It started

[Achtung Bubba]

Thing is, Christians don't believe in a dualistic God, in some sort of balance between good and evil. C.S. Lewis has a great explanation (I forget in which book) that evil is less than goodness. It is a twisting of good; one simply CANNOT devise a morality that isn't derived in some way from goodness.

Satan isn't an equal to God, he's a creation of God who chose to rebel. His rebellion will be crushed, as will evil, ultimately.

The most interesting thing is, I honestly believe that ONLY God is unchanging, perfectly and permanently good. Satan, once good, decided to be evil and COULD choose to repent and become good again. In fact, I believe that Christ died to not only defeat Satan, but to give him a chance to return to God.

He won't, just as assuredly as man would fall, Judas would betray, and Christ will return, but I believe he COULD turn back to God.


------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.

 

[Calluna]

------------------
Remember the goul.

Shake n' bake
Do whatever it takes

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Thing is, Christians don't believe in a dualistic God, in some sort of balance between good and evil.

Actually, I didn't even suggest this, and you are correct. I was doing a comparative religion example as to how this dilemma was raised.

C.S. Lewis has a great explanation (I forget in which book) that evil is less than goodness. It is a twisting of good; one simply CANNOT devise a morality that isn't derived in some way from goodness.

I still don't get why people put C.S. Lewis on a pedestal. Maybe because 1) he's a famous fiction writer that a lot of people know, and 2) he's yet another prodigal son who converted from atheism, making him a prime target for evangelism. In other words, his writings are no more or less valid than any of ours, just that he's famous and makes theories that people find comfort in. There's nothing wrong with that, but I, personally, don't put much store in him.

Satan isn't an equal to God, he's a creation of God who chose to rebel. His rebellion will be crushed, as will evil, ultimately.

I agree completely.

The most interesting thing is, I honestly believe that ONLY God is unchanging, perfectly and permanently good. Satan, once good, decided to be evil and COULD choose to repent and become good again. In fact, I believe that Christ died to not only defeat Satan, but to give him a chance to return to God.

Well, that does open another conundrum, allowing for repentance even in hell. I surely don't think it's impossible, but, immediately, you run into a semantical problem. What you propose is the Catholic idea of purgatory, once labelled by a "visionary" as an upper extension of hell of which you can, in purification, make it to heaven. Of course, I do question this "visionary," as it seemed to be more of a modern update on Dante's "Inferno." But, I believe, you get my point. (My, a reference to personalism and now purgatory...

)

He won't, just as assuredly as man would fall, Judas would betray, and Christ will return, but I believe he COULD turn back to God.

That, of course, does open a whole new can of worms that truly isn't impossible, assuming that Satan does have free will and that everyone in hell has the ability to repent. But then is it "hell" anymore?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Bacchus]

A-HA,
SHA-LA,
A-HA,
SHA-LA,

Originally posted by Calvin and Hobbes:
Careful - we don?t want to learn from this!

 

[DebbieSG]

Originally posted by Ormus:
But do not look at the Bible for justification of war. Those that do do a great disservice to God and His Scriptures.

Ormus

Ok, moving away from the speculative and back to scriptures...

The bible does justify war (though not this one specifically) It says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is "a time to love, a time to hate, a time for war, and a time for peace."

As Christians, we really must take this matter, like any other, to the Lord, and pray to find out what is His will. That would be the right thing to do.

And I wouldn't call the terrorists our neighbors. Jesus describes neighbors in the parable of the Good Samaritan as someone who helps out in a person's time of need. The terrorists are clearly enemies. But then Jesus teaches us to "love our enemies." Even as we go to war, we should keep this in mind. If we can, by our love, reduce their hate or bring some light to their dark world, think how that would help all of us.

 

[melon]

Oh we can justify our hatred anywhere in the Bible. I hate women. Look! I can justify that with St. Paul. I want slaves. Look! I can have them for seven years at a time before I can release them. I like genocide. Look! Joshua practiced "the ban," killing everyone and destroying everything in his path. "God" commanded this in the Bible, so it must be right, correct?

You can justify any amount of hatred in the Bible from misogyny to slavery to homophobia to war to the death penalty to, yes, genocide.

Do you honestly think that Jesus would support this? I'm sorry. I might be stepping on toes here, but I just cannot, in any capacity, think that war can be justified within true Christianity. If you do, then this is no different than the Taliban using the Koran as an instrument justifying terrorism.

I just wonder what has happened to the state of Christianity anymore...it's such a mess.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[U2Bama]

I like what you have had to say, DebbieSG, especially the last part!

In fact, the minister where my wife and I attend church, on Sept. 16 (Sunday after attack) said that he prays that The Osama would suddenly find Jesus and turn himself in! I know, a wild curve and much more idealistic than I usually am, but I liked hearing it from him...

~U2Alabama

 

[DebbieSG]

melon, it's not the Church going to war, it's the State, the USA. Our politicians need to act on behalf of the security of the nation, regardless of their religion. But their faith can help lead them in their decision making. As citizens of this country, we have to decide whether we support the war effort and want to fight. The bible does specify that we obey those in authority and pray for the leaders of our country.

I agree religion shouldn't be a cause for war. Jesus himself avoided many attempts on his life by running away. Unfortunately nations can't do that, so they have to resort to some sort of defense.

Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" so I do think Christians will remember that and temper thoughts and actions.

And thanks Bama!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Bill O'Reilly

Peace, but no quiet

The hook on John Lennon's anti-war song was "all we are saying, is give peace a chance." And it was a nice thought, an easy sentiment to sing. But in these days of terror, Lennon's song seems sadly outdated to most Americans as some polls show 90 percent in support of military force against the terrorists and their sponsors.

Although the dissenters to military action are small in number, they are loud. Phil Donahue and his brethren passionately advocate a measured response to the attack on America and want the proper "authorities" to handle the matter. Mr. Donahue, for example, wants the people who ordered the mass murder to be tried in a "world" court. He also wants a "coalition" of nations to band together and decide what strategies should be employed in apprehending the Osama bin Ladens of the world.

Well, no offense to Belgium or anything, but the terrorists attacked the United States of America. And, according to our Constitution, the mandate of the federal government is to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, (and) promote the general welfare ..."

This is one of the main reasons why we have a federal government -- to protect us from foreign bad guys. Nowhere in the Constitution is a world court mentioned or any kind of coalition. It's a shame Phil Donahue didn't live 225 years ago -- maybe he could have gotten that stuff in then.

The issue of U.S. military action is so clear to me that, at first glance, I was amazed at what the dissenters were putting out there. But by looking deeper into the dissent movement, a more vivid picture begins to appear.

Recently, I interviewed a man named Woody Powell on television. He is the president of the Veterans for Peace movement. In the course of the conversation, it came to light that Mr. Powell believes that the United States has exploited the Third World economically -- thus, the citizens of those countries have a legitimate right to despise us. Mr. Powell wants America to correct worldwide economic injustice in order to solve the "root causes" of the terrorism problem.

This sounds swell but, of course, is a pipe dream. Look, America has exploited me economically. It takes more than half of my take-home pay and gives it to people like Boris Yeltsin and some drug addict who won't work. It isn't fair, but that's life. I have no right to kill or hurt anybody because I don't like the system.

Most dissenters have other agendas running. Some, like Phil Donahue, are wide-eyed idealists who believe they can reason with fanatical killers. They'd be singing "give peace a chance" while a blade crossed their throats. Others are socialists, or anarchists, or just people who hate any kind of central authority.

I have always thought that Jane Fonda's strident anti-American views in the Vietnam era were more about the resentment she had for her autocratic father than they were against perceived injustices to the Viet cong. It was telling that when the Khmer Rouge murdered more than a million Cambodian civilians, Ms. Fonda said nothing. If Jane was really so worried about innocent people dying in Southeast Asia, she should have gotten her butt over to Phnom Phen.

But a well thought-out protest is as rare as a kickboxing Quaker. There are millions of Americans who simply don't like their country. In times of trouble, these people can be counted on to take a point of view counter to the establishment, but often their protest has little to do with any one issue.

The truth is that ideology and misguided beliefs dominate some people. They simply are unable to think clearly. This attack on America was so savage -- and so unnecessary -- that any response short of annihilating the perpetrators is not only inappropriate, it is unconstitutional. The American people give our elected leaders power in order that they will "insure domestic tranquility."

How tranquil are you feeling these days?

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by melon:
Do you honestly think that Jesus would support this? I'm sorry. I might be stepping on toes here, but I just cannot, in any capacity, think that war can be justified within true Christianity. If you do, then this is no different than the Taliban using the Koran as an instrument justifying terrorism.

Is any killing wrong, then? Including killing in self-defense?

The spectrum of killing runs from wanton murder on one end, to self-defense on the other end. Where do you draw the line to determine what is acceptable and what isn't?

 

[Ormus]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Bill O'Reilly

Still watching FOX News Channel I see?

This sounds swell but, of course, is a pipe dream. Look, America has exploited me economically. It takes more than half of my take-home pay and gives it to people like Boris Yeltsin and some drug addict who won't work. It isn't fair, but that's life. I have no right to kill or hurt anybody because I don't like the system.

It made sense until this paragraph. "More than half of my take-home pay." Why doesn't he get a little more melodramatic? Even the highest of the top 1% (and we're talking people like the billionaire Walton dynasty here) don't pay more than 36% of their income in taxes. And, hmmm, what Mr. O'Reilly seems to forget is that his taxes pay for this war that he supports. "More than half of [his] take home pay" doesn't go to social programs. And besides, it's a contradiction in terms. "Take-home pay" means that the government has already taken out their taxes, so, unless he gives his money voluntarily to the government, he keeps 100% of his "take-home" pay. I can tell we're not talking about the brightest individual here.

Most dissenters have other agendas running. Some, like Phil Donahue, are wide-eyed idealists who believe they can reason with fanatical killers. They'd be singing "give peace a chance" while a blade crossed their throats. Others are socialists, or anarchists, or just people who hate any kind of central authority.

His criticism of Donahue is a valid one. But then he throws in that emotional plug to get that 90% angry. "Socialists"--what he really wants to do is evoke another Red scare--and "anarchists." Where are these people he refers to? In writing this sentence, he casually dismisses all opposition to this war as non-sensical fanatics, and I find that very condescending in nature.

I have always thought that Jane Fonda's strident anti-American views in the Vietnam era were more about the resentment she had for her autocratic father than they were against perceived injustices to the Viet cong. It was telling that when the Khmer Rouge murdered more than a million Cambodian civilians, Ms. Fonda said nothing. If Jane was really so worried about innocent people dying in Southeast Asia, she should have gotten her butt over to Phnom Phen.

A valid criticism of Jane Fonda. I have a feeling that O'Reilly was pro-Vietnam.

But a well thought-out protest is as rare as a kickboxing Quaker. There are millions of Americans who simply don't like their country. In times of trouble, these people can be counted on to take a point of view counter to the establishment, but often their protest has little to do with any one issue.

So here's where his central point comes across. "There are millions of Americans who simply don't like their country." Implicit is that anyone who is against this war doesn't like their country, and, hence, is a traitor in his eyes. It feels more like the 1950s everyday since September 11th.

The truth is that ideology and misguided beliefs dominate some people. They simply are unable to think clearly. This attack on America was so savage -- and so unnecessary -- that any response short of annihilating the perpetrators is not only inappropriate, it is unconstitutional. The American people give our elected leaders power in order that they will "insure domestic tranquility."

How tranquil are you feeling these days?

"Misguided." Implicit is anyone that disagrees with him is "misguided." Now I will state, once again, that I believe that there really was no alternative to war here, as much as that saddens me. But to wholly dismiss the 10% opposition, who, to be honest, are absolutely no threat to O'Reilly or anyone else, would be to give the government a license to start lying to everyone, as no one will ask questions. Why does O'Reilly need everyone to agree with him? I mean, he has 90% of the nation! He is just simply doing what he does best: bitch. And these days, it's starting to sound arrogant, when we don't have to worry about public opinion.

The war is yours. Your war is not threatened. What is everyone complaining about?

Ormus