily.
So what?
So consider the verification problems of this number. Verify propositions on this order of magnitude. Even if you (you personally) granted generous instead of your parsimonious inferences to save biblical interpretation from so-called vagaries, contradictions, and context-clueless proverbs - and all the rest.
Given your own parameters, what can you do?
You can do whatever you want. The best that I can see that you can do given your own parameters (and I think there are better ways than this) would be for you to offer yourself as an existence proof in your own life. For the resolution of at least one good question from among all the dizzying hermeneutic befuddlements of your factors and hard questions. Though I wouldn’t start with war. Not as a first test of your own existence proof. War will come for us soon enough.
Just my bias.
Cheers,
Jim
Re: Can it ever be more than just-a-war and not “just” war?
Jim.. what a lovely vocabulary you have. I really have no idea what you are talking about because none of your sentances make any sense… its like a Sarte essay exploded on my monitor. Sound a fury as they say…
Tell me, it's not a Scam ...
Godscam,
“… none of your sentances [sic] make any sense…”
There are these things. One is called a dictionary. The other is a spell-checker for your “sentances.” Get these.
And your reading comprehension isn’t great either. Since I didn’t post to you.
You don’t point to any specific language in my post which befuddles you. I think you’re a dodge-artist. Playing.
My first paragraph is perfectly clear.
Maybe you can’t understand the first paragraph because it’s written by a real atheist, who teaches on the intersection of morality and law (and the bible), and not by an 8th grader posing on a blog as an atheist wanna-be schmuck.
Re-read it and start there.
The second paragraph just tells you why a professional atheist who does technical philosophy and who teaches law for a living still consults the bible as a source. Nothing too complicated for your vocabulary there, I hope.
The third paragraph is just telling you that a theist and an atheist both can agree that the total number of bible propositions that could be tested in the total number of concrete cases is too great a number for you to test, so as for you to pass judgment about their workability, in any practical way. You may as well read Sartre: where anything goes.
Even better for you, clinical studies show that absurdist literature can make you smarter!
I would apologize for my other paragraphs, except that you claim to know, “math, physics, astronomy, bio-chemistry, all sorts of book are completely rational.”
So you do understand my freshman college-level language in my later paragraphs about your parameters, your problems with verification, and existence proofs. And you’re not just faking your knowledge of “math, physics, astronomy, bio-chemistry, all sorts of book are completely rational” – after all!
Cheers,
Jim
Re: Tell me, it's not a Scam ...
wow I used an “a” not an “e”
You got me! I will never dare question your greatness again.
Re: Tell me, it's not a Scam ...
You almost responded to the content.
Anything but response to the content for one who knows “physics, astronomy, bio-chemistry, all sorts of book are completely rational.”
Why yes. Of course. Got it. Clear.
Enough feeding the obvious troll.
Enjoy!
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
“Not all followers of Jesus are religious. ” If you mean you are inspired by the character of Jesus than are there Gandhists or Martin Luther King-ites in the world? If you call yourself a follower of Jesus it is pretty much assumed that you believe him to be the son of GOD and more than a mortal man. By religion I mean any belief system not derived from scientific observation and testing. Superstition, myth, fable, etc…
” What books have you ever come into contact with that didn’t have some contradictions” Math, physics, astronomy, bio-chemistry, all sorts of book are completely rational. I really enjoy the LORD OF THE RINGS series, but like the Bible I could never take them as real.
“So, with militant “non-theists like” yourself, we are sure to have some great engagements.” Militant? Who said anything about violence?
Yeah, those pesky laws or rules of physics are “crazy.” I don’t even know what you are talking about here. Laws of physics are observable fact, not written in some magical book.
“everything is corruptible and hard to understand”
Here is a perfect example of a rule you have made up that is pure
opinion and has no actual reality.
The
scientific method, for instance, was corrupted by the Nazis, wasn’t
it? Um… no. The Nazi ruled German government made many
scientific breakthroughs, but they mixed it with a cult like
mentality to do horrible things. NAZISM is a religion like any other.
They had a GOD, his name was Hitler. I advocate free thinking, and no
one can claim the Nazi party members did that.
The point
is, I guess, trust is why I follow in the way of Jesus. Who do
you trust? Trusting in a magical being may make you feel better.
Believing in Heaven may make dying easier for some. None of that makes
it REAL though.
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
“If you call yourself a follower of Jesus it is pretty much assumed that you believe him to be the son of GOD and more than a mortal man.”
I do not believe Jesus was supernatural. I have come to see him as a sign post pointing toward a way of living, a way of relating to myself, my neighbors, friends, enemies and, my God. So, no, it is not “pretty much assumed.”
“By religion I mean any belief system not derived from scientific observation and testing. Superstition, myth, fable, etc…”
What does “scientific observation” and “testing” supposed to mean? Have you tested “testing” to see if it is a valid arbiter of claims? What if “testing” is biased? Are you also suggesting that, historically speaking, all belief systems prior to the development of the scientific method were superstition?
” What books have you ever come into contact with that didn’t have some contradictions” Math, physics, astronomy, bio-chemistry, all sorts of book are completely rational.”
I ask you to speak to a local university professor about “contradictions” in math, physics, astronomy, bio-chemistry. As fields of study composed of multiple different theoretical perspectives, there are any number of “contradictions” and other problems. Indeed, it is these problems that generates academic work—to solve these problems, puzzles, and contradictions. What do you mean by “compeletely rational”? Have you tested “rational” to see if that is something you should adhere to or belive in?
“I really enjoy the LORD OF THE RINGS series, but like the Bible I could never take them as real.”
Great. A point of agreement, I think. I don’t take the Bible as “real” either. Nor do I think God is “real.” Maybe there is hope!
“So, with militant “non-theists like” yourself, we are sure to have some great engagements.” Militant? Who said anything about violence?”
Did you not speak about doing intellectual war against folks like myself? That seems pretty militant to me. I could be wrong. What do you mean, then?
Yeah, those pesky laws or rules of physics are “crazy.” I don’t even know what you are talking about here. Laws of physics are observable fact, not written in some magical book.”
Have you observed the law of gravity? Or have you observed the consequences of the law of gravity? Two very different claims. Could you describe the law of gravity since you say it is observable? What does gravity look like?
“everything is corruptible and hard to understand” Here is a perfect example of a rule you have made up that is pure opinion and has no actual reality.
Have you seen purity? I can make a strong empirical argument that there is no pure elements in this world. Most every thing is observably composed of multiple different elements and relations.
What is “reality”? Did you test it? Or are you just assering this thing called “reality”? What does “reality” look like? How do you have such a firm grasp on “reality”?
The scientific method, for instance, was corrupted by the Nazis, wasn’t it? Um… no. The Nazi ruled German government made many scientific breakthroughs, but they mixed it with a cult like mentality to do horrible things. NAZISM is a religion like any other.” That is precelyse my point. Science was used for ethically dubious purposes. I bet if you were being experimented on you would think the science the Nazis were practicing was pretty corrupt.
What is “free thinking”? Free from what?
The point is, I guess, trust is why I follow in the way of Jesus. Who do you trust?Trusting in a magical being may make you feel better. Believing in Heaven may make dying easier for some. None of that makes it REAL though.”
Do you not trust your doctor? Do you believe his diagnoses? If so, that is trust and trust, in those terms, is observable. When he defines your ailment as the flu, you act in accordence with his word. How is that “magical”?
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
What does “scientific observation” and “testing”
supposed to mean? Have you tested “testing” to see if it is
a valid arbiter of claims? What if “testing” is biased?
You obviously have no idea what the scientific method is. There
can be no bias if it is reproducible by any other human on the
planet. 2+2 is 4 no matter what you point of view…
Are
you also suggesting that, historically speaking, all belief systems
prior to the development of the scientific method were superstition?
YES!!!! Sometimes these superstitions are correct. Common sense
is a precursor to the scientific method, so guess what, sometimes
they are correct. If you shoot arrows randomly in a forest you might
hit a deer now and then.
Have you tested “rational” to see if that is something you should adhere to or believe in? Did you really just type that? LOL
First you say this…I have come to see him (Jesus) as a sign post pointing toward a way of living, a way of relating to myself, my neighbors, friends, enemies and, my God.
THEN YOU SAY…
I don’t take the Bible as “real”
either. Nor do I think God is “real.”
Which is it???????
Most every thing is observably composed of multiple
different elements and relations. You just answered you own
question. lol
Do you not trust your doctor? Do you believe his
diagnoses? If so, that is trust and trust, in those terms, is
observable. When he defines your ailment as the flu, you act in
accordence with his word. How is that “magical”? You
are saying Jesus is as real as a Doctor I can go see Monday morning.
um.. what?
trust is why I follow in the way of Jesus. No
one even knows if Jesus existed! How can you compare trust in him to
a medical doctor…. thats like… OH I TRUST IN ZEUS AS MUCH AS MY
DOG CATCHER.
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
What does “scientific observation” and “testing” supposed to mean? Have you tested “testing” to see if it is a valid arbiter of claims? What if “testing” is biased? You obviously have no idea what the scientific method is. There can be no bias if it is reproducible by any other human on the planet. 2+2 is 4 no matter what you point of view…
Enlighten me. What is the scientific method? How does reproducibility prevent bias? Can’t all those that believe 2+2=4 be biased? Would you say that 2+2=4 is a logical or empirical truth?
Are you also suggesting that, historically speaking, all belief systems prior to the development of the scientific method were superstition? YES!!!! Sometimes these superstitions are correct. Common sense is a precursor to the scientific method, so guess what, sometimes they are correct. If you shoot arrows randomly in a forest you might hit a deer now and then.
How do you know that common sense is aprecursor to the scientific method? Did you test that claim? Do you mean that commonsense was nonexistent before the scientific method?
Have you tested “rational” to see if that is something you should adhere to or believe in? Did you really just type that? LOL
Yes, I did write it. Did you answer it? No. Have you tested rationality? Have you seen reationality?
First you say this…I have come to see him (Jesus) as a sign post pointing toward a way of living, a way of relating to myself, my neighbors, friends, enemies and, my God.
THEN YOU SAY…
I don’t take the Bible as “real” either. Nor do I think God is “real.”
Which is it???????
Did I claim Jesus was “real”? No. Did I claim Jesus was real? No. You should read more closely. What is problematic about seeing Jesus as a signpost and claiming that Jesus is not real? Explain yourself.
Do you not trust your doctor? Do you believe his diagnoses? If so, that is trust and trust, in those terms, is observable. When he defines your ailment as the flu, you act in accordence with his word. How is that “magical”? You are saying Jesus is as real as a Doctor I can go see Monday morning. um.. what?
No. I’m asking if you trust your doctor. Do you? I didn’t say doctors are real and I didn’t say Jesus is real. I’m asking if you trust others.
trust is why I follow in the way of Jesus. No one even knows if Jesus existed! How can you compare trust in him to a medical doctor…. thats like… OH I TRUST IN ZEUS AS MUCHAS MY DOG CATCHER.
If you act on the words of Jesus or if you act on the words of your doctor, you trust. It’s only a matter of who you trust.
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
How does reproducibility prevent bias? DO YOU REALLY NOT
UNDERSTAND THIS?
How do you know that common sense is a
precursor to the scientific method? Did you test that claim?
Do you mean that commonsense was nonexistent before the
scientific method? Precursors come BEFORE their antecedents.
REALLY… Cmon.. you have to be just making stuff up now… HOW COULD
YOU MAKE SO LITTLE SENSE?!?
You keep asking me if I have
tested everything. I don’t have to test the theory of aerodynamics to
buy a ticket to fly to London. I know airplanes fly because THERE
THEY ARE IN THE SKY!
As for the whole TRUST argument. I would
trust Jesus if I saw him make fish and walk on water, not once but
many times. Doctors cure people. We know this from trial and error.
Really.. I cant debate you anymore. Your not even making sense. Good
luck finding GOD from some possibly imaginary SIGNPOST mystic from
some backwater city nearly 2 thousand years ago.
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
How does reproducibility prevents bias? DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?
Since you apparently understand it so well, why don’t you explain it to me?
How do you know that common sense is a precursor to the scientific method? Did you test that claim? Do you mean that commonsense was nonexistent before the scientific method? Precursors come BEFORE their antecedents. REALLY… Cmon.. you have to be just making stuff up now… HOW COULD YOU MAKE SO LITTLE SENSE?!?
Still, how do you know that commonsense is a precursor to the scientific method? Why don’t you explain? All that you have done is make assertions. I’m asking you to go further and explain. ALL CAPS doesn’t explain anything.
“You keep asking me if I have tested everything. I don’t have to test the theory of aerodynamics to buy a ticket to fly to London. I know airplanes fly because THERE THEY ARE IN THE SKY!”
I’m not asking you to test aerodynamics. I’m asking you about specific claims that you have made. Have you tested these claims or not? Chances are you haven’t tested any of these claims. You’re just being loud and assertive with little warrant behind your claims.
“As for the whole TRUST argument. I would trust Jesus if I saw him make fish and walk on water, not once but many times. Doctors cure people. We know this from trial and error. Really.. I cant debate you anymore. Your not even making sense. Good luck finding GOD from some possibly imaginary SIGNPOST mystic from some backwater city nearly 2 thousand years ago.”
You’re not debating me. Your making assertions that remain unexplained and untested.
Check out my class website. It may help you explain all these things to me: http://sites.google.com/site/internationalrelationsresearch/
Re: Can a Christian Support War?
Be your yes yes and your no no. Should a Christian support any type of war or violence? My answer is a big NO.
Jesus called to love even our enemies. How can we love someone and consent to kill it. You do not hurt what you love.
We should conquer the world to convince them to void all type of armies and weapons of destruction. It may sound too ideal and maybe ridiculous, but now with the globalization, there is a chance.
No believer should enrol into any type of human army.
Jesus die without defending himself. This is the power of believing in eternal life. If our faith is real, we need to put it to work.
One step back
Before jumping headlong into this issue, can I suggest stepping back a bit and giving some thought to the more general question of what sort of stance an emerging church should take with regard to issues of this nature. I think we need to be careful that we do not simply revisit all the old arguments about war and pacifism, which were thoroughly explored (though not on this website particularly) at the time of the war in Iraq. It’s not that the old arguments aren’t relevant - it’s that I think we should be looking for a different framework within which to explore them. Fundamentally, we have to keep asking ourselves, What is the purpose of the church in the world? I was struck recently by the post-Babel ‘political’ context within which God calls Abraham. I’m sure this will be read in different ways, but the point remains: I don’t think we can discuss moral and political questions like this properly if we don’t keep the ‘vocation’ of the people of God in view.
I also think it’s worth registering the fact at the outset that Jesus advocated a policy of non-violence for the people of God as they confronted the reality of an oppressive pagan military presence in Palestine. This does not provide a straightforward analogy for the situation of the believer in a modern democratic state confronted with complex internal and external conflicts. Jesus could recommend non-violence because he believed that God would vindicate (and raise from the dead) those who trusted in him as an alternative way (the only way) through the crisis of the end of the age. A secular state does not have that hope - we are dealing with a very different game and the same rules don’t necessarily apply.