AspiringSoul
Star
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 3,908
Christian countries (ie rome, the beast) made the world a jungle, then think God is on their side when they go out crusading against wild animals.
Thunderian said:No, he needs to die, if only to free the North Koreans from the murderous
depredation of his rule.
Inside Kim Jong Un's Plot To Kill His Family
I read this last night and if half of it's true, no one should be shedding a tear at the loss of Kim Jong Un. People are going to try and paint him and his regime as just more hapless victims of American aggression. No. He's a sadistic and murderous tyrant and his death would be a great boon to the poor people of North Korea and to the surviving members of his immediate family.
Red Sky at Morning said:It would appear that God sometimes calls time on evil regimes and uses other nations to do so.
Take Daniel 5...
2 Chronicles 36:15-18You said:I wonder then, based on the premise of the thread,
whether the Medes and the Persians "did evil" when they took the kingdom of Babylon from Belshazzar?
I can't imagine things in North Korea could be much worse for the people there. And unlike Iraq, there would be no insurgents or resistance. South Koreans would most likely take control of things pretty soon after Kim was removed from power, and would have much more luck building a new Korea than the US has had building a new Iraq.Were i a N.Korean, the last 16 years of America's foreign policy in the Middle East should give me pause for thought.
I actually read about something of a unification should Un be ousted. Granted, NKoreans escape to the South for a 'better' life but that life will include, should a re-unification take place, the South's high suicide rates and exploding autism. I guess everything comes at a cost...I can't imagine things in North Korea could be much worse for the people there. And unlike Iraq, there would be no insurgents or resistance. South Koreans would most likely take control of things pretty soon after Kim was removed from power, and would have much more luck building a new Korea than the US has had building a new Iraq.
And you don't think God already noticed? Why has He kept the ruling family around for 3 generations? And, remember that God ordains or permits to exist, earthly governments, however brutal. Not defending the regime but sometimes, a lack of freedom of religion, maybe a blessing in disguise.Imprisonment, torture, death: this is what you risk if you decide to follow Jesus in North Korea.
The family that has ruled North Korea for three generations are worshipped like gods, and any suggestion that there is a higher authority than the nation's leader, Kim Jong-un, is immediately crushed. Tens of thousands of Christians are incarcerated in horrific labour camps, and thousands more keep their faith in Christ a complete secret - often their own family members do not know of their faith.
http://www.opendoorsuk.org/persecution/worldwatch/north_korea.php
Thank you for joining in. Concerning that part of your statement which I have placed in bold, would you say that, for instance, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Clausewitz and Machiavelli have gotten off the whole "good vs. evil" thing? Is this close to what you are suggesting?We can't keep every madman from getting weapons. And I'm still hoping some of you get off the whole good vs evil thing. You are not a judge. Nor are you the ultimate decider of what's good and evil. If it was that simple, people wouldn't of invented Gods. Wars are won or lost based on the meta games going on within any conflict. The struggle for resources, and equality. Keeping up with the will and spirit of any initiative. There's all sorts of different types of force that matter when you have a goal. Individually or collectively.
I cannot easily locate the article in which he said it, but I remember Bernard-Henri Lévy's advice to G.W.Bush during the latter's "defensive" war against Iraq. Lévy said, and I think he was referring, in turn, to Prussian military theorist, Clausewitz, that (as I recall) "war is not metaphysics, good against evil, but is, rather, simply "politics by other means."" The power elite, it seems, do best when they don't bother themselves with questions of morality, but simply engage in "politics by other means," and in the process build and destroy empires.
Furthermore, I once read an editor and publisher of Machiavelli's advice to the Prince, which editor summarized the advice in these words: "Do good when you you can; do evil when you must; do both unhesitatingly; and don't lie to yourself about which is which." No scriptures, in this case, required.
We are in agreement. To be clear, I make a distinction between "pacifism" and "passivism." I understand that Christians are not, nor do they claim to be, invariably passive, certainly not, but rather that the often very active principles of returning good for evil, turning the other cheek, and the rest famously taught by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount are generally considered pacifistic in the sense that they are not conducive to, nor do they seem to permit war (as the term is usually understood).The Sermon on the Mount was not pacifist. Doing the things Jesus said to do like be meek, pure, salt, light are definite actions that perpetuate a cause and effect.
Jesus saying to turn the other cheek really benefits us more in the long run. In the short run, it doesn't seem to have a benefit; but in the long run, it does.
What happens when you don't turn the other cheek is that endless discussions are created about who was at fault. We can see this demonstrated by the Middle East. Israel says they are justified to defend themselves, but some people disagree that they are justified and believe that the Palestinians are justified to defend themselves by force.
History will continue having this discussion over and over again because no matter how you spin it, fault is difficult to determine because of their actions, however, justified they may believe they are.
When we look at the early church, which would be the only true, pure time when following the principle of turning the other cheek was applied, and we discuss the martyrdom during this time. These people are innocent. There is no debate. They were innocent and the Roman government was at fault for taking their lives.
However, throughout Christian history, the pendulum has swung because I don't know if we often understand why Jesus was saying to turn the other cheek and look at what happens when we discuss the crusades. It becomes an endless debate that creates a burden on the church to this day.
The Bible tells us that miracles protected the disciples and the early church when they followed the teachings of Christ. So following the Sermon on the Mount is not a pacifist act, but a method of being used by God to demonstrate greater things than fighting and winning wars. The world needs something greater than another "just" war. The Sermon on the Mount is something greater than another just war and the direction we should be taking away from "just" wars.
Not exactly. You might be conflating different philosophies. I think that there is some truth to these things though, that's why some of my words echo the same thoughts. And I'm not that familiar with where on the balance scale they fall. But they don't seem evil per say. Like there is something to be said for the promotion of vices. Ideas like that would never exist if vices weren't condemned.Thank you for joining in. Concerning that part of your statement which I have placed in bold, would you say that, for instance, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Clausewitz and Machiavelli have gotten off the whole "good vs. evil" thing? Is this close to what you are suggesting?
Regardless of whether or not your statements are true, you or other countrymen aren't the judge of that and should even less feel entitled to justify actions upon that judgment in any way or form that would infringe upon the sovereignty and self-determination of the people who are more qualified to make that judgment, ie. the North-Koreans.Inside Kim Jong Un's Plot To Kill His Family
I read this last night and if half of it's true, no one should be shedding a tear at the loss of Kim Jong Un. People are going to try and paint him and his regime as just more hapless victims of American aggression. No. He's a sadistic and murderous tyrant and his death would be a great boon to the poor people of North Korea and to the surviving members of his immediate family.
Yes, I would agree with what you are saying very much. Jesus does not present himself as ever needing to defend himself with a sword. This has caused much of my study of scripture for where we are able to find our defense. How do I find the same defense as Daniel who survived the den of lions or the same defense that released Peter from prison? My conclusion is that the Sermon on the Mount is the way to find the same defense.We are in agreement. To be clear, I make a distinction between "pacifism" and "passivism." I understand that Christians are not, nor do they claim to be, invariably passive, certainly not, but rather that the often very active principles of returning good for evil, turning the other cheek, and the rest famously taught by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount are generally considered pacifistic in the sense that they are not conducive to, nor do they seem to permit war (as the term is usually understood).
For instance, and this I think is in line with what you say above, when I read the New Testament, if this should be read alone, and I know that is a big if (hello @Thunderian ), never do I see Jesus, either in his physical ministry or after his resurrection and prior to ascension, defending himself with a sword, and neither do I read of any of his disciples doing the same. Even the later Christian martyrs thrown to lions in the Coliseum reportedly were, as St. Paul wrote before them, "killed all the day long," and were "accounted as sheep for the slaughter." They did not lift a sword or defend themselves with "carnal" weapons of warfare (except in this case, which was corrected by Jesus).
I say that to say that I understand that to actively repel evil with good is not mere passivism. Sorry it took me so long to respond. I finally got (something of) a winter break.
I quoted (or more paraphrased from memory) Lévy quoting Clausewitz on essentially ignoring, or disregarding, the distinction between good and evil; to not confuse war with metaphysics, or religion, but rather to view it as simply "politics by other means." Machiavelli, on the other hand, who lived well before Clausewitz's era, did recognize the distinction between the two, good and evil, but recommended that the Prince do either or both, as need be, in order to acquire and retain power. The philosophies contain that similarity, and I was reminded of them when you said this:You might be conflating different philosophies.
That sounds, to me, like a suggestion, or, better yet, an invitation not necessarily to immorality, but to a sort of amorality. Is it? Should one ignore distinctions between good and evil in one's approach to life?... And I'm still hoping some of you get off the whole good vs evil thing. You are not a judge. Nor are you the ultimate decider of what's good and evil ...
I think that Lévy is misrepresenting the book "On War". Because war isn't that simple. The philosophy describes a trinity of forces that are always at play. So it's wrong to say don't confuse metaphysics with war, when the war trinity is 100% metaphysical. Idk if I would describe those forces the same way though. Primal urges isn't the best way to describe the force of will. It's fine to do that, when you are an army commander. Or writing a book about something else. But it barely scratches the surface of actual human behavior.I quoted (or more paraphrased from memory) Lévy quoting Clausewitz on essentially ignoring, or disregarding, the distinction between good and evil; to not confuse war with metaphysics, or religion, but rather to view it as simply "politics by other means." Machiavelli, on the other hand, who lived well before Clausewitz's era, did recognize the distinction between the two, good and evil, but recommended that the Prince do either or both, as need be, in order to acquire and retain power. The philosophies contain that similarity, and I was reminded of them when you said this:
I meant to clarify that, but got distracted. Because that's not what I'm saying at all. It's an invitation to be truly neutral. That doesn't mean ignore bad things. It doesn't mean turn into Machiavelli. My point has been to caution against being consumed by the very idea of good and evil. I'm saying don't draw lines in the sand, and if you do. Be very careful you aren't on the wrong side.That sounds, to me, like a suggestion, or, better yet, an invitation not necessarily to immorality, but to a sort of amorality. Is it? Should one ignore distinctions between good and evil in one's approach to life?
Why would you say that is? What is it about Christianity, taken as a whole, including its variants, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., which, generally speaking, lends itself to being the official, state religion of empires, ranging from the so called "Holy Roman" to that of Queen Victoria and on to Tsar Nicholas? Even in this thread, one can sense that, on an individual level, Christians are doves, but, historically (and even now), when they coalesced into nation states, they became at times rapacious hawks.Christian countries (ie rome, the beast) made the world a jungle, then think God is on their side when they go out crusading against wild animals.
Amen, sister! Throughout both Bush Aministrations, I waited for Evangelical Christians, whose job it should be, it seems to me, to call "wolf in sheep's clothing," but for the most part I waited in vain (until I was finally blessed to catch up with @Karlysymon and others). What is more, and though I wasn't in a Christian bookstore, which is often filled with things published by Zondervan, a house owned by Rupert Murdoch, of all people, I puked a lot (speaking metaphorically).I have spent years thinking about this definition of enemy alongside claims that George Bush was a man of faith. It still bothers me to this day. I remember being in a Christian bookstore years ago and seeing this book being sold called "The Faith of George W. Bush" and wanting to throw up.
I would try to imagine how the world would have responded if we had been led to love our enemies, and I do believe that we would have been better off everyday, but we don't live in a Christian world even if people call themselves Christians. It is like we can forget that there are wolves in sheep's clothing out there so no one says anything when this man clearly doesn't represent what scripture says about responding to enemies.
It's good to hear from you! I wonder. How do you not only read but also interpret the verse from Romans to which Robert Jeffress, Evangelical adviser to Trump (in the op), referred when he said this:Why didnt Jesus fight? Why didnt He take up arms and free Israel from the occupation of the Romans? Why didnt He take on the Jews themselves and remove them from Power when they were clearly not following the Law of Moses correctly and executing Judgment as they should have been?
If we are to take the commonly held ideals of justification for war as the solution to the problems then why didnt Jesus defend Himself, and His supposed Kingdom of the Nation of Israel from unjust occupation by both the Romans and the self appointed Pharisees?
I truly dont think people understand this Kingdom thing Jesus keeps talking about, I think I have misunderstood it for years:
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Is it sort of like "all things in moderation," even good and evil? Aim for something in between, say, Teresa of Calcutta and Charlie Manson ?I meant to clarify that, but got distracted. Because that's not what I'm saying at all. It's an invitation to be truly neutral. That doesn't mean ignore bad things. It doesn't mean turn into Machiavelli. My point has been to caution against being consumed by the very idea of good and evil. I'm saying don't draw lines in the sand, and if you do. Be very careful you aren't on the wrong side.
All I have to say is yikes!In this {click here} past post, in a thread now asleep, I referred to the so called, at times controversial "just war" theory, and claimed that, historically, it has been used by Catholics and Protestants alike, as and when the need for war arose. I gave examples of WWI and WWII.
Here that theory is, recently presented, or re-presented and thus updated, by an American Evangelical adviser to President Trump, Robert Jeffress, stated in a somewhat abbreviated, soundbite form. I am not being facetious here, but if anybody wonders, when Jeffress refers to the book of Romans, it is to the New Testament book of the same name.
I see that Jeffress' pronouncement has stimulated discussion, controversy and debate within the Christian community and beyond, at least in the blogosphere, and it seems to me rightly so, given its implications.
____________________________________
‘God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un,’ evangelical adviser says
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey August 9
President Trump, left, greets pastor Robert Jeffress on July 1 during the Celebrate Freedom Rally at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington. (Oliver Douliery/Pool/European Pressphoto Agency)
Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, one of President Trump’s evangelical advisers who preached the morning of his inauguration, has released a statement saying the president has the moral authority to “take out” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
“When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”
___________________________________________
Source