If you don’t vote, then you definitely allow the person you don’t want get into power. You just shouldn’t believe that any politician, whatever party he is in, is going to uphold the values that the Gospels said Jesus upheld.
You must stay with what I have written; being a political dissident and peace activist, who in addition serves the poor and needy doesn’t normally fit into the box. If you’re trying to find me a box to fit in, then remember what I said: “too few dissidents and peace activists are spiritual, and even less serve the poor and needy.†There are far too many institutions out there trying to register and put us into boxes or drawers, mostly marked “useful†or “dangerousâ€.
I disagree, I think that such questions are just the type of BS those supposed Christian politicians would ask. There are enough people being raped by the system daily to ask why nobody notices. On the contrary, we have to ask ourselves why we have been fortunate enough not to have been raped – and honestly, it is mostly because we have compromised ourselves in some way and serve Mammon.
I love the rhetoric but see too few in actions …
The issue of the “sister” in Clubs question makes me disagree with you. I think everyone would help in this situation. However, I think your reply touches upon something important.
Christians claim that human life has intrinsic value, but we do a poor job at caring for anyone outside our own little “groups”. It’s like the TV news, “Welcome back…a tidal wave killed 700 people today in east asia…but first lets go to John on our lead story about the price of gas …John how are people coping with the hardship?”. It’s a common complaint I suppose but how come Christians don’t really care about the important stuff if we are actually following Christ? It seems like we pay lip service to the important issues, but in reality those issues are usually far enough away that we can comfortably ignore them.
I cannot do better than once more quote the profound words of another:
I had previously thought that enemies would come to make war or wicked men would assault me, and if I did not defend myself they would despoil me and all my family; they would abuse us, torture and kill me and mine; and this seemed horrible to me. But all that troubled me before has now turned to joy, and confirmed the truth. I know that my enemies, the so-called wicked men of the world – robbers, etc. – are men, and are the ‘sons of men’; that they, like me, bear love for goodness and hatred of evil innate in them; that they live, as I do, on the eve of death, and, like me, can only be saved by fulfilling the doctrine of Christ. If the truth is unknown to them, and they do evil, my knowing the truth makes it my duty to reveal it to those who do not know it. I cannot do so otherwise than by refusing to take any part in evil, and by confessing the truth by my deeds.
You say if enemies, such as Germans, Turks, or savages, come to attack you, and if you do not make war, they will kill you all. This is an error. If there were a society of Christians who did no evil to anybody, and who gave the surplus of their labour to others, no enemies, either Germans, Turks, or savages, would torture or kill them. They would take what these Christians (for whom there would exist no difference between Germans, Turks, or savages) would give up to them. If a Christian is called upon to take part in war, that is the moment for him to testify the truth to those who do not know it. Nor can he testify it in any other way than in deed, by refusing to go to war and doing good to all, whether they are enemies or not.
But if the family of a Christian is assaulted, not by foreign enemies, but by wicked men in his own country, if he does not defend himself, he and his family will be robbed, tortured, and killed. This is an error, again. If all the members of a family were Christians, and gave up their lives to the service of others, not one man would despoil them or kill them. Mikluha Mackli settled among a most brutal tribe of savages and was not murdered by them; they learned to love him, and submitted to him, because he did not require anything of them, but did as much good to them as he could.
If a Christian has to live amidst relations and friends who are not Christians in the full sense of the word, who defend themselves and their property by violence, and who call upon him to take part in their violence, then is the time for him to fulfil the duty for which life was given to him. The knowledge of the truth is only given to a Christian in order that he should make it known to others, and especially to those he is more closely connected with, and to whom he is bound by ties of relationship or friendship; and the Christian can testify to the truth in no other way than by avoiding the errors into which others have fallen, and refusing to take part either in the violence of the aggressors or of those who resist them, by giving all up to others, and by showing that his only desire is to fulfil the will of God and that he fears nothing as much as acting against it.
But the country cannot allow a member to evade fulfilling the duties incumbent on every citizen. The administration of the country requires each man to take his oath of allegiance, to take part in judging and condemning; each man is obliged to enter the military service, and if he refuses he will be exposed to punishment, exile, imprisonment, and even death. And here again the Christian is called upon to fulfil his duty toward God. The Christian knows that all these things are required of him by men who do not know the truth, and therefore he who does know it must testify it to those who do not. The violence, imprisonment, perhaps even death, to which the Christian will then be exposed in consequence of his refusal, will enable him to testify to the truth, not in words, but in deeds. Every act of violence, pillage, execution, and war is the result, not of the irrational force of nature, but of man’s ignorance of the truth. And therefore, the greater the evil these men do, the further they are from the truth, the more desperate is their state, and the more necessary it is that they should be taught the truth. And a Christian can only transmit the knowledge of the truth to others by keeping away from the error they are in, and by returning good for evil. The whole duty of a Christian, the whole purpose of his life, which cannot be destroyed by death, lies in this.
I’m not sure whether we really disagree - I didn’t say that I wouldn’t help, but that the question is misleading. In fact, I believe that PTW’s quote leads us along the right path.
I have read many of your posts and I find you to be the ideal and foremost leader in regards to “proper” (yes I know this is an opinion) Christian behavior. Keep up the good work!
I at first had reluctance to repost the whole quote, but I believe it is worthy of being read twice, and if someone else doesn’t want to, they can scroll past it. I really like it and it demonstrates the right (or close to it) mentality of service and evangelism. However, I have some unresolved problems with it. It says repeatedly that the proper Christian will not be killed or attacked by men around him. This is, undoubtedly, false. After all, Jesus was the ultimate form of Christian service and love and He was nailed to a cross. Being true to God doesn’t mean bad times won’t come, but it does mean that you will be able to make it through those bad times. I don’t think that Jesus wanted you to not look out for yourself. If someone’s going to kill you it might be okay to fight, but don’t kill your attacker. Let him live so that he has the opportunity to change before he must face God. You’re no help to God as far as helping other people know Him if you let someone kill you because you were turning the other cheek.
Profuse apologies for not mentioning it—I’m kind-of embarrassed at saying the same old thing, drawing attention to the same old source material, naming the same old names – so to speak—but its from Tolstoy. It can be found right near the end of, “What I believe,†(written in the 1880’s and still relevant today!)
Check out also, for a wealth of understanding vis à vis these and related issues, “The Kingdom of God is Within You,†& “The Gospel in Brief.â€
I cannot emphasise enough just what an eye-opener these works constitute.
Jesus making bad people good is a perfect synonym for His making dead people live.
Hi creation imperfect!
Apologies for yet again bringing forth another man’s words and not my own, (although I am trying to make them my own,) in this case those of an American, Adin Ballou, taken from his, “Catechism of Non-resistance,â€
He who attacks another and injures him, kindles in the other a feeling of hatred, the root of every evil. To injure another because he has injured us, even with the aim of overcoming evil, is doubling the harm for him and for oneself; it is begetting, or at least setting free and inciting, that evil spirit which we should wish to drive out. Satan can never be driven out by Satan. Error can never be corrected by error, and evil cannot be vanquished by evil.
True non-resistance is the only real resistance to evil. It is crushing the serpent’s head. It destroys and in the end extirpates the evil feeling.
Q. But if that is the true meaning of the rule of non- resistance, can it always put into practice?
A. It can be put into practice like every virtue enjoined by the law of God. A virtue cannot be practiced in all circumstances without self-sacrifice, privation, suffering, and in extreme cases loss of life itself. But he who esteems life more than fulfilling the will of God is already dead to the only true life. Trying to save his life he loses it. Besides, generally speaking, where non-resistance costs the sacrifice of a single life or of some material welfare, resistance costs a
thousand such sacrifices.
Non-resistance is Salvation; Resistance is Ruin.
It is incomparably less dangerous to act justly than unjustly, to submit to injuries than to resist them with violence, less dangerous even in one’s relations to the present life. If all men refused to resist evil by evil our world would be happy.
Q. But so long as only a few act thus, what will happen to them?
A. If only one man acted thus, and all the rest agreed to crucify him, would it not be nobler for him to die in the glory of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live to wear the crown of Caesar stained with the blood of the slain? However, one man, or a thousand men, firmly resolved not to oppose evil by evil are far more free from danger by violence than those who resort to violence, whether among civilized or savage neighbours. The robber, the murderer, and the cheat will leave them in peace, sooner than those who oppose them with arms, and those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword, but those who seek after peace, and behave kindly and harmlessly, forgiving and forgetting injuries, for the most part enjoy peace, or, if they die, they die blessed. In this way, if all kept the ordinance of non-resistance, there would obviously be no evil nor crime. If the majority acted thus they would establish the rule of love and good will even over evil doers, never opposing evil with evil, and never resorting to force. If there were a moderately large minority of such men, they would exercise such a salutary moral influence on society that every cruel punishment would be
abolished, and violence and feud would be replaced by peace and love. Even if there were only a small minority of them, they would rarely experience anything worse than the world’s
contempt, and meantime the world, though unconscious of it, and not grateful for it, would be continually becoming wiser and better for their unseen action on it. And if in the worst case
some members of the minority were persecuted to death, in dying for the truth they would have left behind them their doctrine, sanctified by the blood of their martyrdom. Peace, then, to all who seek peace, and may overruling love be the imperishable heritage of every soul who obeys willingly Christ’s word, “Resist not evil.”
Best wishes,
I still am wary of it… not to criticize, it’s just a personal opinion. If I am in a conveinence store at the time of a robbery and I truly believe the theif will harm the attendant I will do everything in my power to take down the theif. I could probably lay down my life but… especially if it was a loved one, friends or family, I would fight for them. It may not be Christian but I don’t know. That’s one of the hardest things I’ve tried to figure out the philosophy behind.
I think it is instructional that a question like that of the “sister” issue has to be asked. It seems obvious to me that anyone would help in those circumstances. The real issue is what wasn’t done that allowed for that scenario to develop in the first place? Who’s eyes were closed to those conditions that led to the possibility of that scenario?
A long time ago I did a post on the story of Cain, where he is asked by God, where is thy brother, Abel? Cain replies that he does not know, and asks God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Too many people see that question as having a yes, no, maybe answer. I would point out that this isn’t an option multiple choice question: we ARE our brothers keeper. The test of our character, our intuitive empathy, is our understanding that our brother is our brother, and acting accordingly. That we fail miserably says everything about our self-centeredness and explains why the “sister” scenario is even possible. We are much less than we pretend to be.
Do our hearts change as technology changes? In Jesus' day, the people you could afford to care about all lived within a stone's throw of your house- there was no Western Union, people walked everywhere. If you did hear about a tidal wave in some distant land, it would be probably months after the fact at least, and for all you know, people in that part of the world eat babies and have two heads.
This idea of even having the [i]opportunity[/i]to care about people thousands of miles away is relatively new. I wonder where our obligations lie.
Our obligations, if we call them that, are acting on what is in our heart. The real issue is what is in our heart, and not whether we send money to the Christian Children’s fund. Yes, we do what we can do with those who impinge on our lives. If all religions practiced what they preach, would the world be a better place? Yes. But practice falls short, does it not? Having the courage of our convictions is difficult, and most of us fail not only others, but ourselves, first and foremost.
“bad people†= spiritually “dead people†(a term used to describe unenlightened men)
Good people are enlightened, they are the quick as opposed to the dead, they are those who have seen the light, the truth, the life, the way, within themselves, not within their bodies, their mortal flesh, but within that part of them that is imperishable or immortal, in short, they understand – (forgive me if I sound to be talking in riddles – I am in fact trying my best to explain!)
How can you make dead people live? Jesus is not talking about the body—man does not live by bread alone—He is talking about the soul, the spirit, the inner being, that portion of every human being that is also a portion of God, that divine spark, that which gives life, that—(without which)—there is nothing, and no purpose.
Jesus came to (a)waken the dead from their sleep of death, He came to awaken bad people from their slumbers, to bring the dead to life, and by so doing to make what were bad people good.
Does that clarify things?
Peter
Hi creation imperfect!
I understand these sentiments very well.
Please criticise as much as you want! I think the problem is that we have been led for so long—by this Church and by that Church not forgetting the State—to believe in things that Jesus never advocated, things that are contrary to His teachings.
I hope you are able to figure things out. It is perhaps the hardest thing and you’re basically on your own!
Good luck!
Peter
Hi JT!
I haven’t suddenly become a Jesus freak! It’s just that the stuff I have been reading of late puts a great deal into perspective. For years I have sought answers and bit by bit I’ve put the puzzle together. When you come across a concept like non-resistance you can’t ignore it! Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, (amongst others,) were strongly influenced by Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical writings.
I would say it all hinges on what you mean by, “help.â€
People like messieurs Bush & Blair, (who pay a kind-of lip service to Christianity by following some Church or other’s interpretation of what Christ said,) apparently see no harm in advocating, “help,†for Afghanistan or Iraq, even though it necessitates the daily mass murder of fellow human beings; whereas those who actually examine what Christ Himself said, within the parameters of His understanding of the Church, (one without walls,) in, e.g., The Sermon on the Mount, would have to admit the idea of non-resistance as a truer form of aid for humankind - to be ignored at one’s peril, (history proves that if it proves nothing else!)
The essential thing is that Jesus does not advocate, ‘an eye for an eye,’ as a way of dealing with such things. His way is the opposite, ‘turn the other cheek.’
There is, “A strong body of evidence for the belief that Jesus both abjured for Himself and forbade to His disciples all use of physical violence as a means of checking or deterring wrongdoers, not excluding even that use of violence which is characteristic of the public acts of society at large as distinct from the individual. On this showing, participation in warfare is ruled out as inconsistent with Christian principles of conduct.†(Cadoux – The Early Christian Attitude to War – A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics)
I completely agree that globalization of communications places a greater strain on our capacity to care, but surely the Christian answer can’t be to simply ignore suffering except where it may be convenient to intervene.
It seems that we could go 2 different directions in response to greater technology, (1) care more because we have more access to people’s suffering and therefore greater opportunity to help, or (2) care less in the sense that we have already decided that those outside a certain social network are irrelevant to us, and every excess suffering we encounter is just another to add to our “ignore” pile.
If the answer is (2) then we must be honest that we are simply accessing means of mass communication in order to be entertained and informed about another’s suffering with absolutely no compulsion to help. This seems morally akin to trawling the highways looking for car accidents to enjoy! Surely this cannot be the Christian perspective!
The problem with option (1) is that I do feel that human beings have a limited “carrying capacity” when it comes to dealing with suffering; once we reach a certain point we lose any capacity to care.
So, 2 things come to mind. First, maybe Christians should be primarily concerned about increasing their “carrying capacity” (maybe through prayer, fasting, whatever…) and, second, maybe Christians should conciously turn off the TV and avoid global communications if we honestly admit that we are simply being entertained by the suffering of others.
Yes, I see where you are coming from now. I was thinking more of the after life, that it’s not all about goodness, but about salvation… But from what You’ve said, it can be used that way as well.
If I may be so bold as to proffer a perhaps somewhat simplistic reply, (although, maybe, your question is rhetorical,) whatever, I would say, sufficient unto the place is the evil thereof.
I basically agree with JT:
If I can find what Jesus says on the matter I’ll try and let you know.
(I do recall reading, was it Krishnamurti(?), many years ago and his observations on the fact that technology was the only thing in our lives that made progress, in the sense of got more advanced – I think – it was a long time ago!)
I simply cannot agree with that statement, that only technology improves. I know through my own moral self-cultivation practices, I have been able to vastly increase my empathy and moral standing.
While I am undeniably a long way from perfection, I am a far better man than I was as recently as a few years ago. If we can’t work on expanding our caring, as Ned suggested, then what is the point?