Jester;788610 wrote: I'm not one to squelch the idea, but its been roughly 7000 years, and at best we've only had pockets of peace. I few minutes of time if 7000 years was a 24 hour clock.
The best approach is by God to individual hearts, but man has so far corrupted what God originally designed and belives so much of his own deluded lie that I do not believe we will see a peace movement till his return. It doesnt negate the fact that some will believe and be saved in the process, those persons alwasy have peace in the heart.
It is entirely possible to keep peace, and live in peace and be engaged in total and actual mortal combat at the same time. It depends on which side your fighting for.
So man has made no progress since the stone age and will make no progress until God comes back to say we're allowed.
Where is free will now? Unless we strive for peace we go nowhere and deserve nothing. Sitting back and saying we must have war until God comes again is totally wrong - how do you square that attitude with the teachings of Jesus? How do you justify it morally?
We are responsible for our actions - if our actions are to make war then we are guilty.
Peace
Peace
I understand the op as world peace and if that were the case personal peace would be much easier. It is the kind of peace that Jesus spoke of when commenting on the kingdom of God which is to begin here on earth.
If we do nothing to strive for peace than we will have no chance of attaining it. It may not come even if we try but it most certainly won't come if we do nothing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If we do nothing to strive for peace than we will have no chance of attaining it. It may not come even if we try but it most certainly won't come if we do nothing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Peace
Jester;793808 wrote: Given mans track record, I doubt there will be any time in which we have world peace, before christs return.
Free will is still where its always been, feel free to be peaceful, so will I until I'm pressed on then my peaceful way is over. I call it basic self defense. A totally moral concept, if you'd like to bend over and take it like an infidel dog then be my guest. i will fight.
I will go to my maker perfectly willing to accept all my acts of war.
Your attitude appears to be that, because Adam and Eve committed the original sin there is no point striving for peace because God will not grant it until He returns.
If God has condemned us to continual war then we have no free will.
If God has not condemned us to continual war then we are morally bound to do everything we can, both at a governmental and at a personal level, to achieve peace.
Free will is still where its always been, feel free to be peaceful, so will I until I'm pressed on then my peaceful way is over. I call it basic self defense. A totally moral concept, if you'd like to bend over and take it like an infidel dog then be my guest. i will fight.
I will go to my maker perfectly willing to accept all my acts of war.
Your attitude appears to be that, because Adam and Eve committed the original sin there is no point striving for peace because God will not grant it until He returns.
If God has condemned us to continual war then we have no free will.
If God has not condemned us to continual war then we are morally bound to do everything we can, both at a governmental and at a personal level, to achieve peace.
Peace
I have no problem with self defense. However, we are also told to love our enemies and be kind to those who hate us. This raises some interesting questions.
Setting that aside, I have a problem with the idea that all men are born evil. For myself and many others that is simply a futile attempt to explain evil in the world every bit as much as the invention of Satan is.
If God is all of those "omni's" than it would only make logical sense that he would have created a perfect human and bestowed upon him/her the complete desire to follow him. If man somehow went "bad" then God did not create a perfect human. The human He created was flawed. Heaven forbid but some even became homosexual. LOL
Humans are the product of their environment, culture, upbringing, genetic code, etc. We are not perfect as humans and never were. Nonetheless we are the creation of God.
I also have a problem with a God who would punish the children for the misdeeds of their parents. This is hardly justice. It is pure vindictiveness. "The parents pissed me off so I'm going to take it out on the whole family and all the future generations.
I have a problem with a God that would tell the Hebrew soldiers they had to kill every man woman and child but could keep the virgins for themselves. This is not justice. This is immoral as all war crimes are.
I have problems with a loving, just and perfect God who would first of all kill all the first born of the Egyptians and then sit in utter delight as supposedly thousands of Egyptian soldiers were drowned in the sea.
Do these honestly come from the God who gave us the famous "Ten" especially after He has said that we were not to commit murder? No these do not come from the God that I see manifest in one Jesus of Nazareth. These are but an attempt, like the crusades, to commit murder and atrocities in the name of God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Setting that aside, I have a problem with the idea that all men are born evil. For myself and many others that is simply a futile attempt to explain evil in the world every bit as much as the invention of Satan is.
If God is all of those "omni's" than it would only make logical sense that he would have created a perfect human and bestowed upon him/her the complete desire to follow him. If man somehow went "bad" then God did not create a perfect human. The human He created was flawed. Heaven forbid but some even became homosexual. LOL
Humans are the product of their environment, culture, upbringing, genetic code, etc. We are not perfect as humans and never were. Nonetheless we are the creation of God.
I also have a problem with a God who would punish the children for the misdeeds of their parents. This is hardly justice. It is pure vindictiveness. "The parents pissed me off so I'm going to take it out on the whole family and all the future generations.
I have a problem with a God that would tell the Hebrew soldiers they had to kill every man woman and child but could keep the virgins for themselves. This is not justice. This is immoral as all war crimes are.
I have problems with a loving, just and perfect God who would first of all kill all the first born of the Egyptians and then sit in utter delight as supposedly thousands of Egyptian soldiers were drowned in the sea.
Do these honestly come from the God who gave us the famous "Ten" especially after He has said that we were not to commit murder? No these do not come from the God that I see manifest in one Jesus of Nazareth. These are but an attempt, like the crusades, to commit murder and atrocities in the name of God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Peace
jester:-6
The God often portrayed in the OT is not the God of justice and compassion. I continue to say that we cannot describe or define the true essence of God but we can see the activities of God in the world.
I do not believe for one moment that the God who said we were not to commit murder or the God we see manifest in Jesus of Nazareth would in any way condone the murder of the first born, the war crime of both murder and rape. or punish the children for the actions of their parents. This is not justice or compassion by any definition. If God is like this than he is nothing more than and ancient mythological monster like the cyclops or the minotaur. This is an ancient concept.
You have ignored those in your reply.
You yourself have said that God causes the rain to fall on the unrighteous as well as the righteous. I wonder why. Could it be that He knows something we don't?
God could have created us perfect with perfect free will.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The God often portrayed in the OT is not the God of justice and compassion. I continue to say that we cannot describe or define the true essence of God but we can see the activities of God in the world.
I do not believe for one moment that the God who said we were not to commit murder or the God we see manifest in Jesus of Nazareth would in any way condone the murder of the first born, the war crime of both murder and rape. or punish the children for the actions of their parents. This is not justice or compassion by any definition. If God is like this than he is nothing more than and ancient mythological monster like the cyclops or the minotaur. This is an ancient concept.
You have ignored those in your reply.
You yourself have said that God causes the rain to fall on the unrighteous as well as the righteous. I wonder why. Could it be that He knows something we don't?
God could have created us perfect with perfect free will.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Peace
Jester;794419 wrote: Not at all.
To what does your "not at all" relate?
If it is to "If God has condemned us to continual war then we have no free will" as it would appear from your follow up then you must be wrong.
If we have continual war because of the selfishness and evil of some men then that is not due to God's condemnation. If, however, it as you appear to say and God will not grant us peace until He returns, then that is despite our wishes and negates our free will.
Jester;794419 wrote: Free will gives us opportunity to choose how we will live, either following God or following our own will, just two choices on the shelf as my dad always says.
How do you see war as "following God"? How does it tie in to the teachings of Jesus?
Jester;794419 wrote: Liberty, I have liberty to do anything I want, but some things have negative consequences. I can follow everything that is goodly in the bible and reap great benifits and the fact that Christ died to set me free from my obligation to sin allows me the abilty to choose right everytime.
As you say, some things have negative consequences - the negative consequence of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq if the radicalisation of whole Muslim populations rather that a few fanatics.
Jester;794419 wrote: However, there are few, even with the abilty to choose right all the time that do it. So consequently in this world, there is a great amount of evil, mostly in the form of selfishness, and there's one thing about this world right now, and that is that even the Godly are affected by the evil around us.
The fact that most people chose the wrong option some of the time does not make them evil - selfishness is not evil, it is a human weakness. To condemn people as evil for not being perfect is not Christian.
Jester;794419 wrote: My peace is first internal, knowing that no matter what, all things work out for good, even though it may appear unfair at first, my strength in peace comes form the fact that living rigtheously in God that no good thing will be withheld. So that when calamity comes... (earth quake, tornado, war by ungodly vermin) I know that he will not allow me to loose my soul, everything else he gave me in the first place, its His to do with as He wills it.
Oh to use a military term you dont, the evil in this world somtimes causes 'collateral damage'...
You are talking two different animals here. There's the peace of the soul that comes from internal balance and there is peace, the lack of conflict, in the external world. A person can be at peace with himself in the midst of battle or can be in spiritual turmoil in the most serine and peaceful location.
Jester;794419 wrote: The sun also rises on the just and the unjust, so does the rain cleanse the land, so can the rain and wind scrape the earth flat tearing everything off of it, the goodly man living next to the ungodly man are affected simultanously.
War will come because of free will and selfish men, we have an obligation to protect our families, and our country. If we can avoid it we should, but once the die is cast, I wont show mercy till they are beaten, or I'm dead. There is a limit, when its reached, peace is over with.
In general, I find you far to quick to call "evil" without trying to understand their point of view (or even, in some cases, to admit that another point of view exists) and, for all you say "if we can avoid it we should", a tendency to take the military option before exploring the alternatives.
To what does your "not at all" relate?
If it is to "If God has condemned us to continual war then we have no free will" as it would appear from your follow up then you must be wrong.
If we have continual war because of the selfishness and evil of some men then that is not due to God's condemnation. If, however, it as you appear to say and God will not grant us peace until He returns, then that is despite our wishes and negates our free will.
Jester;794419 wrote: Free will gives us opportunity to choose how we will live, either following God or following our own will, just two choices on the shelf as my dad always says.
How do you see war as "following God"? How does it tie in to the teachings of Jesus?
Jester;794419 wrote: Liberty, I have liberty to do anything I want, but some things have negative consequences. I can follow everything that is goodly in the bible and reap great benifits and the fact that Christ died to set me free from my obligation to sin allows me the abilty to choose right everytime.
As you say, some things have negative consequences - the negative consequence of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq if the radicalisation of whole Muslim populations rather that a few fanatics.
Jester;794419 wrote: However, there are few, even with the abilty to choose right all the time that do it. So consequently in this world, there is a great amount of evil, mostly in the form of selfishness, and there's one thing about this world right now, and that is that even the Godly are affected by the evil around us.
The fact that most people chose the wrong option some of the time does not make them evil - selfishness is not evil, it is a human weakness. To condemn people as evil for not being perfect is not Christian.
Jester;794419 wrote: My peace is first internal, knowing that no matter what, all things work out for good, even though it may appear unfair at first, my strength in peace comes form the fact that living rigtheously in God that no good thing will be withheld. So that when calamity comes... (earth quake, tornado, war by ungodly vermin) I know that he will not allow me to loose my soul, everything else he gave me in the first place, its His to do with as He wills it.
Oh to use a military term you dont, the evil in this world somtimes causes 'collateral damage'...
You are talking two different animals here. There's the peace of the soul that comes from internal balance and there is peace, the lack of conflict, in the external world. A person can be at peace with himself in the midst of battle or can be in spiritual turmoil in the most serine and peaceful location.
Jester;794419 wrote: The sun also rises on the just and the unjust, so does the rain cleanse the land, so can the rain and wind scrape the earth flat tearing everything off of it, the goodly man living next to the ungodly man are affected simultanously.
War will come because of free will and selfish men, we have an obligation to protect our families, and our country. If we can avoid it we should, but once the die is cast, I wont show mercy till they are beaten, or I'm dead. There is a limit, when its reached, peace is over with.
In general, I find you far to quick to call "evil" without trying to understand their point of view (or even, in some cases, to admit that another point of view exists) and, for all you say "if we can avoid it we should", a tendency to take the military option before exploring the alternatives.
Peace
jester:-6
If God can and will do anything He wants and is not bound by His own laws then we have a God who says do as I say and not as I do. This kind of God would be nothing more than a tyrant and not worthy of worship. He would simply be a blood thirsty entity who is so petulant as to demand whatever He wants at whatever expense. Love tempers what God chooses to do. He is bound by His love and Grace or it is not love and grace but the rantings of a tyrannical monster.
Sorry but that is not God. God does not demand justice of us and then turns around and kills whomever He will. The story of Noah of course, if a legend. It is not an historical event.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If God can and will do anything He wants and is not bound by His own laws then we have a God who says do as I say and not as I do. This kind of God would be nothing more than a tyrant and not worthy of worship. He would simply be a blood thirsty entity who is so petulant as to demand whatever He wants at whatever expense. Love tempers what God chooses to do. He is bound by His love and Grace or it is not love and grace but the rantings of a tyrannical monster.
Sorry but that is not God. God does not demand justice of us and then turns around and kills whomever He will. The story of Noah of course, if a legend. It is not an historical event.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Peace
We have to agree on a definition of peace if this convo is to go anywhere. Are we talking about absence of war? If so, like JAB said, any dictator can create peace. All he has to do is opress his people and break their collective spirit until they stop fighting back.
Are we talking about a deeper peace? If so, we can't start talking globally until we talk about personal inner peace. We need to eat this elephant one bite at a time.
I like Stephen Covey's idea of Circle of Concern/Circle of influence. We have tons of issues that we are concerned about, but have no influence over. This thread is chock full of 'em. Within that Circle is a smaller Circle of Influence: those things we can affect, either through direct action or through contacts we have made. This is where we need to concentrate our efforts if real peace (living in harmony) is ever to be achieved.
Discussing global peace is a great idea, but hardly practical. If it is truly a goal, start in your home then spread out to your neighborhood. Then .....
baby steps
.
Are we talking about a deeper peace? If so, we can't start talking globally until we talk about personal inner peace. We need to eat this elephant one bite at a time.
I like Stephen Covey's idea of Circle of Concern/Circle of influence. We have tons of issues that we are concerned about, but have no influence over. This thread is chock full of 'em. Within that Circle is a smaller Circle of Influence: those things we can affect, either through direct action or through contacts we have made. This is where we need to concentrate our efforts if real peace (living in harmony) is ever to be achieved.
Discussing global peace is a great idea, but hardly practical. If it is truly a goal, start in your home then spread out to your neighborhood. Then .....
baby steps
.
Peace
Accountable;798250 wrote: We have to agree on a definition of peace if this convo is to go anywhere. Are we talking about absence of war? If so, like JAB said, any dictator can create peace. All he has to do is opress his people and break their collective spirit until they stop fighting back.
Are we talking about a deeper peace? If so, we can't start talking globally until we talk about personal inner peace. We need to eat this elephant one bite at a time.
I like Stephen Covey's idea of Circle of Concern/Circle of influence. We have tons of issues that we are concerned about, but have no influence over. This thread is chock full of 'em. Within that Circle is a smaller Circle of Influence: those things we can affect, either through direct action or through contacts we have made. This is where we need to concentrate our efforts if real peace (living in harmony) is ever to be achieved.
Discussing global peace is a great idea, but hardly practical. If it is truly a goal, start in your home then spread out to your neighborhood. Then .....
baby steps
.
Peace is far more than the absence of war - rule by terror and suppression is in no way peace.
Chasing personal, internal, peace is a personal matter, pursuing global peace is a matter that concerns every man woman and child on the planet and should be everybody's business.
Discussing global peace is an essential if we are to progress - saying it is no use trying to put pressure on our governments because we have no influence is either a cop out or a sad indictment of our society.
Are we talking about a deeper peace? If so, we can't start talking globally until we talk about personal inner peace. We need to eat this elephant one bite at a time.
I like Stephen Covey's idea of Circle of Concern/Circle of influence. We have tons of issues that we are concerned about, but have no influence over. This thread is chock full of 'em. Within that Circle is a smaller Circle of Influence: those things we can affect, either through direct action or through contacts we have made. This is where we need to concentrate our efforts if real peace (living in harmony) is ever to be achieved.
Discussing global peace is a great idea, but hardly practical. If it is truly a goal, start in your home then spread out to your neighborhood. Then .....
baby steps
.
Peace is far more than the absence of war - rule by terror and suppression is in no way peace.
Chasing personal, internal, peace is a personal matter, pursuing global peace is a matter that concerns every man woman and child on the planet and should be everybody's business.
Discussing global peace is an essential if we are to progress - saying it is no use trying to put pressure on our governments because we have no influence is either a cop out or a sad indictment of our society.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Peace
Bryn Mawr;798258 wrote: Peace is far more than the absence of war - rule by terror and suppression is in no way peace.Good! We agree on what peace is not. Can we agree on what it is?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Chasing personal, internal, peace is a personal matter, pursuing global peace is a matter that concerns every man woman and child on the planet and should be everybody's business.
Discussing global peace is an essential if we are to progress - saying it is no use trying to put pressure on our governments because we have no influence is either a cop out or a sad indictment of our society.We should use whatever influence is within our circle to contact our representatives to promote peace where they can. But before we can set a goal of global peace, the globe has to agree on what that means. I say this because what some consider a peaceful life, others consider tyranny. Slavery still exists, for instance.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Chasing personal, internal, peace is a personal matter, pursuing global peace is a matter that concerns every man woman and child on the planet and should be everybody's business.
Discussing global peace is an essential if we are to progress - saying it is no use trying to put pressure on our governments because we have no influence is either a cop out or a sad indictment of our society.We should use whatever influence is within our circle to contact our representatives to promote peace where they can. But before we can set a goal of global peace, the globe has to agree on what that means. I say this because what some consider a peaceful life, others consider tyranny. Slavery still exists, for instance.
Peace
Accountable;799032 wrote: Good! We agree on what peace is not. Can we agree on what it is?
We should use whatever influence is within our circle to contact our representatives to promote peace where they can. But before we can set a goal of global peace, the globe has to agree on what that means. I say this because what some consider a peaceful life, others consider tyranny. Slavery still exists, for instance.
Peace has got to include a tolerance for other ways and other lives. Even if we consider another people's way of live to be a tyranny, if those people are happy with that way of life then who are we to find it cause for war?
Many people say that we cannot, as an individual, influence the government. If this is a general reaction then of course we cannot - the silent majority remains silent! Speak out and make your feeling known and then watch what people power can achieve.
We should use whatever influence is within our circle to contact our representatives to promote peace where they can. But before we can set a goal of global peace, the globe has to agree on what that means. I say this because what some consider a peaceful life, others consider tyranny. Slavery still exists, for instance.
Peace has got to include a tolerance for other ways and other lives. Even if we consider another people's way of live to be a tyranny, if those people are happy with that way of life then who are we to find it cause for war?
Many people say that we cannot, as an individual, influence the government. If this is a general reaction then of course we cannot - the silent majority remains silent! Speak out and make your feeling known and then watch what people power can achieve.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Peace
Bryn Mawr;799050 wrote: Peace has got to include a tolerance for other ways and other lives. Even if we consider another people's way of live to be a tyranny, if those people are happy with that way of life then who are we to find it cause for war?
Many people say that we cannot, as an individual, influence the government. If this is a general reaction then of course we cannot - the silent majority remains silent! Speak out and make your feeling known and then watch what people power can achieve.
Bryn, you know I love ya, but that first statement is ridiculous. Tolerate other ways of life, even tyranny?? Tolerate the intolerant? Of course, we'll have to convince the intolerant to tolerate us even though they find us intolerable. I'm getting vertigo.
We don't do that ourselves. When we find a third-world or undeveloped nation abusing their own people, we don't tolerate it. We send emissaries and negotiators ... sometimes even troops.
Many people say that we cannot, as an individual, influence the government. If this is a general reaction then of course we cannot - the silent majority remains silent! Speak out and make your feeling known and then watch what people power can achieve.
Bryn, you know I love ya, but that first statement is ridiculous. Tolerate other ways of life, even tyranny?? Tolerate the intolerant? Of course, we'll have to convince the intolerant to tolerate us even though they find us intolerable. I'm getting vertigo.
We don't do that ourselves. When we find a third-world or undeveloped nation abusing their own people, we don't tolerate it. We send emissaries and negotiators ... sometimes even troops.
Peace
Accountable;799051 wrote: Bryn, you know I love ya, but that first statement is ridiculous. Tolerate other ways of life, even tyranny?? Tolerate the intolerant? Of course, we'll have to convince the intolerant to tolerate us even though they find us intolerable. I'm getting vertigo.
We don't do that ourselves. When we find a third-world or undeveloped nation abusing their own people, we don't tolerate it. We send emissaries and negotiators ... sometimes even troops.
You must realise that what one person might consider to be the tyranny of excessive central government another might consider to be enlightened social welfare. When the single world superpower becomes gung ho in sending in the troops it is just as much a tyranny as the problem they're trying to cure.
We don't do that ourselves. When we find a third-world or undeveloped nation abusing their own people, we don't tolerate it. We send emissaries and negotiators ... sometimes even troops.
You must realise that what one person might consider to be the tyranny of excessive central government another might consider to be enlightened social welfare. When the single world superpower becomes gung ho in sending in the troops it is just as much a tyranny as the problem they're trying to cure.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Peace
Bryn Mawr, Accountable: Evening. Sounds like we're trying to draw a line and say when is intervention justified and when is it not. When a dictator tortures or "disappears" their own people? Should we just say, "None of our business"? Would anything short of invasion have toppled Saddam? Is invasion just too high a price? Was D-Day 1944 wrong? Should we have accepted Hitler's fait accompli?
I don't have the answers, but I remember how the US and British troops were initially received with joy as liberators, and then managed to balls it up. I suspect there was a huge opportunity at that very specific moment in time, and we blew it not in the invasion but in the follow up. The consequences are too big to predict, but make me wince.
Ted: I think the Anglican point of view on the Old Testament is that it is primarily a collection of ancient tribal stories of the people we now call the Jews and that what Jesus did was say that the ancient people had interpreted His will too harshly (as well as the idea that "He" is probably too limited a word in gender to really describe Him!), and that you shouldn't take anything from it if the New Testament contradicted it in letter or spirit.
Especially open to correction and opinion here - I'm wrestling with these issues at the moment.
I don't have the answers, but I remember how the US and British troops were initially received with joy as liberators, and then managed to balls it up. I suspect there was a huge opportunity at that very specific moment in time, and we blew it not in the invasion but in the follow up. The consequences are too big to predict, but make me wince.
Ted: I think the Anglican point of view on the Old Testament is that it is primarily a collection of ancient tribal stories of the people we now call the Jews and that what Jesus did was say that the ancient people had interpreted His will too harshly (as well as the idea that "He" is probably too limited a word in gender to really describe Him!), and that you shouldn't take anything from it if the New Testament contradicted it in letter or spirit.
Especially open to correction and opinion here - I'm wrestling with these issues at the moment.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Peace
Bryn Mawr;799055 wrote: You must realise that what one person might consider to be the tyranny of excessive central government another might consider to be enlightened social welfare. I do. Bryn Mawr wrote: When the single world superpower becomes gung ho in sending in the troops it is just as much a tyranny as the problem they're trying to cure.:wah: You seem to think I condone what my gov't's been doing in Iraq. Obviously I haven't been posting enough.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Peace
Apologies: I inferred that the troops had mucked it up. I should make it clear I think the governments involved then mucked it up.
Incidentally, is it better to edit to clear this sort of thing up when you spot it after preview and post?)
Incidentally, is it better to edit to clear this sort of thing up when you spot it after preview and post?)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Peace
Clodhopper;799077 wrote: Bryn Mawr, Accountable: Evening. Sounds like we're trying to draw a line and say when is intervention justified and when is it not. When a dictator tortures or "disappears" their own people? Should we just say, "None of our business"? Would anything short of invasion have toppled Saddam? Is invasion just too high a price? Was D-Day 1944 wrong? Should we have accepted Hitler's fait accompli?
I don't have the answers, but I remember how the US and British troops were initially received with joy as liberators, and then managed to balls it up. I suspect there was a huge opportunity at that very specific moment in time, and we blew it not in the invasion but in the follow up. The consequences are too big to predict, but make me wince.
Ted: I think the Anglican point of view on the Old Testament is that it is primarily a collection of ancient tribal stories of the people we now call the Jews and that what Jesus did was say that the ancient people had interpreted His will too harshly (as well as the idea that "He" is probably too limited a word in gender to really describe Him!), and that you shouldn't take anything from it if the New Testament contradicted it in letter or spirit.
Especially open to correction and opinion here - I'm wrestling with these issues at the moment.
No, we should not say "none of our business", there are cases like Poll Pot in Cambodia and in Rwanda where, without doubt, intervention is the only possible solution. In the case of Iraq? Was Saddam a worse disease than the "cure" of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq? There was no legal basis for the invasion and, if Iraq, then why not Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia and Darfur to name but a few?
D-Day was in the middle of a mutually declared war and cannot be compare to a declaration of war where no realistic threat existed.
The way we blew it was not in the follow up but in the lack of planning prior to the invasion - all of the consideration was "let's get the bastard" and none was "what can we do for the people". The invasion was not intended to benefit the Iraqi people, it was tidying up a previous ****-up.
As to the Anglican point of view - tell that to Jester! The New Testament counts for nothing, God demands his pound of flesh regardless and the testament provided by Jesus counts not a jot.
I don't have the answers, but I remember how the US and British troops were initially received with joy as liberators, and then managed to balls it up. I suspect there was a huge opportunity at that very specific moment in time, and we blew it not in the invasion but in the follow up. The consequences are too big to predict, but make me wince.
Ted: I think the Anglican point of view on the Old Testament is that it is primarily a collection of ancient tribal stories of the people we now call the Jews and that what Jesus did was say that the ancient people had interpreted His will too harshly (as well as the idea that "He" is probably too limited a word in gender to really describe Him!), and that you shouldn't take anything from it if the New Testament contradicted it in letter or spirit.
Especially open to correction and opinion here - I'm wrestling with these issues at the moment.
No, we should not say "none of our business", there are cases like Poll Pot in Cambodia and in Rwanda where, without doubt, intervention is the only possible solution. In the case of Iraq? Was Saddam a worse disease than the "cure" of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq? There was no legal basis for the invasion and, if Iraq, then why not Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia and Darfur to name but a few?
D-Day was in the middle of a mutually declared war and cannot be compare to a declaration of war where no realistic threat existed.
The way we blew it was not in the follow up but in the lack of planning prior to the invasion - all of the consideration was "let's get the bastard" and none was "what can we do for the people". The invasion was not intended to benefit the Iraqi people, it was tidying up a previous ****-up.
As to the Anglican point of view - tell that to Jester! The New Testament counts for nothing, God demands his pound of flesh regardless and the testament provided by Jesus counts not a jot.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Peace
No, we should not say "none of our business", there are cases like Poll Pot in Cambodia and in Rwanda where, without doubt, intervention is the only possible solution. In the case of Iraq? Was Saddam a worse disease than the "cure" of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq? There was no legal basis for the invasion and, if Iraq, then why not Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia and Darfur to name but a few?
Yeah, good point. My answer would be that looking for logic in the ramifications of the Cold War and its ending is looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. Largely, pragmatism rules. Invading China would trigger a war that would end the world. This is probably not a good idea. The others you mention - well, perhaps we should have done. But the price is body bags and legless boys.
The legal base can only be done through the UN as things stand. And as things stand it would have been better to have not invaded when we did.
D-Day was in the middle of a mutually declared war and cannot be compare to a declaration of war where no realistic threat existed.
Yup. I was following the logic of non-intervention to its conclusion. Didn't much like where it went.
The way we blew it was not in the follow up but in the lack of planning prior to the invasion - all of the consideration was "let's get the bastard" and none was "what can we do for the people". The invasion was not intended to benefit the Iraqi people, it was tidying up a previous ****-up.
Aaabso****in'lutely. Seems to me there are three phases to a successful intervention:
Preparation: Setting up the circumstances for the arrival of intervening troops on the ground. Could take a decade (eg Sudan 1890s well, eight years if I remember right), could be quick if circumstances were right (eg Sierra Leone 1990s or was it early 00's?)
Execution: Troops intervene. Despite the success of the two Iraq wars remember this can go horribly wrong: eg Carter 1970's (I forget what the incident is called) and Gordon of Khartoum (1880s).
Follow-up: Again, can be quick. Don't think we hung around in Sierra Leone, but it depends on circumstances. Look at 20-40 years, if you are changing a system of government. You have to educate a generation. If possible create a public service ethos, which doesn't necessarily exist. Big, long term and expensive job.
Pound of Flesh God: If that's God, I'm not on his side. (Waits for thunderbolt...
)
Yeah, good point. My answer would be that looking for logic in the ramifications of the Cold War and its ending is looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. Largely, pragmatism rules. Invading China would trigger a war that would end the world. This is probably not a good idea. The others you mention - well, perhaps we should have done. But the price is body bags and legless boys.
The legal base can only be done through the UN as things stand. And as things stand it would have been better to have not invaded when we did.
D-Day was in the middle of a mutually declared war and cannot be compare to a declaration of war where no realistic threat existed.
Yup. I was following the logic of non-intervention to its conclusion. Didn't much like where it went.
The way we blew it was not in the follow up but in the lack of planning prior to the invasion - all of the consideration was "let's get the bastard" and none was "what can we do for the people". The invasion was not intended to benefit the Iraqi people, it was tidying up a previous ****-up.
Aaabso****in'lutely. Seems to me there are three phases to a successful intervention:
Preparation: Setting up the circumstances for the arrival of intervening troops on the ground. Could take a decade (eg Sudan 1890s well, eight years if I remember right), could be quick if circumstances were right (eg Sierra Leone 1990s or was it early 00's?)
Execution: Troops intervene. Despite the success of the two Iraq wars remember this can go horribly wrong: eg Carter 1970's (I forget what the incident is called) and Gordon of Khartoum (1880s).
Follow-up: Again, can be quick. Don't think we hung around in Sierra Leone, but it depends on circumstances. Look at 20-40 years, if you are changing a system of government. You have to educate a generation. If possible create a public service ethos, which doesn't necessarily exist. Big, long term and expensive job.
Pound of Flesh God: If that's God, I'm not on his side. (Waits for thunderbolt...
)The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Peace
Clodhopper:-6
I personally agree with your comments on the OT. That being said, the Anglican church has always been a church that accepted diversity. Unfortunately the Anglicans in the global south are becoming more and more literalist and fundamentalist. In fact they are pushing God out of the equation in favour of biblolatry.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I personally agree with your comments on the OT. That being said, the Anglican church has always been a church that accepted diversity. Unfortunately the Anglicans in the global south are becoming more and more literalist and fundamentalist. In fact they are pushing God out of the equation in favour of biblolatry.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Peace
I must make a further comment on a God who does not have to follow His/Her own rules. We are asked to trust in God. I would find it impossible to trust anyone who told me to "do as I say not as I do." How could one trust such a God who might turn around later on today or tomorrow and stab you in the back?
In fact if I didn't believe differently such a statement would drive me to either another faith or atheism.
Shalom
Ted:-6
In fact if I didn't believe differently such a statement would drive me to either another faith or atheism.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Peace
"Biblolatry". Chuckle. Sounds like a drink-related issue.
Yes, the Nigerians (biggest Anglican population on earth) keen to do a bit of gay-bashing. Paying too much attention to the Old Testament. Don't know if the problem is just the Archbishop, or the cultural attitude of Nigeria generally.
Yes, the Nigerians (biggest Anglican population on earth) keen to do a bit of gay-bashing. Paying too much attention to the Old Testament. Don't know if the problem is just the Archbishop, or the cultural attitude of Nigeria generally.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Peace
Clodhopper:-6
I misspelled that word. It should read "bibliolatry". It is a word used among theologians.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I misspelled that word. It should read "bibliolatry". It is a word used among theologians.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Peace
Ted: Yes - the sin of worshipping the Book rather than God.
I do like the idea of the Will of God gradually making itself clear through the revisions of the Bible, gradually emerging through the misunderstandings and mistakes of those translating it.
Just wish I could decide whether there is life after death or not! :-3
I do like the idea of the Will of God gradually making itself clear through the revisions of the Bible, gradually emerging through the misunderstandings and mistakes of those translating it.
Just wish I could decide whether there is life after death or not! :-3
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Peace
clodhopper:-6
Jesus appears to have so believed. I think we ought to take a lesson from Luther who when asked about heaven said that it was in fine shape under God's control and that he would worry about the earth.
Personally I believe there is something but nothing that I can grasp or understand at this point.
I simply trust in God and do not particularly concern myself with whatever comes after life.
Each time we read the Bible we can get something new out of it. There is no one correct interpretation and interpretations change as our knowledge, culture etc. change.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jesus appears to have so believed. I think we ought to take a lesson from Luther who when asked about heaven said that it was in fine shape under God's control and that he would worry about the earth.
Personally I believe there is something but nothing that I can grasp or understand at this point.
I simply trust in God and do not particularly concern myself with whatever comes after life.
Each time we read the Bible we can get something new out of it. There is no one correct interpretation and interpretations change as our knowledge, culture etc. change.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Peace
jester:-6
I've never claimed to be "so intelligent", nor have I ever claimed to be "more 'enlightened'. "So say you".
We have gone over this territory time and again and you simply will not, not can't, but will not understand. With that I can't help you since you choose not to seek instruction, study to gain knowledge and thus seek wisdom.
What I have repeatedly said is that the more I learn the more I realize there is yet to learn. You criticize me for studying but a careful reading of the first few chapters of Proverbs clearly indicates that I should be instructed, study to gain knowledge, and thus gain wisdom. Since the Bible as such did not exist at the time of this writing it was not referring to only the Bible.
Solomon was indeed a very well instructed, highly knowledgeable and wise man.
But I might ask you the same question. What makes you so enlightened and so intelligent that you think you have the correct response? There have been thousands of interpretations of scripture over the centuries and of all those interpretations you claim to have the only right one. So you think???!!!
Shalom
Ted:-6
I've never claimed to be "so intelligent", nor have I ever claimed to be "more 'enlightened'. "So say you".
We have gone over this territory time and again and you simply will not, not can't, but will not understand. With that I can't help you since you choose not to seek instruction, study to gain knowledge and thus seek wisdom.
What I have repeatedly said is that the more I learn the more I realize there is yet to learn. You criticize me for studying but a careful reading of the first few chapters of Proverbs clearly indicates that I should be instructed, study to gain knowledge, and thus gain wisdom. Since the Bible as such did not exist at the time of this writing it was not referring to only the Bible.
Solomon was indeed a very well instructed, highly knowledgeable and wise man.
But I might ask you the same question. What makes you so enlightened and so intelligent that you think you have the correct response? There have been thousands of interpretations of scripture over the centuries and of all those interpretations you claim to have the only right one. So you think???!!!
Shalom
Ted:-6