Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[deadlycairn]

I said an avowed atheist - by that I meant someone who vehemently denies the existence of God and Jesus, as well as trying to convince others of this non-existence. Almost a religion in itself

[Cheeetar]

I said an avowed atheist - by that I meant someone who vehemently denies the existence of God and Jesus, as well as trying to convince others of this non-existence. Almost a religion in itself

you do know that Jude is talking mostly to Strife, right?

[Jude]

Well, I'm talking to everybody. These misconceptions are very widely held.

[Sean Mirrsen]

*checks OP*
*rechecks thread*

Well, I gotta say that there's one fundamentally similar thing between science and religion - both excel at derailing and laying miles and miles of track perpendicular to the original topic.

[Bromor Neckbeard]

I'll contend that without protection all of your 'good works' can't happen.

wat

I'm pretty sure that what he was getting at here was that America was entirely full of "true Christians" who would really "turn the other cheek", as opposed to having a vast majority of Christians like Strife, our enemies (who have no such prohibition against violence) would swarm over the borders and destroy us.  There are those in the world who say, "our religion is the only true way and we will destroy all others" and if we didn't have teenagers riding around in tanks and helicopters, they would in fact "destroy all others".  This would not leave a whole bunch of "true Christians" around to feed the hungry and clothe the poor.

That's what I think Strife was getting at.  Keep in mind that religiously I think Strife is wrong on every point, but from a pragmatic point of view, I agree with him on the necessity for every country to have a military.

Oh, and Sean, apparently Hawk Dude is cool with this.  Since his project is now done, I don't think he minds what happens to the topic.  At least he hasn't posted in the topic recently to tell us to knock it off.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Well...

I'm a Muslim.
And, by definition (from our ulama (no need for s since it's already plural)) we're the polished version of Ibrahim's faith.

1st: God... doesn't condemn violence (but yeah, condemns uninvited violence. what is the English again>)
2nd: Mind before body, Faith before Country
3rd: We... have free will, so He... test us in this world about the true self of us.

Also, as long as you're believing in a Cosmic power (which create this world, create us, and, so, God Himself), and still do good things, you *perhaps* (since God doesn't really tells us, or that we, human, are blind to not notice it, or that I, as a mortal man, didn't know) still got into Heaven.

And yeah, God hates treachery/lie (?) so, capitalism... Well, current capitalism... are being seen as not synchronious in the way with God.


NB: I'm not a native in English, I have a headache, and I must do some work. Sorry for the bad English.

[Strife26]

Pretty much how Bromor explained it. Without the framework of  and stability of goverment (which is protected by the Armed Forces), the quality of life goes down drasticly. Where is there more suffering, Fargo, with an organized and protected government, or somewhere in Darfur? 

[mainiac]

The notion of teaming barbarian hordes ready to swarm over the border and slaughter the christian is more'n a little out dated here.  I'm not saying that all nations are so fortunate, but in the states we could pull off the "Thou shall not kill" to a T without being slaughtered.  When was the last time our country had absolutely no choice but deadly force or survival?

But honestly, it's a pretty deceptive argument in the first place.  Jesus wasn't laying out a code of nations.  Jesus was saying how individual people should make autonomous decisions.  The conflict he avoided has little relationship to the scenario you drew.  Reducing such a complex moral issue to this simple comparison ignores the more fundamental issues of Jesus' morality.

Remember, Jesus did NOT preach a strict code of laws, he fought that notion and that we are capable of making individual decisions.  He said it was important to follow God's law, but more important yet, to love our neighbors as ourselves.  Jesus spoke against the conflict of his day, not about the notion of just war which arose 300 years later.  He clearly did not speak in favor of just war, but he never spoke against just war.

Does just war conflict with the central principles of altruism, mercy and forgiveness?

That's my $.02

*disappears*

[Jonathan S. Fox]

When was the last time our country had absolutely no choice but deadly force or survival?

I don't believe the United States has ever faced a real possibility of its people being subjected to genocide. If you broaden the question to the last time that quality of life would have been dramatically and negatively impacted by a policy of pacifism, then it depends on your judgment of history.

For the Cold War, the main question is if a pacifist United States would have been converted into a planned economy dictatorship.

For the Civil War, a pacifist Union would have saved the lives of the six hundred thousand people killed during the war, but condemned another four million to live the rest of their lives in slavery.

For the American Revolution, pacifism would have resulted in the colonies remaining a part of the British Empire.

I can't think of any other wars that would have resulted in any significant damage to a pacifist United States. This includes the War of 1812, the Mexican-American war, and both World War I and World War II, in addition to the "overseas adventures" such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the Gulf War, where the other party was obviously no threat to the United States. I'm reserving judgment on Afghanistan and anything else connected to the "War on Terror", since we don't have the benefit of history's hindsight.

Note the United States is somewhat unusual in how little global warfare threatens it, because it's so geographically isolated.

[Bromor Neckbeard]

For the Cold War, the main question is if a pacifist United States would have been converted into a planned economy dictatorship.

I don't think there's any question of this.  Without the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (however insane it appeared at the time to certain elements of society), we'd be a Soviet protectorate today, and Christianity as we know it would be extinct.  The Soviets weren't too big on "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state" or any of that stuff, and if they hadn't collapsed while trying to outspend us, they'd rule the world now.

I can't think of any other wars that would have resulted in any significant damage to a pacifist United States. This includes the War of 1812, the Mexican-American war, and both World War I and World War II, in addition to the "overseas adventures" such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the Gulf War, where the other party was obviously no threat to the United States. I'm reserving judgment on Afghanistan and anything else connected to the "War on Terror", since we don't have the benefit of history's hindsight.

I'm inclined to believe that if we hadn't entered WWII, the Axis would have divided up the world between them, and maybe later destroyed each other squabbling over the spoils.  Considering what horrible bastards the Axis guys were (Nanking, Dachau), just imagine what they would have done once they unquestionably ruled the world and knew for a fact they would never suffer consequences for any inhumane acts they committed.

Contrary to what you believe, Jonathan, I feel that WWII was the best demonstration in history of how a truly pacifist state cannot survive.  Although Harry Turtledove can be a dick, his "The Last Article" is a fine demonstration of how I feel about pacifism.

The notion of teaming barbarian hordes ready to swarm over the border and slaughter the christian is more'n a little out dated here.  I'm not saying that all nations are so fortunate, but in the states we could pull off the "Thou shall not kill" to a T without being slaughtered.  When was the last time our country had absolutely no choice but deadly force or survival?

True.  The "barbarian hordes sweeping over the border" that I spoke of earlier was mostly hyperbole, unless you're Tom Clancy.  However, we've never been confronted with the choice of "deadly force or survival" precisely because we have always used deadly force before it got to the point of our continued survival being in question.

[Siquo]

Does just war conflict with the central principles of altruism, mercy and forgiveness?

I think it does. The first Christians (not all, but quite a few) did turn the other cheek, and died as a result. Putting your own survival before your faith is common sense, but not what Christianity was about. The fun fact is that after many years of turning the other cheek, and lots of suffering, people were more and more genuinely impressed by the people doing it. Such a lack of fear inspires awe. That Christianity has died a long time ago, save a few souls.

Lashing out (preemptively or not) against agressors is a sign of fear, and weakness, and calling yourself a Christian while doing it is, IMNSHO, hypocritical.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Contrary to what you believe, Jonathan, I feel that WWII was the best demonstration in history of how a truly pacifist state cannot survive.

I agree it's a strong demonstration of this idea, as evidenced by the many countries that were invaded by the axis powers. It is not flawless, however: Switzerland, for example, was able to maintain neutrality by submitting to the Nazis economically, proving more useful as a trading partner than a subjugated satellite state. Survival depends on the question of what the conquering army wants.

And that is the key. In all my study of WWII, I've never seen evidence that either Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan had either the manpower or the ambition to conquer the entire world. On the contrary, evidence indicates each sought only to conquer their neighbors: For the Nazis, it meant uniting all of the Germanic peoples of Europe under a Greater German Empire. For Japanese Imperialists, it meant building a powerful and lasting empire in East Asia and the Pacific Islands. With these objectives, a pacifist United States would face little threat of invasion during WWII.

[Il Palazzo]

I'm inclined to believe that if we hadn't entered WWII, the Axis would have divided up the world between them, and maybe later destroyed each other squabbling over the spoils.  Considering what horrible bastards the Axis guys were (Nanking, Dachau), just imagine what they would have done once they unquestionably ruled the world and knew for a fact they would never suffer consequences for any inhumane acts they committed.

Oh I can imagine that.
Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai,. Plus the endless happiness of living under the Soviet occupation.
Winners write the history books, that's all.

[Jude]

I'm pretty sure that what he was getting at here was that America was entirely full of "true Christians" who would really "turn the other cheek", as opposed to having a vast majority of Christians like Strife, our enemies (who have no such prohibition against violence) would swarm over the borders and destroy us.  There are those in the world who say, "our religion is the only true way and we will destroy all others" and if we didn't have teenagers riding around in tanks and helicopters, they would in fact "destroy all others".  This would not leave a whole bunch of "true Christians" around to feed the hungry and clothe the poor.

That's what I think Strife was getting at.  Keep in mind that religiously I think Strife is wrong on every point, but from a pragmatic point of view, I agree with him on the necessity for every country to have a military.

Oh, and Sean, apparently Hawk Dude is cool with this.  Since his project is now done, I don't think he minds what happens to the topic.  At least he hasn't posted in the topic recently to tell us to knock it off.

Yeah, again - speaking from a secular, pragmatic point of view you're absolutely right. The point I'm making is that if you view things from a Christian point of view, things look totally different.

There's always going to be suffering in the world, is one thing, and having Christians run governments has pretty much never alleviated that. Who was it that brought us the great wars of the last century and the holocaust? Yep, "Christians." Not saying this to make the retarded "point" that religion causes violence, but to point out that once you give Christians power over the world's empires and armies, they become exactly like the heathens they were supposed to be different from. This is what happened the first time Christians got power (1700 years ago) and it's happened every single time since.

Again, I could weigh in on the pragmatic benefits of pacifism (I AM a pacifist) but that's not really relevant to the issue, since the point of Christianity was never to solve problems from a "practical" standpoint.

  Jesus wasn't laying out a code of nations.  Jesus was saying how individual people should make autonomous decisions.

Exactly! He was, and part of the way that he told people to live involved distancing themselves from worldly powers and institutions, because those are inevitably corrupting, abusive and evil.

Remember, Jesus did NOT preach a strict code of laws, he fought that notion and that we are capable of making individual decisions.  He said it was important to follow God's law, but more important yet, to love our neighbors as ourselves.  Jesus spoke against the conflict of his day, not about the notion of just war which arose 300 years later.  He clearly did not speak in favor of just war, but he never spoke against just war.

Does just war conflict with the central principles of altruism, mercy and forgiveness?

That's another frequent bastardization of the gospels, that people use to justify everything from hoarding wealth and not helping feed the starving, to "just war." Again, not such a big deal for a non-Christian to dismiss the gospels that way, but if you claim to be a Christian, it just makes you a huge hypocrite.

The social problems Jesus lived among are basically still present today, in different forms, but the essence is practically identical. The only difference being that we (Americans) live IN Rome, not under its occupation.

And how did he not speak against just war? His views on how to resist violence and oppression range from turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile, giving your underwear to someone who sues you for your cloak, healing a guy's ear that was about to kidnap him after one of his disciples chopped it off (note that the disciples, throughout the gospels, are continually not getting it and he has to reprimand them for it), loving your enemy like he was your brother, and on and on and on. He never spoke out against homosexuality either, but saying that he "never spoke out against just war" would be like saying that homosexual (or any) orgies would be A-OK with him.

Does just war conflict with the central principles of altruism, mercy and forgiveness?

Absolutely!

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I'm an atheist who got so sick of all the blasted arguing he simply decided to avoid it altogether.
This involves not going to General R.E.
Also known as General R.Free.