|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 11 users and 68 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 9:30am.
Hopefully this will clarify a thread from about two weeks ago. It might raise more questions or even make my position a bit more murky. I really don't know whether I believe in all of this ("defending the empire"), but I've been thinking about it a lot lately. Originally, I began thinking about it when Drew asked why I would join the military if the basic purpose today is to serve as a force for imperialism. Norm then responded to something along the lines of "it doesn't matter if the United States is an empire or not," he would still fight for it. Maybe the real question in the world today isn't whether the United States is an empire, because that much is evident. In order to resemble a republic, it would probably require a lot of internal armed conflict. But maybe the question is: How are we going to use our empire? At any rate, here's my longest contribution to OlyBlog. Not really insightful as far as new information but I think it should shed a little light on my thinking process. At the very least, this is how I feel warfare should be executed, regardless of our country carrying the title of empire or republic. Conflict between Men has been taking place since The Beginning. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all tell the story of Cain and Abel which ultimately resulted first murder in human history. Therefore, eliminating conflict entirely is simply not plausible. The goal is not to eliminate conflict but rather aim toward winning the conflict in the most honorable way possible. Jus in Bello, or “Justice in War,
| |
Great post
Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 9:45am.That said, I'm blown away by this line:
Quite the sentence there. Are you being at all sarcastic and I'm not picking up on it, or are you stating this as fact?
I'm stating it as a fact.In
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 10:43am.I'm stating it as a fact.
In this context, "destory" would mean militarily. You can destory a foreign system through economic means. I think many would argue "McDonaldization" is doing just that.
Total War
Submitted by Sarah on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 4:57am.Quote by Roger Chickering used in Total War article in Wikipedia
Yes, I do agree that this is
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 5:08am.Yes, I do agree that this is the quickest way to end an armed conflict.
Quickest = best?
Submitted by Sarah on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 9:50am.I think the quickest is what
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 11:48am.I think the quickest is what we owe to ourselves. The thinking behind it is that, over the long-haul, there is less suffering (as the conflict will last a short period of time versus prolonged fighting).
If we enter into an armed conflict with either Iran or North Korea, we'd better apply the Total Warfare theory if we plan on seeing the end of the conflict. I think this is the biggest problem with invading Iraq. Right now we're dealing with the weakest of the three (the "Axis of Evil").
From a strict military standpoint, they're guerillas that could be crushed with a good amount of ease on our part if we put our mind to it.
I'm going to note that at this point I'm speaking only about limiting US casualties and advancing American interests.
If we enter into a conflict with Iran or North Korea and attempt to fight the way we're doing (I can't tell you the number of horror stories I've heard. One family acquantance, a helicopter pilot for the Army, said his superior told them not to fire at targets on the ground until they had been fired at. He said you could see the guerillas putting the various missiles and mortars together that would be fired on American forces later. And then, of course, there's the debate over skipping targets in Afghanistan because they were "at a funeral." Absolutely ridiculous.), the fight might not last too long. The next quarter century should be interesting.
Oh dear
Submitted by enpen on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 9:52am.I didn't realize the various Arab nations were still under control of either the Mongolian or Greek nations. You realize that in the end you're pointing out the absolute failure of Empire building through Military domination, right?
"The United States followed a similar prescription following the Second World War, annihilating cities in Japan and Germany during the conflict but ensuring that each country would be better than it started."
Better? According to whom?
"Of course, in order to make a people realize that their system is inferior, you must destroy it."
What a horrendously homogenizing thought.
"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
This sums up a few of my
Submitted by OperaGirl on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 10:31am.This sums up a few of my thoughts better than I could have said it so I'll just say "ditto"!
"To me, it's a good idea to always carry two sacks of something when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, "Hey, can you give me a hand?" you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks.""
We seem to split into two
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 11:21am.Lots of human beings over time have believed in the theory of might makes right. That's what is being suggested here. King Arthur tried to break that down without a great deal of success.
As always, TFI and his fellow travelers state some things as fact, as basic assumptions that should be challenged such as the notion that people have always engaged in murder, war, conflict etc.
If we accept the status quo as an immutable fact we would all be British subjects. Blacks in this country would generally still be slaves, women would not have the vote etc, apartheid could never have been overturned peacefully ... on and on... it's not a very brave thing to accept stupidity, injustice, and suffering on this flimsy premise.
But the only way that some folks are going to figure it out is by engaging in imperialism. It doesn't work, it's been proved over and over, but some folks do not want to be bothered with history, preferring to repeat historical mistakes over and over.
I didn't realize the various
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 10:58am.I didn't realize the various Arab nations were still under control of either the Mongolian or Greek nations. You realize that in the end you're pointing out the absolute failure of Empire building through Military domination, right?
I was thinking defense of the Empire should be conducted through the Military, rarely employing offensive Military tactics as a way to bring more people under our umbrella of control. Putting on my imperialist hat, Iraq would be such a country.
Building the Empire should be done through various economic and trade agreements. Currency is a pretty powerful tool.
Of course, we can't stretch ourselves thin. When the borders of the Empire are too distant, the soldiers can't recognize what they're fighting for and the people at home have no concept of the price to maintain the Empire.
Better? According to whom?
Western standards.
What a horrendously homogenizing thought.
Think of it more as a form of Darwinism.
The western ayatollahs know
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 11:45am.Oooh, OOooh
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 11:51am.Your wish is granted. Look
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 4:23pm.The pro-war, total war push makes me think about the planet or this country as a boat and we have crazies in the bottom of the boat saying, it's ok. I can drill holes here. I know what I am doing. We will walk through the holes in the bottom of the boat and be greeted as liberators.
Lots of the rest of us are saying, hey wait a minute, there could be some problems with drilling holes in the bottom of the boat, but we are clearly not understanding the feeling of omnipotence that the american ayatollahs feel when they have that big drill in their hand. With this much power in your hand, how could you possibly get in trouble?
Ayatollah Norm, OC, and TFI - get that total war going, baby! Everybody, wang chung, the boys are feeling their oats.
Now that I think about it, I don't remember any of the three stooges programs ever dealing with war or battle. Did they do any war stuff or did Larry, Moe, and Curly know better?
I'm blown away
Submitted by enpen on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 1:39pm.This talk of Empire building is incredibly forgetful of history. Have you any idea what happens to the inhabitants of Empires when they fall? Has any Empire ever stood the "test of time"?
"Think of it more as a form of Darwinism."
No. I'm not sure what perverted form of evolution you've learned, but evolution is a chaotic game of chance. What you're talking about is social engineering, there's nothing environmentally responsive about it.
"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
Have you any idea what
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 2:13pm.Have you any idea what happens to the inhabitants of Empires when they fall? Has any Empire ever stood the "test of time"?
Why do we necessarily have to "fall?" The British, more or less, went into a controlled decline.
The hubris of talking about
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 4:30pm.what?
Submitted by enpen on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 4:47pm."If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
Very good post TFI and
Submitted by NWarty on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 9:54am.Nice post TFI, I'm a bit
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 10:19am.Nice post TFI, I'm a bit blown away by all of it but it actually mirrors some of my own thoughts on the subject. I love this part of the last quote:
"In war there is no substitute for victory."
Me three
Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 11:12am.I agree. I'm with my Right wing brothers here!! Oops, we aren't right wing though, we are middle of the road.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
I think the rest of us are
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 11:50am.It's a shame that so many people who have no connection or agreement with these cultural theories will have to suffer so that the current crop of imperialists can experience the limits of military power. What did Jesus have to say about the treatment of our enemies, olycop?
Our enemies in the current
Submitted by NWarty on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 11:55am.Our enemies in the current war don't take prisoners.
I wonder why not
Submitted by enpen on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 1:44pm."If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
They are enemies no matter
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 1:54pm.well yes
Submitted by enpen on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 2:00pm.If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
I didn't know we were
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 2:04pm.I absolutely agree
Submitted by enpen on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 4:35pm.I agree. This is why it's particularly reprehensibile to me that they're in that situation. What a choice we've given the men and women who signed up to "defend" our country: be a murderous invader or be dead.
"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
I think this is one of those
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 11:58am.I think an argument can be
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 6:28am.Another case - the Falkland Island War - I think the Brits lost that one. Little or no fallout except maybe the PM has less room to avoid being anything but an american lapdog.
Give this a little more thought. All conflicts, even when people take up arms do not have to escalate into total war. Cooler heads can prevail and reduce the harm and suffering.
Oh yes, we lost vietnam. I
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 6:19pm.First Principles
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 9:40pm.I'm with Fletcher Prouty on this one: The US went into VietNam to remove a major source of rice from China. When the US occupied and disrupted the agrarian southern reaches of the Mekong Delta, we set in motion an industrial city (Hanoi) to take over and rationalize the entire country in its effort to defend against us, and another city (Saigon) in the South to defend for us. The pre-war rice trade was forever swallowed by the industrial north and never went back to the prior situation: 1000 years of barter trade which had made the Mekong the rice basket of China, much like Nebraska and Kansas are our wheat / corn bowls. The fundamental equation by the way was potable water in clay pots southbound, in exchange for rice in last year's clay pots northbound.
By way of analogy, imagine if someone militarized the Mississippi River Valley, and made Minnesota into an independent country. And then Minnesota won the war, and used the wheat and corn for its own development on cash terms, rather than the simple barter system which had prevailed previously. That's what we did in VietNam. Even militarily losing the south, The US was successful in terms of forever changing the economic dynamic that previously supplied China with rice. The impact on China was not un-noticed at the time, and explains the Chinese interest in supplying weapons and training to the VietCong.
But in the terms that I have explained the VietNam war, nuking the North would have been a disaster in which we lost twice. Remember, many sweat shops which supply the world with cheap clothes are in VietNam - and most are in the North. Postwar VietNam is not a huge threat, not a pariah state, not a Cuba or a North Korea. We could not have permanently destroyed that barter trade relationship if we had reduced the industrial center of the country to a smoking ruin. We were trying to disrupt an existing agrarian trade system, not return to one after a brief hiatus.
So nuking the North only makes sense if the objective is to hold land. And the interesting thing about the US empire is that we mostly don't hold territory. We mostly hold FOBs anywhere close enough to intervene, globally. We don't actually take responsibility for upkeep most places we rule - just like modern wage slavery lets employees starve, where chattel slavery would be obliged to feed them through the winter. Call it rationalized empire. Or a more stealthy British Empire (keep in mind that the British still finance a LOT of what we do... there is a good reason their empire appeared to dwindle rather than collapse.)
In losing the VietNam war, the US spent the lives not of its elites, but of its draftees. If you're sitting at the top of the pyramid, the US did not lose the VietNam war at all. The war's aims were achieved. China's ricebowl was taken away, they had to figure something else out. We used a lot of helicopters and spent a lot of money. Heroin became plentiful and routes for shipping it back to the US and Europe opened up, making fortunes for lots of people connected to the intelligence field. Keep in mind that for the rich, a depression means cheap stocks. For the marginal, it means disaster. But for the rich, it's just a fire sale. War is the same thing.
Mike,
Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 1:05pm.I don't want this topic to become a religious one too. We have a couple going now.
I'm not a warmonger. But if you are to fight a war, I want to be crushing in the attack. Hit as hard as possible and make it quick as possible. Let the military commanders run it, and the politicans can stay out of it.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
That's your understanding of
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 4:40pm.Ok Mike
Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 5:01pm.Do we really want this to become a Christian debate?
We can shoot these questions back and forth and they are part of a good debate. But if you are going to find fault, or ask me to justify my thoughts on war, biblically, then I have one for you.
Please correct me if I'm wrong (I have no doubt you will), but I seem to remember you are for abortion, maybe drawing a line at late term abortions. What does the bible tell us about that? How about just Jesus?
I also don't agree with you that we should separate the "the red letter words" from the rest of the bible. And we shouldn't discount the old testament completely for the new covenant. Christianity is not just the new testament and just what Jesus said/taught.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
My faith informs and infuses
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 4:10am.On the abortion matter: No, I am against abortion, just like I am against owning guns. I would never want any of my family members or friends to have one. I am against outlawing abortion because just like the gun issue, if you want to have one in this land of the free, I believe you should have one. I think there are reasonable medical constraints on any procedure and I would leave those matters to the patients and doctors to sort out.
Jesus is easier to take if we can avoid his challenge by discounting the red letter message, but if you are a christian, it means that Jesus' words have special import. I know it's inconvenient. He puts a huge burden on us with his incredible message. It would be much easier to dilute and avoid the work of following Jesus by citing the whole book as you have. But that means we embrace multiple wives, incest, slavery, genocide and more. At some point you have to face and deal with the faith message of the book. The message that Jesus brought - that God's true desire was to have us love God and one another. To forgive, to turn the other cheek over and over. To give generously, to trust God to take care of us. You can avoid this message. Lots of christians do. But if you want to talk as a christian in this venue and also support total war, I will call you out as a hypocrite. A convenience christian.
"love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."
That's the charge. And you come here and support total war as a reasonable christian. Jesus got a lot of people upset in his time, by calling them out, by directing their attention to how they had lost the meaning of the faith and were only going through empty motions and demonstrations of faith. You may discount Jesus' words if they make you uncomfortable, but let me remind you that there is no version of the bible (the most commonly owned book in the world, if I am not mistaken) that has ever put any other person's words in red. It is the words and message of Jesus that have made this book so ubiquitous. Two thousand years of people pondering His message. And you come here and discount His words. Think about that.
:)
Submitted by OlyCop on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 6:28am.I'm not the one discounting, Mike. It's you that is discounting. You discount the whole bible, elevating Jesus' words above the words of his/our Father. You claim you are not a fundamentalist, yet you take Jesus' words as literal, just not the whole bible. I'm a born again, fundamentalist, Christian. I do believe the whole bible is the inspired Word of God. So I don't discount books of the bible because Jesus didn't say them. But I do take what Jesus said as the truth.
Also, you seem to think I can't love someone and pray for them, even forgive them, but still kill them if they are my enemy. I believe you can.
I support no war first. But if we are in a war, don't do it half assed. Go in, decisively and end it quick.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
I take Jesus words to
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 7:15am.I make the following distinction about fundamentalism: I think fundamentalists believe every word of the bible to be the inspired word of God. That appears to be your position also.
That means: God requires that we not sow our fields with mixed seed or let a garment of mixed linen and wool come over us. Lev 19:19
You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edgs of your beard. 19:27
The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, the adulter and adulteress shall be put to death: 20:10
The tenth day of the seventh month shall be the day of atonement. ... and any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will desttroy from among his neighbors. 23:27-30
You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your country (interesting collision with the terrorist indefinite detainment policies) 24:22
And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - from the nations around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 25:46
Numbers 31 (you will like this part TFI) 7: and they warred against the Midianites, just as the Lord commanded Moses, and they kiled all the males. ... They also burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt and all their forts... then they brought the captives, the booty, and the spoil to Moses... But Moses was angry with the officers of the army... "have you kept all the women alive?" ... "now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man... but keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man...
I will posit that a little discrimination is required in reading and following the word of God and one of the few purely loving threads in this large, rambling book are the words of Jesus.
So sayeth the Lord.
I do not believe every word
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 7:25am.I do not believe every word because it has been translated too many time to be certain of the exact wording.
So how do you know which words have been translated correctly, if any?
but keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man
If this is implying what I think it is, I disagree completely. I think rape, especially in warfare, is a terrible thing.
As I've said about the trial involving the US soldiers alleged to have raped the young girl and killed her family: Everyone directly involved in the incident should be executed (in a dishonorable fashion. Hussein was right to state at his trial that he wanted to be shot, because it is an honorable way to be executed. Hanging is for cowards and traitors) upon conviction.
We're there to win an armed conflict, not force your sexual urges on another person.
double posting this morning, computer is burping a bit
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 9:16am.How do I know what words are
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 9:18am.The chapter and verse from the bible are total war sentiments. There are verses about cutting the children from the womb of the enemy and killing the unborn children also, but I have not committed those verses to heart because I find them horrifying and not the word of God, even though those sentiments are consecrated in the book that Olycop says he believes to be the inspired word of God. When you espouse the sentiment of total war, do not express outrage later at where it leads. It means different things to different people: no prisoners, rape the women, kill the unborn children, fly airplanes into buildings - but once you let the dogs of war loose, they will run til they are leashed again.
Your sentiments and understanding of these things are those of a very inexperienced young man. It's a shame that so many bystanders are murdered by young men gaining experience.
I read
Submitted by OlyCop on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 5:32am.I read your suggested list, and find it interesting yours seems to be editorialized, and it's a bit more inflamatory. But even if it is as you have written, WHO are you to disagree with God? This is his pond, you play by his rules, or you pay the price. Because Mike doesn't like what God has comanded, you are going to ignore it?
Much of the old covenant was set aside by Christ, to include the levitical law, but not all. The guidelines that remain, the 10 commandments, don't fly in the face of this topic.
#6, Thou Shalt not Murder. Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent. Which again is non-issue in war. Romans is clear about how we can proceed, biblically, in this war and previous wars.
Forgivness, particularly the turn the other cheek, 7X70 times, does that mean literally that many times, or is Christ trying to make a point to his group that has become so legalistic?
I'm trying to take off for a family get together and this post is rather disjointed, so sorry. Becareful what you discount in the bible, it is God's word. And becareful who you find fault with, unless you are a sinless man yourself.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
It's quoted, noted where
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 6:47am.You are defensive and quibbling. You make exactly my point - Jesus said, you people got the rules all fouled up. It's simple - there are two rules: Love God with all your heart and sould and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two, hang all the laws and prophets.
The red letter Bible is profound in it's simplicity and power. It's amazing and He said, follow me. All these things and greater you will do. When shall we start?
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon...
Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?...
Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets....
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
So sayeth the Lord.
Please, no projection.
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 7:21am.I believe I cannot. I believe that Olycop believes he can.
The disconnect between words and deeds is profoundly disturbing. It is written, by a man's deeds rather than his words shall he be known.
whoops
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 7:21am.Ok, Mike, I realize you lump
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 5:07pm.TFI suggested total war is
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 4:24am.Total war. Destroying other culture and civilizations to remake them in our image. Nice post, you say. If you wish to put some space between the total war view and your own, maybe you need to distinguish yourself from the proponents of total war, and maybe stay away from the nice post response.
And of course the stooges things doesn't work without three of you, so there you are. But I love the stooges, and you seem to have a sense of humor, soo... nyawk, nyawk, nyawk. Still want to buy you that beer, but I think next monday isn't going to work for me. Maybe the week after.
rush to judgement
Submitted by enpen on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 9:04am."If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
True enough, but I like to
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 9:24am.War is Not Working
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 7:30am.I am disgusted that some of us think that the wanton destruction of human life and civil infrastructure is a valid solution to conflict. If you think that the wanton killing is a legitimate means of conflict resolution, how do you compare with terrorists who blow up civilian children who are taking handouts of candy? How do you compare with 19 hi-jackers who flew into the WTC?
"And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" (Ghandi). Can't you see?
how do you compare with
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 7:43am.how do you compare with terrorists who blow up civilian children who are taking handouts of candy? How do you compare with 19 hi-jackers who flew into the WTC?
I don't know? History would be the judge of that.
Amish Response to Shooting
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 7:35am.Here's a link to a story about it.
They didn't kill as them all
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 9:10am.I think there is no doubt
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 9:43am.I've been thinking about
Submitted by enpen on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 9:46am."If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
Twain, my hero.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 10/07/2006 - 6:09pm.Well,
Submitted by OlyCop on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 4:59am.So Mike, how do you know Jesus' words have been translated correctly over the centuries? All the rest of the book is in question, but not Jesus' quotes?
Most people believe you have to hate, or be angry with the enemy to kill them. I don't believe that is true. I believe you can love them, and certainly can pray for them, and still kill them. I will say that I pray that the extremist Muslims will back away from their hate all the time. I pray that God will soften their hearts, and open their minds. But since they hate us, want to kill us, and destroy our way of living, then if they die on the battlefield I'm ok with it.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
Same answer I gave TFI. I
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 6:05am.My heart will know when I am hearing and understanding. Like when the Amish families immediately reach out to the family of the shooter of the children. My heart and soul knows that they are embodying the Christian message of love your neighbor, love those who persecute you, love them, and then love them some more.
I appreciate that you keep engaged and talking. Your views represent a version of christianity that is anathema to me. A red, white, and blue christianity that is much more american than christian and I can be pretty harsh with folks whose understanding of the scriptures is so tainted. Jesus had that problem as well, he was pretty harsh with the Pharisees and the Saducees, he got in trouble for upsetting the tables of the money changers at the Temple.
I am a humble student of the words and call of Jesus. I claim no great understanding, but if you are interested in the study, I recommend the Jefferson Bible and the correspondence about Jesus and the bible that took place between Adams and Jefferson. If you are interested in the works of Jesus, I recommend Stephen Mitchell's "The Gospel According to Jesus."
The teachings and words of Jesus are the reason the bible is in my home and it's the reason that Opera Girl got a copy whether she knows it or not. Without the words and life of Jesus, we have no christian church or faith. The parables, the mystery, the depth, the shocking simplicity and relentless love of the words of Jesus come across in every translation that I have read. As I have said elsewhere, I like King James because the old english is poetic to me and helps me slow down and reflect. My heart will know the divine message. When the bible tells me I can't mix linen and wool in my clothing or that I can kill children, I can study and pray about that a lot, but it never moves for me. Those are not the words of the Spirit, those are the words of Pharisees, Saducees, and Levites. I wait and listen for the Spirit.
Pray and reflect on it. If the power of God was to be used to kill, even prayerfully, why would Jesus let himself be crucified? Why not smite the Romans and the Pharisees who persecuted him? Look and see if you find a single instance where Jesus killed or harmed anything. I think he used fish rather harshly, sacrificing one to produce a coin one time, feeding the multitudes, but when he was treated badly, he never struck back. He called on the Spirit to heal, to make the dead live again, to turn water into wine. He never called on the Spirit to harm anyone. He did all these amazing things, told these amazing stories, set children on his knee and set be simple, be like children, trust God, love God, love your neighbor as yourself. When he was short-tempered he worked as a man, speaking harshly, turning over tables, but he did not turn people into pillars of salt. Could he have? I don't know.
He did these amazing things, then he put the burden on us. He said follow me. All these things and greater you shall do.
Holly Near (nope, it was Amy Grant) is singing to me this moment: they will know we are christians by our love. The amish are christians, I know them by their love.
As a fellow seeker, I appreciate that you seek. I hope you may find. Let him who has ears, hear.
...
Submitted by OlyCop on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 6:55am.I appreciate your softer tone in this post, certainly more Christ like.
As far as Christ's death on the cross and his not striking back was for us. His sinless death was to pay for our sinful life. So we could stand a chance at eternal life. If he would have struck back, he would have failed in his primary mission.
I do acknowledged that I am less like the Amish than you. I commend the Amish for how they have handled this, and frankly there is no reason to not forgive the family, they did nothing in this horrible crime. As for me and if it was my child that was killed, I acknowledge it would be hard for me to forgive the killer.
But I do have a forgiving heart. I forgive those that do me and my family wrong all the time. Heck, I forgave Drew for linking my website here. Certainly not at the level the Amish are living in, but something never the less.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
We will have to agree to
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 7:16am.Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction; and there are many who go in by it. Pray on this. Read the Word. See if your the Spirit really speaks to your heart and says we can kill other people prayerfully and lovingly or if this is the wide gate, the broad way that many go in by?
I do not play at being a born-again. I am sarcastic, irreverent, too easy to anger, but Jesus knows my name, my life is His. I follow Him. I don't believe I got a free ride when he was tortured and killed and then rose again. I don't understand why that had to happen. Just like I don't understand why MLK Jr. or Gandhi were assassinated. Like Jesus, they were dangerous, they challenged the party line, they went through the narrow gate.
It scares me to hear about killing prayerfully and lovingly. I feel like it could be my fate to be a victim of that love and prayer. I will face it if it comes like an amish child without resorting to violence. I seek the narrow gate and the folks on the broad way that leads to destruction will have their story about how they loved me as they killed me. God love us one and all and he wants us to come to Him by the narrow gate, but He doesn't make us come through the narrow gate, we have to come to us like the lost sheep, like the prodigal son who gives the Shepherd/Father great joy when found.
It's not easy to turn away from violence and killing. There are all sorts of stories about why it is necessary and holy, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
I think it's really
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 9:19am.I think it's really interesting that you believe Divine Intervention took over for certain portions of the Bible but didn't quite make it through others.
I'm not going to sit here and challenge you on it, because that's your belief.
I'll say this: I don't think Jesus would want people to just walk into the slaughter. The way I'm reading your stance, it's better to walk into the gas chamber than it is to fight for yourself or your belief set.
I don't understand your
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 9:43am.Matt 22:37 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
If in doubt about the charge, about the responsibility, you can go back to those two simple commandments. I prefer to read the parables, the works, the sermons, the words of Jesus and ponder them, to think about how to do these things and greater, with the open heart, the fearlessness, and honesty that Jesus had. I read other sections of the bible and enjoy some parts, psalms, genesis etc, but if I am wondering how to live my life, I read the words of Jesus. Job was a good and faithful soul. Ruth was pretty wonderful. David could be a good man at times, but the new testament is not about Job, Ruth, Moses, Abraham, or David, the NT and christianity are about Jesus. You can take away almost any person in the bible (God, not being a person and Moses being a pretty central character in the tradition) and you still have the essential tradition, but if you remove Jesus, what do you have?
My question was simply that
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 10:14am.My question was simply that I think it's interesting you believe one portion of the bible is largely irrlevent and, as you went as far to say, wrong ("translated incorrectly").
But yet an entire other portion of the bible managed to survive human translation, error, etc. I understand what you're saying when I asked how you know which parts have been translated correctly, I just don't know whether I agree with it or not.
But since it's not my belief set, it doesn't matter whether I agree or not. I'd never quite heard a stance like yours (the most common I hear is that the Old Testament has been wiped away by the New, but that doesn't mean the Old was translated wrong. Just that Jesus made it more of a Christian history than anything else).
read carefully. I don't
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 12:00pm."I take Jesus words to heart. I do not believe every word because it has been translated too many time to be certain of the exact wording."
The original language would have been aramaic, if I am not mistaken. It's a dead language. Early scriptures arrive to us in Greek and other languages. Then the english versions are translated through study of the early texts in numerous languages. The meaning is probably intact, but a fundamentalist view that each and every word is the word of God is foolish imho.
TFI asked: So how do you know which words have been translated correctly, if any?
I replied "I pray on these things and then I pray some more. My heart will let me know the truth when I am still enough to hear the Spirit speak to me."
now you say: My question was simply that I think it's interesting you believe one portion of the bible is largely irrlevent and, as you went as far to say, wrong ("translated incorrectly").
Nope, never said that. It's all relevant. All of the text is subject to the translation question. I can't/don't know which parts are correctly or incorrectly translated.
Olycop said But even if it is as you have written, WHO are you to disagree with God? This is his pond, you play by his rules, or you pay the price. Because Mike doesn't like what God has comanded, you are going to ignore it?
And of course, the answer is I am a simple soul with God-given free will. God wants us to be ourselves and I don't understand his reasons for giving us free will. Except that several stories in the bible tell about the joy of the shepherd/father over the return of the lost sheep or the prodigal son.
The question raised is whether God wants us to kill another person? Whether he finds that good in his sight? Whether, if we do it prayerfully and lovingly, as olycop has suggested, it is ok with God and in keeping with a christian way of life?
This is a powerful and important question. For the first several hundred years of the Christian church, it was understood that christian faith did in fact require pacifism.
The following quotes are pulled from the article Can a Christian be a Pacifist? Spirituality Today from 1986. It's a pretty good article. I recommend it if you are really trying to understand the historical, theological, and spiritual basis for the proposition that war and christianity are not compatible.
Yale church historian Roland Bainton writes, "From the end of the New Testament period to the decade 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army. All of the East and West repudiated participation in warfare for Christians." Guy F. Hershberger adds, "it is quite clear that prior to about AD 174 it is impossible to speak of Christian soldiers." None of the Christian leaders in the pre-Constantinian era (ca. 313) approved of a military career for disciples of Jesus Christ.
Many early writers spoke of this pacifism. Tertullian wrote, "The divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword."(1) About 240, Origen wrote, "You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers."(2)
Justin Martyr wrote about the year 160, "We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for ploughshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness to men, faith, and the expectation of the future given to us by the Father himself through the Crucified One."(3) Twenty years later, Athenagoras asked, "How can we possibly kill anyone, we who call those women murderers who take drugs to induce an abortion, we who say they will have to give an account before God one day! We are convinced that with God nothing goes unexamined, and that the body, after serving the irrational urges and lusts of the soul, will have its share in punishment. We have, therefore, every reason to detest even the slightest sin."(4) Hippolytus (ca. 218) states that soldiers who become Christians are not allowed to kill and must refuse to obey orders to kill. He also says that judges who want to become followers of the Christ must resign or be rejected by the church.(5)
Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, and some other "peace churches" generally adhere to the early view regarding warfare and christianity. I am quaker. I don't know for certain about the other peace churches, but individual quakers have carried weapons in most wars, and the greater quaker community has usually respected the individual decision even as the community has held to its peace testimony.I have not yet seen a war in which I would pick up a weapon. And the concept of a total war as you suggest is an abomination to me, so I am called to speak to that.
I think you (TFI) represent the secular community, an american with no particularly strong connection to any faith tradition. Maybe you like to think of yourself as a good christian and good american.
I think Olycop represents the mainstream christian community who have embraced the notion of just war, have rejected the church's early teachings and the teachings of Jesus which did in fact not make allowance for the idea of a christian soldier. When Jesus said, render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, he held a coin with Ceasar's image. Then he said render unto God, that which is God's.
I understand my soul to be God's gift to me. I render that to God. If the state wants my money, they can have it. If they want my soul, through coercion, through warfare, they cannot have it. That I reserve to God.
I will try to live up to the charge not to fear those who can kill my body over these issues.
Matthew 10 from the Man himself
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 11:08am.When they persecute you in this city, flee to another...
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 9:23 If anyone desires come afer Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever destires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost?
I know this is hard to understand, but the belief set to be protected is that we do not strike or hate or murder our enemies. Even if that means they persecute and abuse you. The words and teachings of Jesus are clear on this. He carried the cross on his shoulder and let himself be tortured and murdered. This from a guy who had raised the dead, calmed the storms, walked on water, healed the sick, turned water into wine. He never raised a hand in his own defense.
I agree that Jesus would not want us to walk into our own slaughter. He said be wise as serpents, be harmless as doves. Flee to the next town, but if caught and cornered, don't fear those who can kill the body, fear those who can kill the body and soul.
Never said
Submitted by OlyCop on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 7:16pm.I never said that we are relieved from following his teachings. But I'm sure you fall short everyday, just as I do.
I'm confident that Jesus would not want us to let our enemies to run us over and not fight back.
Even Jesus displayed a warrior spirit. In Matt 10:34, he says "do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword".
In Revelation, John the revelator saw Christ coming back in great glory and with power and judgement. And what about God the Father, he is going to pass judgement on many, and condemn them to eternal suffering, worse than war.
As for killing prayerfully and lovingly. Lets just say you are drunk and disorderly downtown. You have just beat your wife, and I arrive to arrest you. You decide you aren't going to jail, and the fight is on, (you pick the level of force used on you). Do you think that if I taze you, or use a baton on you, or maybe even shoot you, that I do that out of anger? You think I can't pray for you after, or even love you? I believe I can. In fact I have prayed for some that I have arrested.
Like both TFI and I have pointed out, you don't get to pick and choose the parts of the bible you like and ignore the ones you don't.
Given the size of heaven, and the numbers of people in the world currently and since the begining, many will not make it.
"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.
Happy killing to you both.
Submitted by Mike on Mon, 10/09/2006 - 5:25am.Assumptions
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 2:15pm.Your assertion that War has its own logic is quite correct, however. And it is important to acknowlege that within the terms of that logic, War is neither moral nor immoral. It is Amoral. (It is without moral consideration.) The internal rules of the 'game' are that it seeks victory (the end of all effective resistance) and victory only. But victory over whom? And for what purpose? It is here that we can search for moralities.
The central question then, is what are the objectives of war, and what are the unintended consequences of war? If we can say we have noble reasons to prosecute a war, it hardly matters what they are if we reduce the planet to an irradiated cinder capable of supporting some lichen and bacteria, but little else. It is this fundamental question that humanity faces in our generation.
We cannot fight unlimited warfare in an age when nuclear weaponry can unleash more ionizing radiation than our genome can absorb without sterilization. We have to limit warefare in this sense, absolutely. And that leads to ridiculous situations where the US, which has produced the more deadly stockpile of nuclear weapons and has actually used them against civilians twice in War and several times in Peace, threatens to invade and remove the regime in control of Persia so that they cannot achieve any measure of the same power, no matter that it would amount to a tenth of one percent of "our" own firepower. (I put the term 'our' in quotes there because I have no control at all over the deployment or disposition of these weapons.)
In the objective sense, I should be all for the removal of yet another regime which seeks the augmentation of natural uranium to levels capable of sustaining a chain reaction. But in the political context, I know that the removal of Iran's nuclear capability is the edge of the problem, a chip off of the iceberg. And I know that I live within 100 miles of enough nuclear arms to annihilate all mammals larger than a cat. Forever. And that if I pay taxes, they will in part build more such weapons.
If you're going to argue Darwinism, how on Earth can you argue that unlimited warfare in this context is survival-selecting? Even the production and storage of these devices kills people - witness the toxic waste stream and the incidents such as the one at Chernobyl. Over the long term, nuclear energy and weaponry are already extincting the species without any further use of the actual devices in warfare. But they are doing so very slowly, by resource pollution and area denial. And we're helping this by using some waste (Depeted Uranium) as a subsequent ammunition. That stuff is toxic just as a heavy metal, and we've seeded the entire Southern Reach of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers with it. Dust storms will blow these particles into the lands far beyond the original areas of deposition.
So I cannot see any possible morality to over-ride the fundamentally genocidal nature of nuclear technology. There is no moral good which can outweigh existence itself - the ultimate morality is life itself, and the continued consciousness of that life. If we take a course which could reasonably result in extinction, that course cannot be moral.
The central lesson of Protestantism is that it is better that a man read for himself what words have come down to us in the scriptures, than it is to be beholden to a priesthood, a mediator, bewteen Man and his Creator. That is the fundamental spark of democracy. That is where that comes from. But it is this lesson which Empire discards - which Empire tramples beneath its boot. When we eschew the course which lets all men and women choose for themselves, when we remove all choices another might make by ending their life, or ending their independent associations (governments, cooperatives, families) through economic or military means, we throw away that lesson of democracy. It is then that we throw the will of God into our own pocket and we make her decisions for her. She will not look kindly on such heresy. She will likely start over again.
This is why I say no - Empire is not moral.
Holy crap you guys took this
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 6:15pm.There is nothing so
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 10/08/2006 - 7:00pm.Winner Eventually Lose in Wars
Submitted by Crusty on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 1:33am.Eventually, everyone is the
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 4:40am.Eventually, everyone is the loser. Every nation, whether it's a republic, empire, dictatorship, or any other form of government, will experience a decrease in power and influence.
It's simply a matter of how many pegs you get knocked down.
blah