tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19465889.post8215062812217373619..comments2023-03-21T08:18:49.648-07:00Comments on Trinitarian Don: Is War the Enemy?Professor McConnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12555772215539761119noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19465889.post-75904073409379845842007-03-27T09:11:00.000-07:002007-03-27T09:11:00.000-07:00I don’t see why you associate my position with gre...I don’t see why you associate my position with greed. Preparation for defense is expensive and has very high opportunity costs. It makes life less comfortable for everyone. War is bad for economies and corporations as well as people. The problem is that in a world were human nature is both unchanging and destructive apart from the intervention of God, human evil must often be opposed and checked by force. <BR/><BR/>There is nothing wrong with “working for peace.” But we must work for justice too. It is just that in a world with people like Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, etc. working for peace alone does not always work.<BR/><BR/>As for Jesus pacificism, Jesus planned to be, and was killed in our place to satisfy God’s just wrath against human destructiveness. Jesus was on a mission to die in our place, and that mission required non-resistance. When Jesus returns to judge the world, he will use force. Jesus used force to clean out the temple. Jesus, even in the Sermon on the Mount, did not reject the judicial use of force. Jesus never was critical of the several Roman soldiers who professed faith in him. The Bible teaches in Romans that human government is supposed to be the representative and forerunner of God’s justice. To do so, government must use force. <BR/><BR/>Neither the teaching of Jesus nor the rest of the Bible opposes all use of force, nor do they claim the solution to human evil is to renounce the use of force for good or to abandon distinctions between good and evil.<BR/><BR/>Jesus and the Bible reject selfish force – the use of violence to further our own individual interests and rights. It demands the use of just force to defend and protect others. Jesus told individuals to turn the other cheek when struck. Jesus did NOT say “when you see a bully beating an innocent person, do not interfere; for the bully is innocent in his own eyes and driven to his deeds but a bad environment.” That is the sentiment of our time, but not of Jesus or the Bible.Professor McConnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12555772215539761119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19465889.post-40070044159830056172007-03-27T02:57:00.000-07:002007-03-27T02:57:00.000-07:00Well, I would have expected a little better cognit...Well, I would have expected a little better cognition of the teaching of Jesus from you, considering how you promote yourself. But oh well, can't have His words getting in the way of secular political positions, now can we? <BR/><BR/> You seemed to skirt the issue of the pacifism of Jesus while you upbraided mere humans for the selfishness of their own pacifism. He could have helped those crucified along side of him or did you conveniently happen to forget that? Now that pacifism of Jesus was one neat trick there, quite a neat trick, don't you think? Considering Jesus knew right well he had eternal life during His Passion and Crucifixion but no human possible could know that with such certainty. So what you call "selfish" in mere human beings would be the ultimate offering of faith, a faith that burned so bright that it would burn away mortal life; yet you would call that "selfish?" Sure smells like an attack on pacifism because you just happen to like the war the pacifists are currently against.<BR/><BR/>Of course war is the Enemy. But your attempt to wrap it in swaddling clothes as a defense against other aggressions is a weasel-way to ignore what madness warfare is in the 21st century. <BR/><BR/>Attempts to mollify aggressions without resorting to armed conflict ought to be done with the same fervor, devotion, and commitment a soldier or nation itself employs for battle. But you don't seem to think it is important enough to spend your time pursuing peace as an alternative to making war, 'cause it just happens and you can't ignore it? What a sad attitude. What a gallant belief you appear to have in humanity. <BR/><BR/>It is quite a peculiar pessimism you have in your fellow man, more akin that atheist HL Menken then any man of Christ I know.<BR/><BR/>But then again perhaps we know different Christs?<BR/><BR/>I don't see anything of God in your writings and believe your secular beliefs cloud your view on war. It is as if your desire of mammon is your starting point and you move entirely to protect that regardless of the spiritual conflict and inconsistencies it brings. You use the imprimatur of Christianity as moral fig leaf to hide your true intention.<BR/><BR/>You seem to rationalize war as a logical response to aggression without calling for a total integration of life devoted pursuing peaceful ways of living; and you refer to yourself as a Christian? <BR/><BR/>How so? Its pretty obvious from your other writings, so don't bother, you use an alleged "Christian" stance as mere prop to sustain secular positions of a modern-day greed-head Pharisee. I consider that a true blasphemy of the spirit.<BR/><BR/>I am not a pacifist, nor would I call myself a Christian. Likely, I would sock you right in the nose for an offense, but I do have faith in a spark of godliness in the human heart that believe peace is greater than war and that if we work hard enough for peace whatever god there is will show us the way to a peace that resides in the spirit of the Creator of the universe.<BR/><BR/>But then again, there ain't much money in that sort of belief system, so likely it wouldn't be much to your liking.<BR/><BR/>Too bad, because in that lies the message Jesus taught.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19465889.post-75867917120097520082007-02-05T23:33:00.000-08:002007-02-05T23:33:00.000-08:00I read your article and I felt I should comment.
...I read your article and I felt I should comment.<br /><br />I agree that it is probably close to impossible to eradicate war, but aiming at this idea (the eradication of war) is something that every generation should commit themselves. There will be failures (we are only human), but a minimal amount of bloodshed should always be the aim. I doubt we exist on this earth to just keep killing one another. I agree with you that no one should have bad ideas forced on them. The best we can hope for is to live our lives as examples to others and hope they take the lead themselves. <br /><br />It is sad that many people do not spend time to think about the values that they live by, and how their value system can harm others. Your views, though molded by the christian religion, must in the end rest in your hands. Obedience without self-analysis is a cowards path. As with all great battles, the battle begins with ourselves.<br /><br />Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all share one person in common. Abraham. He is the father of all of these monotheistic religions. <br /><br />Nimrod is sometimes portrayed as the antithesis of Abraham. If this is true, then we can assume he would have issue with all three of these religions. Nimrod was not a godless man, he just had contempt for god. In the end his Babylon failed not due to lack of effort, it just grew too large for one arrogant man to command. I guess if someone wanted to re-build Babylon they should start with a fleet of well trained translators to make sure that communication did not become a problem. ;-)Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00448086863016915654noreply@blogger.com