All this goes to show is that if PK wanted to make an argument against the death penalty, war, etc. on Christian grounds, he probably should have quoted Jesus and not Moses. Even then he would have had a hard time; I daresay Jesus missed plenty of opportunities to speak against the death penalty if that was on His mind, wouldn’t you?
Cherry picking? I used the portions of the Bible that PK selected for me.
See, the issue with that is, whatever Jesus and the Bible have to say about state-sanctioned violence, virtually every Christian society in the history of Christiandom has either practiced it directly or been under the protectorate of a society that does (thinking of the Amish there). So that leaves us with a predicament: Either virtually every Christian authority every where has misunderstood the Bible in the exact same way and only Bob and a handful of other mystics know what it really means, or else, [i]you're wrong[/i] and the Bible doesn't really have the stance on state-sanctioned violence that you think it does. Now, either one of those are possible. But the simple fact is, PK doesn't have the prowess, theological knowledge, interest, or objectivity to even begin to examine such an issue. He created this thread specifically and only to make Christians feel bad. So there's absolutely no point in getting into the subject with him in the kind of way you think the subject deserves. He isn't capable or sincerely interested. It is [i]enough[/i] to point out that he hasn't foggiest idea what the Bible actually says about anything and move on.
If YOU or Irelleus had made some argument against state-sanctioned violence, that would be different because you have the clout and the interest to actually make a good point (which means neither of you would have been so ignorant as to base your argument on an English paraphrase of the 6th commandment.
As it stands, YOU didn't provide any reason or backing for any particular interpretation of Christianity's proper stance on state-sanctioned violence either. I'm left with absolutely nothing to rebut. I suppose I could console you on how upset you are over how terribly blind everybody but you is, but by this time it should be rather obvious that empathy isn't my strong suit.
I would argue against state sanctioned violence simply because violence creates violence. A state that advocates such violence in the name of a god knows nothing of god. The problem here is the us vs them attitude, which cannot see that we are all one.
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“good”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, …
Or, we are all guilty of that age old sin, that we put our trust in weapons and not in God - something that is also OT. You really have to read the Bible and not just the commentaries.
I’ve seen your short films by the way, I like them better …
“WE must love one another or die.”—W. H. Auden. There is no other choice available, given today’s us vs them fight to the death in current politics and religions.
It seems to me there’s a hard break between political morals and individual morals, and that seems to be a point of confusion in this thread. Phyllo is pointing out that something violent will have to be done about ISIS, others are pointing out that the Christian should be turning the other cheek, and there seems to be a conflict.
Now, it’s certainly true that a person who lives their entire life in peace, never hurting anybody, soothing problems, turning the other cheek when wronged and loving his enemies is being a good Christian provided he is following the Greatest Commandment as well.
But it is also true that such a person is likely only capable of living that way because he is embedded in a society protected by people more than willing to kill and die for it. I know of no pacifist community that is not completely surrounded and protected by a non-pacifist nation with an army to protect it. You can’t preserve a State, it seems to me, without threat of force- either against the criminals within, or the potentially hostile nations without.
The only way I can see to reconcile these two truths is to say that matters of State ethics are not simply individual ethics writ large-Christianity describes how an individual ought to live and interact with individual ethical issues, but a hundred million people merely living that way does not a successful State create. The State is an emergent thing with unique rules and values- it is not merely ‘a bunch of people’.
Preservation seems to be the culprit here. If everyone stopped trying to do that there would be no cause for war and violence. Unfortunately a drunken idiot may not have the intelligence to not commit an act of violence, and similarly a state or ISIL type entity, can be exactly the same. To stop that the intelligent must seek preservation, and in so doing build the means of oppression.
I think the state does take on the tasks that individuals should not assume themselves. Military intervention in a Christian nation should be seen as a necessary evil, which aims to make itself unnecessary. Unfortunately, in times when there is reason to doubt intentions of governments, the motives of politicians have to be scrutinised.
What is lacking is the trustworthiness that we need in politics.
An individual and a State are two completely different kinds of things, so why not? You would expect commonalities between one set of ethics and the other, and maybe even a methodology for translating between the two, but there are bound to be differences.
The fruits of the Spirit are … selfless love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness and faithfulness, gentleness, self-control … this seems to be forgotten by many militant Christians!
