This is something I’ve been pondering for a long time, and I think I already know the answer. I’m afraid it’s the answer that immediately pops into everyone’s mind at the mention of this hypothetical scenario.
The question I’d like to ask is, if in response to 9/11, instead of declaring war on terrorism, and beginning our hunt for Osama bin Laden, what if instead Bush had lived up to the fully outrageous aspect of Christian forgiveness (since he used to advocate Christianity so much at the beginning ofhis presidency) and instead delivered a speech that contained a message of
“Osama bin Laden, we know you were behind this unwarranted attack on our innocent civilians, and we know this was meant as an act of war. But I, as a Christian, do not wish to incite any more violence or hatred than is ever avoidable. My country will be angry with me for this decision, because right now they are screaming for the blood of the person responsible for these attacks. But I forgive you. I will not choose to declare war on you or your country, because I’d like to extend a hand of peace, or failing that, tolerance, globally. This message is not to say that I will let my country be destroyed for foolishly following my hopes of peace too far. If we are attacked again, we will find you and you will answer for what you’ve done. But if we are not attacked again, we will not declare war.”
To me, this shows putting oneself at considerable risk for an ideal that most would like to have but few ever do. It’s a noble example to the rest of the world to act similarly in the name of peace and understanding. Also, I have heard many things about propoganda used by Osama bin Laden, telling his followers that America would attack their country in full force and so, when we did, we fulfilled his prophecy to his people, inciting more support for his cause. I’m curious to hear what people have to say regarding this. A secondary question, for Christians, would be is this going too far with forgiveness?
in which he raised the following hypothetical scenario
Firstly, creation imperfect, why do you refer to this, “aspect of Christian forgiveness,†as, “outrageous?â€
What is outrageous about The Lord’s Prayer, and, especially the line from it, “as we forgive those that trespass against us?â€
Secondly, naming names, pointing one’s finger, telling another what is warranted and what unwarranted, what and what not an act of war, is not conducive to peace, and it never was, it breeds only resentment. People don’t take kindly to being told they are wrong—(especially by some jumped-up nobody of a president-cum-latter-day-Caesar-cum-Pharaoh,)—that is not the way to peace but rather to an escalation of fear, hatred, violence, and, war-like situations.
To say, “I, as a Christian, do not wish to incite more violence or hatred than is ever avoidable,†is not to rescind violence and hatred altogether—(which is the original Christian way as per the doctrine of Jesus)—but to say you regard it as acceptable and justifiable in some instances and that, therefore, you reserve the right to incite hatred and violence as and when you deem them appropriate responses. In other words, I, as a Christian, do not wish to incite more violence on condition that I can avoid so doing, i.e., on condition that you don’t ever give me just cause.
To say, “My country will be angry with me for this decision, because right now they are screaming for the blood of the person responsible for these attacks,†is rhetoric, meaningless rhetoric. People don’t want to go to war. People want to get about their business and live their lives with as little fuss as possible. It is rulers, kings, despots, democratic governments that make war. If the American-Imperialist-Government/Military-Machine stopped interfering, stopped flexing its muscles, and stopped playing policeman and soldiers with the rest of us the world would be a much more peaceful place.
This next segment contains sentiments that are both practically impossible and theoretically contradictory: “But I forgive you. I will not choose to declare war on you or your country, because I’d like to extend a hand of peace, or failing that, tolerance, globally. This message is not to say that I will let my country be destroyed for foolishly following my hopes of peace too far. If we are attacked again, we will find you and you will answer for what you’ve done. But if we are not attacked again, we will not declare war.â€
It is NOT the place of any so-called president to forgive, to declare war, or any of this other stuff, certainly NOT IN MY NAME. Let the so-called president speak for himself, but not for me. Let the so-called Muslim chief speak for himself, but not for me. Let the Christian boss speak for himself, but not for me. Let the Communist tyrant speak for himself, but not for me.
When arrogant stupid insane people speak for others they presume on the goodwill of those others. But when those others let and even encourage presumptuous, “leaders,†to speak for them they are as guilty as their leaders of crimes against humanity.
There is only one form of government that is acceptable to me and that is anarchy, self-government, self-control, self-restraint, i.e., the government of the future. I govern myself better than any external authority.
There are no innocent people except young children. The innocent are soon groomed to take their place in a world that has been messed up by their parents. They are daily brainwashed by capitalism, by Koran-ism, by communism, by ism-ism, and few escape the net, few escape with their lives, i.e., their minds, intact.
You’ve raised a very interesting question creation imperfect, and I have just touched upon a reply, but you can guess at least some of my feelings on the entire sordid and disgraceful matter of 9/11 the aftermath. It may seem that I have picked on your words rather than your spiritual intent but this was mainly to draw attention to the fact of just how difficult it is to express such matters to the satisfaction of all interested parties.
We need noble examples, the world desperately needs noble examples!
And yet the world, it seems, is not ready for noble examples.
I would go even further. I have the utmost compassion for those who lose loved ones. But it is a fact of life that people die. We have to forgive. We have to learn to forgive. If you cannot forgive you cannot move on. Eye for an eye justice systems have been in operation for thousands of years yet they haven’t stopped people murdering and raping and stealing!
Is there a difference between turning your other cheek, so someone who has struck you can strike you again if they like, and turning your daughter’s cheek, or your son’s cheek, or your electorate’s cheek, so that they can be struck again if the aggressor likes?
That sounds alright until you stop and realize that Osama already bombed the WTC once before. What makes this ‘again’ so special compared to the previous one, or the next one?
EDIT: I advocate we start this experiment on a smaller scale- starting now, when we catch and convict a murderer, we’ll forgive them and let them go, with the understanding that we’ll make them answer for what they’ve done if they kill someone else. Let’s see what results we get from that.
Biblically speaking, there is no difference.
Especially since a young daughter is unable to make a decision.
They have struck you, not your daughter.
There was a recent example of the Amish who forgave the killer.
Now that’s Christ like.
Does your bible advocate that? No.
I think you are missing the point of turning the other cheek.
It is not so that people have an opportunity to strike you again, it is not to evade law.
It is to help you forgive, it is to help you end the cycle of revenge.
Nowhere does it state that crime should go unpunished and law disregarded.
Afterall, the people should “obey the laws of the land”.
But it’s also supposed to be personal. If Bush’s family didn’t die in the 9/11 attacks, it’s not his cheek to turn. Deciding not to defend your country or attack people who attack you is not ‘forgiveness’ any more than taxing the rich to give to the poor is ‘charity’.
As far as the Amish forgiving, sure that is Christ-like and admiriable. It’s also completely different- they were able to forgive the killer because they know who it is. They knowing who it is meaning they already got what they deserved. They’re dead or in prison, yes? Would the Amish forgive the man if he was walking around in their midst? Would they consider ‘forgive’ to be equivalent to ‘not punish’?
Saying “We’ll get you the NEXT time you do something” is already an admission that forgiveness has it’s limits. Again, Osama already bombed the WTC once, 9/11 was already the next time. Counting the USS Cole, it was even the time after that.
Well, then maybe the question as regards 9/11 would have to be, “Who and what is the law in this situation, what is the crime, and who gets to do the punishing?” Since it’s an international issue, forgiving Osama would be equivalent to a crime going unpunished, wouldn’t it?
In attitude they are, but what would be the difference in practice? Like, if Bush said "Osama, I forgive you, but you have to be punished", and then went on to invade Afghanistan, and in general chase Osama around the planet trying to catch or kill him for the rest of time...yeah, I guess that would be acceptable to me. But that's not what the opening post of the thread was advocating, it was advocating forgiveness as in "Give a speech, and then let it go", I thought.
And yeah, it shouldn't come as any surprise to you that I might be missing some of the subtle nuances behind the whole 'forgiveness' thing. But I'm willing to listen and learn, it seems to be a rather important point to Christianity, after all.
Yes. In the world situation as it currently exists, the former is regarded as an act of bravery, or great courage, a heroic act.
Example: Jesus sacrificing himself on the cross.
In this same world the latter is seen as treachery, betrayal, a kind of cowardice in which one uses others to shield himself.
Example: Judas betraying Christ for thirty pieces of silver.
There is also the fact of: “whose version of events?†“what side are you on?†“which propaganda machine?†and, the suchlike to take into account.
Example: U.S. military invaders claim missiles were fired at an, “insurgent,†hideout. Muslim resistance leaders and freedom-fighters accuse U.S. of targeting civilians.
When you stop telling your daughters and sons lies, when you start telling your electorate the truth, when they are given all the facts, when they are given true knowledge, understanding, and enlightened teaching, then, and only then may you take the liberty of turning their cheeks, for on that day all cheeks will turn as one, on that day all will have understood what is invincible and inviolable in human nature, on that day all aggressors will finally and absolutely be defeated.
Well, we’ve both been at ILP long enough to know that shouldn’t matter much.
Well, I was only speaking in terms of christian theology… Forgiveness to the point of it meaning your own death. Christ being the most important example: he forgave the thieves, the Romans, and the Pharisees, the masses, for unjustly persecuting him and nailing him to a cross. He did not resist. There’s a lesson in there somewhere… Personally, I find it very difficult to turn the other cheek yet I recognize that not doing so ensures there’s no chance for peace.
I wonder if turning the other cheek on a nationalistic level has ever resulted in peace? Appeasement is the term for it. Perhaps it’s been successful at some point in history but I can’t think of an example right now.
But you’re right- vengeance/justice won’t bring back the dead and isn’t a sure road to peace. I think the first step down that road would be for the people of Earth to reject religion once and for all. Yeah, I realize that’s not likely. But it would be a tremendous starting point.
The world shall know no peace; as long as people desire to categorize themselves because this allows for amplification of differences which can create heirarchies and hatred.
How many examples can you think of a country turning the other cheek?
Appeasement suggests that there is no punishment… that’s not what is being suggested (at least, not by me).
Forgiveness is necessary to prevent the need to turn the other cheek…
Most of Europe tried it as Hitler blitzed, at least until it became obvious to all that it had failed. Israel was restrained by the US during the 1st Gulf War, doing nothing as SCUDs rained down on them. The West tried appeasement as the Iron Curtain fell across Europe, eventually opposing the Soviets indirectly in several conflicts across the world.
Forgiveness is a useful concept, and indeed it has it’s place in diplomacy. We “forgave” Japan for their surprise attack on Pearl, and in turn they’ve largely forgiven us for nuking them twice. But blanket forgiveness alone probably won’t prevent many attacks. For example, it’s reasonable to conclude that had we done nothing after the 9/11 attacks, it would be seen as a sign of weakness and more attacks would follow (since this is essentially what happened the first time Bin Laden bombed those exact same buildings). Hatred can sometimes be overcame by love or forgiveness, but alas- I don’t think it will happen so long as the delusions of religion cloud our hearts and minds.
Turning the other cheek can only be done from the position of power.
If you are in the weak position, you don’t really have much of a choice as to whether or not you turn the other cheek (I mean any resistance you an offer is not significant). Thus, weak nations are not in the position to turn the other cheek.
Another thought, turning the other cheek is not necessarily appeasement.
I didn’t read all the posts, just some, so maybe this response has been said already but whatever.
From what i have read, and from previous knowledge of discussions like these, people seem to get caught up in general, well known terms in the bible. People base Christianity on “turning the other cheek” and “forgiveness” with no real knowledge of theology as a whole. Let us remember that Christianity teaches the theology of the Trinity, therefore Christ is one in the same as the God of the Old Testament, who advocated and executed many of his plans through the means of war. The bible is a large book people, and forgiveness is not the only thing which it is focused on. It is very arguable that if Bush had said that speech regarding Osama Bin Laden, he would have been acting unchristian. Christian doctrin teaches God’s wrath on those who committ such crimes, doing this often through people. The Christian God is not a God of overall forgiveness and compassion, one needs only a small understand of the book of revelations to see this. So i will say, that in this question of 9/11, the doctine which teaches to turn the other cheek, is absolutly irrelavent.
I think its also relevant for me to say for a second here that I am not a supporter of Bush, especially his war in Iraq. But I am in support of his decision to find Osama, even though it was so poorly executed.
And to the person who keeps saying there needs to be an abolishment of religion all together so that peace can happen, stop being so utopian. I’m not going to give alot of evidence to support the right of religion since its 1:30 in the morning, however, i will say that if you can not see that those who have no religion have caused just as much evil in this world as those who stand by religion, you are truly a blind person. In fact, many times religion causes evil in this world because of power and money, things which affect all, no matter what you believe. Religion is often time used as a means to obtain power and wealth, often times causing much evil. But abolishing all religion, you essentially do nothing, as other means will be used.
Forgiveness is so central to the New Testament that any attempt to reduce the role of forgiveness with mentions of the Old Testament fails miserably. Everywhere Jesus went, he forgave the sins of the people and his last act on earth was to ask god to forgive the people. Does this mean that god or that Jesus do not believe in punishment? Hell no (no pun intended). It’s just that some people tie punishment and forgiveness so closely together that they can’t seem to grasp one concept separately from the other…
You made some great points on the abolishment of religion though…
