Christianity- the Good Life

[jacknky]

To me Liberal anybody are those who accept the inherent worth of ALL human beings, not just those who are like us or who we like.

[Acumen]

I wasn't really talking about liberals, but okay.   

[metis]

Do you not think WWII that stopped Hitler was justified?

Good question, but it's a difficult one for me to answer.  To a certain extent I think it's "justified" in that I do believe that the oppression of people needs to be opposed.  What I don't know, however, is whether the use of active non-violence would have worked, even though there are a couple of cases whereas we saw that it did work.

One is when the NAZI's got caught murdering patients in nursing homes and hospitals that were sick or/and elderly.  People protested publicly, and the NAZI's apologized and stopped the practice on their own people.  Another example is that the Germans threatened to invade Sweden, but the Swedes, who made the highest quality steel and ships in Europe and, therefore, were an enticing target, stated that they would blow up their own factories if invaded and then the NAZI's would have to deal with 7 million very uncooperative Swedes.  The Germans never invaded.  As one who was brought up Swedish/American, let me tell you we really can be very stubborn!  Another example is that when the Germans were getting ready to invade Bulgaria, which they eventually did, the Cardinal in Bulgaria told his people not to cooperate and turn others in.  The end result was there was not a single Jew killed by the NAZI's there.

Now, what if all of Europe had tried these tactics, would have it prevented the NAZI occupations and bloodshed that occurred there?  I don't know.  

And, if can add two other examples, the Norwegian teachers and the Finnish response to the Soviet invasion after WWII used quite successfully some of the Gandhian tactics, as well as the civil rights movement here in the States with MLK and Caesar Chavez, the latter of which I actually had the privilege of talking with personally.  

[jacknky]

Acumen, is that picture you? You're a handsome dude.

[metis]

  This passage suggests that involving ourselves in society is practically unavoidable, and there is no reason to suppose that we are to deprive ourselves from mechanics of government.

I'm gonna have to be very brief, so please pardon my brevity.

I agree with the above.  Gandhi often said that anyone who believes in a complete separation of "church" and state doesn't really understand religion.  And I'll add that they really don't understand politics as well.  The question then begs how much separate should they be, and I don't think there's necessarily an easy answer to that question.

The goal of Christianity is spiritual - involves practicing holiness and attaining salvation.  There is nothing noted in the NT that we are obligated to protect ourselves, but rather we are taught to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies.  These precepts aren't intended to eliminate suffering, but to endure it with character. 

To me, Jesus' teachings went well beyond just the spiritual and also dealt with society as a whole.  The Sermon on the Mount, for example, deals extensively with how we are to treat others which goes beyond just mere spirituality.  And if we "turn the other cheek and to love our enemies" as you mentioned, then does that leave room for the use of deadly violence against others?  It appears not, and the early church did not allow its adherents to join any military force or activity (early church records indicated that some policing actions were allowed around the end of the 2nd century if my memory was correct, but military force was not allowed until Constantine).


 

The goal of government is to protect us from harm.  These two goals aren't the same, and therefore Christian principles ought not be applied to government policy based upon the misunderstanding that it's the right thing to do.

 

I don't see how one can suddenly abandon the teachings set by Jesus simply if one joins a group.  At the least it seems that a believer in Jesus would not be part and parcel to certain activities even if the government mandated it.  And what if the majority of people are Christian living in a democratic country?  
    

Christianity is based upon the gospel message of faith, love, and hope in a resurrection unto salvation.  If Christianity were applied to government policy, then there really is no need for government is there? 

The early church had an internal political order to it.  Nowhere do I see Jesus saying that there should not be a government, whether it be dealing with "the Way" or with secular government.  But there have been so many times in history whereas Christians had to choose between following what the political leaders told them to do versus what their understanding of Jesus' teachings told them to do, and it's just exactly this friction that created so many martyrs.

Gotta go for now.  Take care.  

[metis]

Acumen, is that picture you? You're a handsome dude.

You're kidding?  We need to put this to a vote.

[Acumen]

Acumen, is that picture you? You're a handsome dude.

You're kidding?  We need to put this to a vote.

I knew if I put my picture up, I would get some prodding. 

[jacknky]

Well, where's the scary looking dude who strikes fear in the hearts of liberals?

[Acumen]

Who, Magneto from X-men?  I was getting tired of him, I figured I would go with a picture of mine for a while, then I move on to something else.     

[Beautiful_Dreamer]

Acumen, is that picture you? You're a handsome dude.

I already told him that!

I don't have many pictures of myself, as I am not photogenic AT ALL! Here is one of me when I was thinner...a way I am working on becoming again...

[Acumen]

The goal of Christianity is spiritual - involves practicing holiness and attaining salvation.  There is nothing noted in the NT that we are obligated to protect ourselves, but rather we are taught to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies.  These precepts aren't intended to eliminate suffering, but to endure it with character. 

To me, Jesus' teachings went well beyond just the spiritual and also dealt with society as a whole.  The Sermon on the Mount, for example, deals extensively with how we are to treat others which goes beyond just mere spirituality.  And if we "turn the other cheek and to love our enemies" as you mentioned, then does that leave room for the use of deadly violence against others?

That's what I meant when I said "living holy."

It appears not, and the early church did not allow its adherents to join any military force or activity (early church records indicated that some policing actions were allowed around the end of the 2nd century if my memory was correct, but military force was not allowed until Constantine).

Okay, but I would suggest that this point is relatively moot until we can determine WHY earlier Christians didn't join such forces or in such activities. 

The times have changed most significantly from then.  Unlike then, today's culture is one of pride, patriotism and personal ownership.  During the time of pre-Constantine Rome, the Roman government was perceived as an mortal enemy to The Way.  They were not a representation of the Christian populace by any means.  This may very well be the reason why Christians washed their hands of politics. 

The goal of government is to protect us from harm.  These two goals aren't the same, and therefore Christian principles ought not be applied to government policy based upon the misunderstanding that it's the right thing to do.

 

I don't see how one can suddenly abandon the teachings set by Jesus simply if one joins a group.  At the least it seems that a believer in Jesus would not be part and parcel to certain activities even if the government mandated it.  And what if the majority of people are Christian living in a democratic country?  

   

I didn't say that individuals ought to abandon their faith-based principles.  I said such principles shouldn't be crystallized into government policy based upon the premise that it's the right thing to do. 

Government policy is not meant to save souls from eternal damnation, be altruistic, or meant to turn the other cheek.  If government were installed for such purposes, then I would agree that Christian principles ought to be governmentalized for the betterment of society.  Instead, government is mean to protect us from harm by any means necessary.  If one mistakenly takes Christian values and infuses it into the function of government, both systems will be compromised. 

However, the betterment of society is both spiritual and physical.  If one exclusively practices one at the expense of the other, life will not be beneficial for anyone.  There must be a balance. 

A Christian can still participate in government positions.  Let's take a look at President Bush because he is a self-avowed Christian.  Do I think that being a Christian is contradictory to being the Commander in Chief?  Not necessarily.  I believe that a Christian can function as a President by doing what is best for the nation in terms of national protection, even if it involves bombing a village to save the state. 

The bible tells us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies.  The precept that underscores these actions is one of self-sacrifice.  However, as a father, one wouldn't participate in self-sacrifice if that means allowing harm to come to your child.  Here, we have a conflict of interest between one's personal Christian practices and one's duty as a good father.  This is the interplay between the spiritual and the secular. 

I think the real question is "would you have sacrificed the better part of yourself IF there was no present conflict of duty?  If the answer is yes, then one's action is not a contradiction to one's Christian precepts because one's heart is in the right place regardless.     

This, by any means, is not an easy issue to discuss.

[Faithfulee]

This is a silly discussion in light of what we know

Religions should not run civil governments.  Thank God for the prescience of the founder of this Government.

Islam is focused on running governments and for that reason alone it is worth the fight against seeing these governments form.  I prefer peaceful action as in Turkey today rather than the warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,  and other parts of the world where Islamists are attempting to control government and run under Sharia law.

In face of these realities, I would NOT want a US president who would put his religion before his civic duty as Commander in Chief. 

It is a problem worldwide because large segments of the Muslim population will kill to see sharia law  govern the land in which they live.

Christianity is the good live because a Christian can engage in US politics, either as Democrats or Republicans.

And most importantly for me, is that I and my liberal Christian wife can live the good life.  We can enjoy this wonderful land of America where at every meal we thank God that he has graced us to live here.  And we conclude with prayers for peace and those working for peace, although we don’t always agree on the specific actions. 

God Bless America

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"...today's culture is one of pride, patriotism and personal ownership."

This is an honest question. I thought pride was a "sin" in Christian theology but it seems to have been transformed into a virtue by some Christians. They're "proud" to be an American when it seems to me we ought to be thankful we've been born into a wealthy country.

[metis]

That's what I meant when I said "living holy."

Thanks for the clarification because I wasn't exactly certain what you meant by that.

Okay, but I would suggest that this point is relatively moot until we can determine WHY earlier Christians didn't join such forces or in such activities.

Actually we do know why because the 2nd and 3rd century patriarchs wrote a great deal.  However, there wasn't always universal agreement as to how much force could be used under varying situations, but the overall pattern is that they did not allow their congregants to be involved in military conflict.  

Unfortunately, my sources all have been donated to a couple of libraries.  But let me just mention two that I'm sure cover this, and one is "The First Christians" by Martin Marty (Lutheran), and another is "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican).  Also, William Barclay (Anglican) covered that as well, but I can't remember which of his books it's found in.  Please note that these are not theologians who come from the "peace churches", so their analysis is not self-serving.  Hanson's book, if you can find it, is the best of the lot because it's so well documented.  I never should have parted with it.

 

Instead, government is mean to protect us from harm by any means necessary.  If one mistakenly takes Christian values and infuses it into the function of government, both systems will be compromised. 

However, the betterment of society is both spiritual and physical.  If one exclusively practices one at the expense of the other, life will not be beneficial for anyone.  There must be a balance.

I don't agree with the "any means possible" position.  That, to me, is having the ends justify the means, which is the antithesis of most religions, including Christianity.  But with saying that, I do agree that a "believing" President may find himself at wit's end attempting to balance out his believes when that may conflict with attempting to defend all Americans since not all of us may believe as he does.

 

 

I believe that a Christian can function as a President by doing what is best for the nation in terms of national protection, even if it involves bombing a village to save the state. 

Again, I have a problem with that, even though I'll be the first to admit that there will almost always be "collateral damage" in any armed conflict.  If we are so willing to risk our lives to defend ourselves, then what's wrong with risking one's life in not using the same tactics that the enemy is using?  Now, by saying that, what I am NOT saying is that we should just lie down and play dead by taking whatever anyone does to us without so much as a response.

This is the interplay between the spiritual and the secular. 

But is there really a separation between the two?  If we agree that one cannot have a complete separation of church and state, is there really a difference to one who is a believer?  Can I realistically divorce what I do on the Sabbath or the Lord's Day from what I do on Monday?    


     

This, by any means, is not an easy issue to discuss.

I agree.  And please realize I am playing a bit of devil's advocate with you here since this issue of non-violence and self-defense has plagued me for decades now.  

About 20 years ago, a friend of mine who's a deacon in the Baptist Church asked me, if I was President, and I was just informed that we were under a full nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, would I launch a counter-attack?  I said that I probably would.  He looked at me angrily and asked how could I as a Christian do something that would undoubtedly kill millions of people, the vast majority of which are totally innocent?  

I then realized he was right-- I couldn't.

[Acumen]

Okay, but I would suggest that this point is relatively moot until we can determine WHY earlier Christians didn't join such forces or in such activities.

Actually we do know why because the 2nd and 3rd century patriarchs wrote a great deal.  However, there wasn't always universal agreement as to how much force could be used under varying situations, but the overall pattern is that they did not allow their congregants to be involved in military conflict.

I would be interested in seeing some of their works on the subject.  It would be quite enlightening.

Instead, government is mean to protect us from harm by any means necessary.  If one mistakenly takes Christian values and infuses it into the function of government, both systems will be compromised. 

However, the betterment of society is both spiritual and physical.  If one exclusively practices one at the expense of the other, life will not be beneficial for anyone.  There must be a balance.

I don't agree with the "any means possible" position.  That, to me, is having the ends justify the means, which is the antithesis of most religions, including Christianity.  But with saying that, I do agree that a "believing" President may find himself at wit's end attempting to balance out his believes when that may conflict with attempting to defend all Americans since not all of us may believe as he does.

You may not agree with it, but the federal government will approach issues of our protection on a "ends justify the means" philosophy, especially when it involves non-American lives.  Suppose that that the FBI caught wind that terrorists hijacked a commercial airplane loaded with passengers and were intending to crash it into a football stadium during a game.  Now suppose the terrorist managed to bring heavy explosives with them that would magnify the reach the airplane's final impact.  Do you believe that our Air Force would shoot the commercial flight out of the sky or do you believe they would risk the death of tens of thousands of bystanders?  I think they would remove it from the sky.

I believe that a Christian can function as a President by doing what is best for the nation in terms of national protection, even if it involves bombing a village to save the state. 

Again, I have a problem with that, even though I'll be the first to admit that there will almost always be "collateral damage" in any armed conflict.  If we are so willing to risk our lives to defend ourselves, then what's wrong with risking one's life in not using the same tactics that the enemy is using?  Now, by saying that, what I am NOT saying is that we should just lie down and play dead by taking whatever anyone does to us without so much as a response.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

This is the interplay between the spiritual and the secular. 

But is there really a separation between the two?  If we agree that one cannot have a complete separation of church and state, is there really a difference to one who is a believer?  Can I realistically divorce what I do on the Sabbath or the Lord's Day from what I do on Monday?  

 


Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at.  I think there is a separation.

This, by any means, is not an easy issue to discuss.

I agree.  And please realize I am playing a bit of devil's advocate with you here since this issue of non-violence and self-defense has plagued me for decades now.  

About 20 years ago, a friend of mine who's a deacon in the Baptist Church asked me, if I was President, and I was just informed that we were under a full nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, would I launch a counter-attack?  I said that I probably would.  He looked at me angrily and asked how could I as a Christian do something that would undoubtedly kill millions of people, the vast majority of which are totally innocent?  

I then realized he was right-- I couldn't.

That's a tough scenario.  I think intention lies at the heart of morality.  IF one would not have otherwise made a decision that causes harm to multitudes of people, but only did so as a function of one's position in government keeping the protection of one's citizenry as a top priority, I don't believe such a decision is immoral.  The bottom line is a president must choose the lessor of the evils, but it involves choosing an evil.  And perhaps, one's availability of choices renders the lessor evil to be no evil at all? 

[Faithfulee]

[About 20 years ago, a friend of mine who's a deacon in the Baptist Church asked me, if I was President, and I was just informed that we were under a full nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, would I launch a counter-attack?  I said that I probably would.  He looked at me angrily and asked how could I as a Christian do something that would undoubtedly kill millions of people, the vast majority of which are totally innocent?  

I then realized he was right-- I couldn't.

Good thing you were not president.  Proves my point that a President should not be a religious office but a political one.

[metis]

Do you believe that our Air Force would shoot the commercial flight out of the sky or do you believe they would risk the death of tens of thousands of bystanders?  I think they would remove it from the sky.

Oh, I agree that they would, and in a case like this, a religious concept, "the doctrine of the lesser evils", could be invoked.  Whether or not this should be done is another matter, although I drift in the direction that it should be done.

This is the interplay between the spiritual and the secular. 

But is there really a separation between the two?  If we agree that one cannot have a complete separation of church and state, is there really a difference to one who is a believer?  Can I realistically divorce what I do on the Sabbath or the Lord's Day from what I do on Monday?  

 


Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at.  I think there is a separation.[/quote]

So, the minute one becomes a politician, religious morality goes out the window?  So, politicians can do whatever they like as long as the good old U.S.A. is protected?  The NAZI's taught such a concept, and I really don't believe that this is what you're really trying to say.  Yes, I do agree that a politician is not there to just represent his/her own beliefs but, OTOH, I do think they have to have some moral paradigm to work from other than just patriotism.  I think you'll agree with that, no?     

But what if the majority in the country were to believe using deadly violence is wrong?  Then what would you propose?

That's a tough scenario.  I think intention lies at the heart of morality.  IF one would not have otherwise made a decision that causes harm to multitudes of people, but only did so as a function of one's position in government keeping the protection of one's citizenry as a top priority, I don't believe such a decision is immoral.  The bottom line is a president must choose the lessor of the evils, but it involves choosing an evil.  And perhaps, one's availability of choices renders the lessor evil to be no evil at all? 

But nuking the Soviet Union would not protect our own citizens because there is no way to stop the in-coming missles.  Retaliation would be just that, and millions of innocents would be killed.  Do you honestly believe that's the right to do?

[metis]

Good thing you were not president.  Proves my point that a President should not be a religious office but a political one.

Some think Jimmy Carter could not retaliate with nukes under that scenario but, because he never stated as such, it would leave any potential enemy not knowing what might happen if they did attack.

Your response reminds me of an incident when I was teaching adults converting into the church, whereas one potential convert was working at a used car lot, and he was encouraged to especially push cars known to be defective.  When he refused to do so, his boss, who often made it quite clear that he was a "born again" Christian, told him that he had to separate his religious beliefs from his job.  The potential convert, who was very much bothered by that response, finally quite because of his conscience. 

So, what I see you posting above reminds me of that boss who seemingly doesn't much have a desire to apply his religious beliefs to his work.  IOW, as long as I can make money, to hell with morality.  Do you actually believe that?       

[Lilly]

I don't think a Christian who believes in the God of the Bible can say that God is a pacifist who opposes war.  As leader of Israel, God required military service of his people and led them into war.  This was a part of the covenant God made with his people - Deuteronomy 20.  Jesus upheld the Law and the Prophets.  The difference is that Christians are a part of a different covenant that is not about one nation of people and does not dictate to us concerning such things as military service and war.  Christians are citizens of all nations and some of those nations require military service and some of those nations go to war.  I see no problem with Christians taking part in that under the authority of the nation they are a citizen of.  Such authority is given to each nation by God. It seem to me that God uses the nations and sets them against one another to keep men from becoming too evil.  After all, he's the one who separated the people giving them different languages and he's the one who spread them throughout the earth. 

I also have no problem with a Christian as President of the US.  I prefer it.  I wouldn't want to see a Hindu or Buddhist take over the presidency and run this country according to his belief in karma and karmic retribution.  I don't believe in either and think that to base policy on such a belief would be disastrous.  I think a Christian president can lead his nation to war if he believes it's justified, just as God led his people to war.  A Christian knows he will ultimately answer to God for his actions and how well he carried out his duty as president and that restrains him.  It has nothing to do with the lesser of two evils, but has to do with what you believe is the right in the job God has given you to perform.  If you're given the job of president of a country and are in charge of protecting the people of that country, then to fail to do so is to fail to do what is right.  The President of a country is not given the job of being God.  He is only given the job of being president of one country.

[jacknky]

"I also have no problem with a Christian as President of the US.  I prefer it."

That's probably because you're a Christian and in the majority.  but good Christian presidents and legislators were perfectly able to justify slavery, segregation and the genocide and stealing of native American lands. Plus it is very possible for politicians to be publicly pious and and personally have twisted values. I say look at what a politician does not what he/she says including their religious espousal.