|
Post by What Hat on Feb 15, 2015 6:49:36 GMT -5
I also advocate strongly for peace, as does Obama and the US government. The Good Samaritan parable is about a man who helped someone in need in a situation that others considered "not their problem". Do you think an innocent man kept at Guantanamo is in need of a 'Good Samaritan' according to the criteria we find in the parable? Either a UN or African Union led force should go in. The USA won't do Boko Haram unilaterally in any case. ISIS will be multi-nation and some will be Arab nations. As I've mentioned before, I endorse this. Your question is better framed in terms of a renegade US helicopter attack on an Iraqi village where there would be a large number of collateral civilian casualties. If I had a rocket launcher would I use it? No one is attacking any of our villages militarily. (I'm not implying the US disregards collateral casualties, this is hypothetical). Perhaps a better example - would I personally use lethal force to stop 'My Lai' if I was there. The answer is too long to type right now.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 15, 2015 13:32:32 GMT -5
I also advocate strongly for peace, as does Obama and the US government. The Good Samaritan parable is about a man who helped someone in need in a situation that others considered "not their problem". Do you think an innocent man kept at Guantanamo is in need of a 'Good Samaritan' according to the criteria we find in the parable? Your "innocent man" being held at Guantanamo has informed against his Al Queda buddies and is now largely there for his own protection. I expect he will be released in the next couple of years when the authorities figure out how best to resettle him with witness protection in place.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 15, 2015 13:54:01 GMT -5
If you saw Boko Haram or ISIL going into a Memmonite village to murder the inhabitants, and you had the means to kill the attackers to save innocent Mennonite lives, would you do it? Nigeria has been asking for US combat soldiers and military advisors for a year now, to prevent further Boko Haram atrocities. Would you prefer US neutrality or US involvement in Boko Haram's war? www.wsj.com/articles/nigerian-president-wants-u-s-troops-to-fight-boko-haram-1423850893Either a UN or African Union led force should go in. The USA won't do Boko Haram unilaterally in any case. ISIS will be multi-nation and some will be Arab nations. As I've mentioned before, I endorse this. Your question is better framed in terms of a renegade US helicopter attack on an Iraqi village where there would be a large number of collateral civilian casualties. If I had a rocket launcher would I use it? No one is attacking any of our villages militarily. (I'm not implying the US disregards collateral casualties, this is hypothetical). Perhaps a better example - would I personally use lethal force to stop 'My Lai' if I was there. The answer is too long to type right now. The UN is held hostage by Russia's Veto, and the African Union is chaired by the tyrant Robert Mugabe. That's like the Good Samaritan saying "I'll help, but only with the collaboration of the priest and the Levite".
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 15, 2015 15:35:32 GMT -5
George Orwell said what he said because while his personality was formed in school around Jesus' words, he had to reconcile them to the heady and bloody, revolutions and wars during his lifetime. Last I checked, humanity is still mired in head games and war games. Jesus had to reconcile them to the heady and bloody wars around him also. He went with those words all the way to the Cross remember. The friends position also is supposedly against war, refusing to kill, and yet in some cases, those principles can be set aside. I'm struggling with that inconsistency. If you keep a broomstick around for unwanted intruders, you concede the necessity or merit of a standing army. Orwell was saying at length that the idealism of Jesus cannot be reconciled to this world. I wonder if this world stands any chance of transitioning to true peace and prosperity or if its judgment will come third-party as it were, unwanted, rude, and abrupt just as scripture suggests.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 15, 2015 15:54:29 GMT -5
If you keep a broomstick around for unwanted intruders, you concede necessity of a standing army. Orwell was saying at length that the idealism of Jesus cannot be reconciled to this world. I wonder if this world stands any chance of transitioning to true peace and prosperity or if its judgment will come third-party as it were, unwanted, rude, and abrupt just as scripture suggests. The message of Jesus is for individuals, rather than groups or nations.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 15, 2015 16:07:10 GMT -5
So "every knee" shall not in fact "bow before me". [Him]
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 15, 2015 17:00:50 GMT -5
Do you think an innocent man kept at Guantanamo is in need of a 'Good Samaritan' according to the criteria we find in the parable? Your "innocent man" being held at Guantanamo has informed against his Al Queda buddies and is now largely there for his own protection. I expect he will be released in the next couple of years when the authorities figure out how best to resettle him with witness protection in place. You don't seem to understand that the "innocent man" couldn't have "informed " on something he didn't know!
He was innocent all along, -so why was even taken into detention to start with?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 15, 2015 21:02:25 GMT -5
Your "innocent man" being held at Guantanamo has informed against his Al Queda buddies and is now largely there for his own protection. I expect he will be released in the next couple of years when the authorities figure out how best to resettle him with witness protection in place. You don't seem to understand that the "innocent man" couldn't have "informed " on something he didn't know!
He was innocent all along, -so why was even taken into detention to start with?
He and his friend were the two top al Qaeda informants at Guantanamo.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 15, 2015 21:04:43 GMT -5
So "every knee" shall not in fact "bow before me". [Him] Jesus didn't say every knee would bow before him.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 15, 2015 21:56:55 GMT -5
So "every knee" shall not in fact "bow before me". [Him] Jesus didn't say every knee would bow before him. The quote is attributed to the lord. Depending on your stand regarding the concept of the trinity it could have been the words of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 15, 2015 22:08:34 GMT -5
Jesus didn't say every knee would bow before him. The quote is attributed to the lord. Depending on your stand regarding the concept of the trinity it could have been the words of Jesus. Don't drag me into that. We were talking about Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 15, 2015 22:13:21 GMT -5
The quote is attributed to the lord. Depending on your stand regarding the concept of the trinity it could have been the words of Jesus. Don't drag me into that. We were talking about Jesus. I am not dragging anyone into anything. I simply pointed out that the quote was attributed to the lord. I have no idea whether you consider Jesus to be your lord or not.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 15, 2015 23:03:23 GMT -5
Don't drag me into that. We were talking about Jesus. I am not dragging anyone into anything. I simply pointed out that the quote was attributed to the lord. I have no idea whether you consider Jesus to be your lord or not. Which lord are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 15, 2015 23:24:24 GMT -5
Paul reiterated it. From Isaiah 45:23
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 16, 2015 1:40:13 GMT -5
I have a feeling this thread is about to take another turn.
Here are just a few verses among many about Jesus being Lord.
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 8:39
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1 Corinthians 1:2
unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1 Corinthians 1:9
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 8:6
but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1 Corinthians 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Philippians 2:11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 16, 2015 10:33:21 GMT -5
I am not dragging anyone into anything. I simply pointed out that the quote was attributed to the lord. I have no idea whether you consider Jesus to be your lord or not. Which lord are you talking about? How about the one mentioned in Romans 14:11? Or the one referenced by Paul - Isaiah 45:23. Of course, in Isaiah it is actually the lord speaking and in the preceding verse fully describes just who the lord thinks s/he is: ...there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. That does seem to leave Jesus out of the equation but I will leave it up to the believers to determine who is and who is not their lord/saviour/god and the rest of the divine details.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2015 16:47:01 GMT -5
Do you think an innocent man kept at Guantanamo is in need of a 'Good Samaritan' according to the criteria we find in the parable? Your "innocent man" being held at Guantanamo has informed against his Al Queda buddies and is now largely there for his own protection. I expect he will be released in the next couple of years when the authorities figure out how best to resettle him with witness protection in place. Given that there are or were hundreds of innocent detainees at Guantanamo, who requires a Good Samaritan as advocate: the prisoner or his captor?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2015 16:51:30 GMT -5
Your "innocent man" being held at Guantanamo has informed against his Al Queda buddies and is now largely there for his own protection. I expect he will be released in the next couple of years when the authorities figure out how best to resettle him with witness protection in place. You don't seem to understand that the "innocent man" couldn't have "informed " on something he didn't know!
He was innocent all along, -so why was even taken into detention to start with?
He fabricated everything he said under torture, and we're to believe he was a top informant. What does this tell you about how effective Guantanamo was in obtaining information?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2015 16:59:35 GMT -5
Either a UN or African Union led force should go in. The USA won't do Boko Haram unilaterally in any case. ISIS will be multi-nation and some will be Arab nations. As I've mentioned before, I endorse this. Your question is better framed in terms of a renegade US helicopter attack on an Iraqi village where there would be a large number of collateral civilian casualties. If I had a rocket launcher would I use it? No one is attacking any of our villages militarily. (I'm not implying the US disregards collateral casualties, this is hypothetical). Perhaps a better example - would I personally use lethal force to stop 'My Lai' if I was there. The answer is too long to type right now. The UN is held hostage by Russia's Veto, and the African Union is chaired by the tyrant Robert Mugabe. That's like the Good Samaritan saying "I'll help, but only with the collaboration of the priest and the Levite". Don't give up your day job for foreign policy analyst. The point is that the UN and other international organisation's provide a way of legitimizing any incursion, and also airing of various vested interests to prevent broader resentment and hostilities. UN, NATO and AU forces have been effective in many conflicts around the world.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 17, 2015 11:42:56 GMT -5
If you keep a broomstick around for unwanted intruders, you concede necessity of a standing army. Orwell was saying at length that the idealism of Jesus cannot be reconciled to this world. I wonder if this world stands any chance of transitioning to true peace and prosperity or if its judgment will come third-party as it were, unwanted, rude, and abrupt just as scripture suggests. The message of Jesus is for individuals, rather than groups or nations. You mean his message wasn't for the Jews or for the Levites or for the Pharisees? I think he always told it like it was, group or no group. Christians who support the war mongering efforts of the nations of which they are citizens are two-faced, IMO. There are times I believe that your country should clearly be supported in a time of war, when fighting off an oppressor, like the conquering Nazi's. But do you think a Christian German should have stood with Adolf Hitler, or do you think they should have resisted in any way they could? Should a Christian German have just said, oh, Jesus' words weren't meant for my country, they're just meant for me and my private little world. So I don't need to help those Jews around the corner that are disappearing. I'll just mind my own business. Do Jesus words mean that? If so, they are empty words. What applies to a military oppressive state doesn't translate to America today. There is an element of justice in America's foreign policy. But not universally so; justice lies in the balance, and it's important for people to know what America is doing. Some things are good, some are not. But when it comes to Guantanamo and how the prisoners were treated are you going to say, at the judgement seat, oh, I just assumed that because the US was spending $2.4 million per prisoner per year that they must be handling things okay. I didn't need to look into it any more than that because your words weren't meant for that situation. I'll hasten to add that as individuals our scope is limited, and we can't personally solve the world's problems and clearly Jesus realised that too. In Jesus day, nothing could be done about the Romans; Israel was a defeated, conquered nation and that had to be accepted. Jesus was very concerned about the hypocrisy and injustice of the ruling Jews of the day; and he spoke against it. John the Baptist spoke against Herod, and paid for it. But, for our part, we do have the ability to vote, at minimum, and the policies of the right wing often appeal to the fears of the electorate, aid vested interests to the point of oppressing the downtrodden and poor, and help the rich get richer.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2015 14:11:34 GMT -5
The message of Jesus is for individuals, rather than groups or nations. You mean his message wasn't for the Jews or for the Levites or for the Pharisees? I think he always told it like it was, group or no group. Christians who support the war mongering efforts of the nations of which they are citizens are two-faced, IMO. There are times I believe that your country should clearly be supported in a time of war, when fighting off an oppressor, like the conquering Nazi's. But do you think a Christian German should have stood with Adolf Hitler, or do you think they should have resisted in any way they could? Should a Christian German have just said, oh, Jesus' words weren't meant for my country, they're just meant for me and my private little world. So I don't need to help those Jews around the corner that are disappearing. I'll just mind my own business. Do Jesus words mean that? If so, they are empty words. What applies to a military oppressive state doesn't translate to America today. There is an element of justice in America's foreign policy. But not universally so; justice lies in the balance, and it's important for people to know what America is doing. Some things are good, some are not. But when it comes to Guantanamo and how the prisoners were treated are you going to say, at the judgement seat, oh, I just assumed that because the US was spending $2.4 million per prisoner per year that they must be handling things okay. I didn't need to look into it any more than that because your words weren't meant for that situation. I'll hasten to add that as individuals our scope is limited, and we can't personally solve the world's problems and clearly Jesus realised that too. In Jesus day, nothing could be done about the Romans; Israel was a defeated, conquered nation and that had to be accepted. Jesus was very concerned about the hypocrisy and injustice of the ruling Jews of the day; and he spoke against it. John the Baptist spoke against Herod, and paid for it. But, for our part, we do have the ability to vote, at minimum, and the policies of the right wing often appeal to the fears of the electorate, aid vested interests to the point of oppressing the downtrodden and poor, and help the rich get richer. There is more in your post that I can respond to effectively in this way but I'll try... The following are the words of John the Baptist, but I think Jesus would have taken a similar approach: He didn't instruct the tax collector and soldier to leave the employ of the Roman Occupation, but rather to behave as an individual with integrity while working in those roles. I don't recall any time that Jesus or JB condemned the Roman Government or called for it's overthrow. Have you seen the following movie? If not I highly recommend it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzrAW-0zb8cThis Polish woman saved 2,500 Jewish children (with the help of others). People like her are my heroes - not the "peacenik" anti-war movement of the 1930s that encouraged the free world to stand by and appease Hitler and his buddies. I also applaud men like Winston Churchill (in spite of all his faults) who militarily stood up to the evil of Fascism. This courageous woman saved 2,500 Jewish kids with great difficulty but it was only a drop in the bucket. What the world needed was courageous people a decade earlier standing behind powerful (yet imperfect) militaries to prevent such a murderous ideology from getting traction.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 17, 2015 15:28:38 GMT -5
You mean his message wasn't for the Jews or for the Levites or for the Pharisees? I think he always told it like it was, group or no group. Christians who support the war mongering efforts of the nations of which they are citizens are two-faced, IMO. There are times I believe that your country should clearly be supported in a time of war, when fighting off an oppressor, like the conquering Nazi's. But do you think a Christian German should have stood with Adolf Hitler, or do you think they should have resisted in any way they could? Should a Christian German have just said, oh, Jesus' words weren't meant for my country, they're just meant for me and my private little world. So I don't need to help those Jews around the corner that are disappearing. I'll just mind my own business. Do Jesus words mean that? If so, they are empty words. What applies to a military oppressive state doesn't translate to America today. There is an element of justice in America's foreign policy. But not universally so; justice lies in the balance, and it's important for people to know what America is doing. Some things are good, some are not. But when it comes to Guantanamo and how the prisoners were treated are you going to say, at the judgement seat, oh, I just assumed that because the US was spending $2.4 million per prisoner per year that they must be handling things okay. I didn't need to look into it any more than that because your words weren't meant for that situation. I'll hasten to add that as individuals our scope is limited, and we can't personally solve the world's problems and clearly Jesus realised that too. In Jesus day, nothing could be done about the Romans; Israel was a defeated, conquered nation and that had to be accepted. Jesus was very concerned about the hypocrisy and injustice of the ruling Jews of the day; and he spoke against it. John the Baptist spoke against Herod, and paid for it. But, for our part, we do have the ability to vote, at minimum, and the policies of the right wing often appeal to the fears of the electorate, aid vested interests to the point of oppressing the downtrodden and poor, and help the rich get richer. There is more in your post that I can respond to effectively in this way but I'll try... The following are the words of John the Baptist, but I think Jesus would have taken a similar approach: He didn't instruct the tax collector and soldier to leave the employ of the Roman Occupation, but rather to behave as an individual with integrity while working in those roles. I don't recall any time that Jesus or JB condemned the Roman Government or called for it's overthrow. Have you seen the following movie? If not I highly recommend it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzrAW-0zb8cThis Polish woman saved 2,500 Jewish children (with the help of others). People like her are my heroes - not the "peacenik" anti-war movement of the 1930s that encouraged the free world to stand by and appease Hitler and his buddies. I also applaud men like Winston Churchill (in spite of all his faults) who militarily stood up to the evil of Fascism. This courageous woman saved 2,500 Jewish kids with great difficulty but it was only a drop in the bucket. What the world needed was courageous people a decade earlier standing behind powerful (yet imperfect) militaries to prevent such a murderous ideology from getting traction. Whoa, whoa. It wasn't the peaceniks that stood against involvement against Hitler. It was the entire USA, who did not involve themselves until Pearl Harbour, i.e. when they themselves were under threat. They did not enter the War in order to protect the Jews; perhaps you've heard of the Voyage of the Damned. I too admire Winston Churchill and people like Corrie ten Boom and others. The Muslims of today are simply the pre-WWII Jews. They are enduring more and more persecution in the West. The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution. I believe that it will only get worse, and we need to look out for the interests of Muslims and preserve freedom of religion. Certainly there are oppressors in the Muslim world, but there are far more that are oppressed in that world. We should be cautious that we attack or remove the oppressors in that world, and protect the oppressed. But we don't do that. Instead we say things like, "all Muslims are evil because they all read the Koran, and look at what the Koran says". To me that is perpetuating prejudice against all Muslims and not in the least beneficial to the oppressed Muslim. As far as Jesus not wanting to overthrow the Romans. I said that; you must have missed it. It wasn't feasible to overthrow the Romans. That doesn't mean he supported the Roman conquest. There is a wide range of interpretation on how we separate the "world" from our communion with the Spirit or Christ. Everything from "don't mind me while I sit and stare at my navel" to "Jesus, the original Che". Personally, I like the adage, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". In fact, that's fairly profound doctrine conveying the essence of what Jesus taught.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2015 15:44:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 17, 2015 15:51:23 GMT -5
The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution. I would very much like to have an opportunity to review the specific evidence and the bill of particulars that support this declarative statement! Please share all of the reliable (ie not social media buzz) information and data you have to support this contention!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2015 17:25:53 GMT -5
It's time for Westerners to get their heads out of the sand.
Islamist fanatics have already started WW3. Appeasement and apportioning blame won't solve the problem.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 17, 2015 17:42:17 GMT -5
So fixit, what do you suggest is the answer to all of this?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2015 18:14:45 GMT -5
So fixit, what do you suggest is the answer to all of this? Accept that Islam is not just a religion - it's a political movement that is incompatible with democracy. Muslims in Western societies have to accept our democratic traditions or go live in an Islamic hell-hole where democracy is despised. We have been far too tolerant with respect to hate speech and Islamic leaders actively preaching for the destruction of our values. The Abbott government is working towards a clampdown: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/18/hizb-ut-tahrir-braces-ahead-of-abbotts-promised-security-clampdownThe following should not be tolerated in a peace-loving democracy like Australia:
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 17, 2015 19:32:26 GMT -5
So fixit, what do you suggest is the answer to all of this? Accept that Islam is not just a religion - it's a political movement that is incompatible with democracy. Muslims in Western societies have to accept our democratic traditions or go live in an Islamic hell-hole where democracy is despised. We have been far too tolerant with respect to hate speech and Islamic leaders actively preaching for the destruction of our values. The Abbott government is working towards a clampdown: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/18/hizb-ut-tahrir-braces-ahead-of-abbotts-promised-security-clampdownThe following should not be tolerated in a peace-loving democracy like Australia: So, if we stop the free speech of this man, NOT his actions, mind, just his speech -just where & with whom do so you stop other people from speaking?
Which is the next group which won't be allowed to speak?
Would you please give me an answer as to who should not be allowed to speak?
Perhaps a worker in a basically all Catholic country? or a worker in a non-Christian country like China?
I really want to know where you would draw the line & not allow someone to speak.
|
|