I think something perhaps we can agree on is that we cannot base our decisions on how other people percieve-although it is vitally important to be aware of this and to learn from it. No matter what we do-some people are still going to be angry with us, we cannot control this, all we can control is whether we do what’s right.

Something you said was (paraphrasing here) Many People are glad that we are over there and many people are not. This is a good point. And I think that in general the people that are happy with us being over there are people who wanted Sadaam out of power, and the people who do not want us over there are people we percieve as enemies and who percieve us as enemies.

I think this is where one of the distinguishing marks of Jesus teachings comes in (although he is not the only one to talk this way)-and that is that we cannot just protect someone by getting rid of the enemy-but that we are called to love the enemy as well. The natural tendency is to protect the innocent and get rid of the enemy, and while it is a noble cause to want to protect the innocent, Jesus kingdom asks us to do more than just eliminate the enemy.

There have been more than one or two people who have been pacifists while getting their asses kicked, and there movements have been some of the most powerful movements.

Also, there are verying degrees of violence-I don’t imagine anyone objecting to stopping a kid from touching a hot stove, but this is much different than stopping someone from doing something by killing them.
I think there are degrees of violence that are justified-but as a Christian I don’t see how killing fits in with loving my enemy, I don’t see how I could be loving my enemy by killing them.

Many Iraqis are happy we got rid of Saddam.
Many Iraqis are angry we are in their country.
We went to rid them of an oppressor.
We went to protect our oil interests.
Reducing our presence in the middle east will deter some terrorists.
Reducing our presence in the middle east will embolden some terrorists.

These are not mutually exclusive statements, and they are ALL true to varying degrees. It is a very complex situation, obviously.

What is not a complex issue, in my opinion, is that violence is justified sometimes. Sometimes there isn’t time to talk.

When a child reaches for a hot stove, we grab their hand or slap it away. We talk later.

When a man raises his fist to a child, we likewise put a stop to the behavior and discuss it afterward.

You have heard the old adage “There are no atheists in fox-holes.” Crudely adapted, it might read like this: “There are no pacifists when you’re getting your ass kicked.”

There may be one or two – just as there were probably staunch atheists in a foxhole or two – but they are few and I doubt any of them commented in this thread.

Bill, let’s switch my Hawkeye DVD’s for your Maxed Out DVD’s, I forgot I’d lent those to you.

I think the best line of the whole discussion was when Ben wrote, “Another criticism of the war on terrorism is that not only will it not contain terrorists, but that it will create more of them.”

I must say I agree with that. When Western countries took over the middle East after WWI and began imposing our will and our boundaries on them, they started hating us. I realize my historical theory may have holes, but this makes sense to me.
My theory for stopping terrorism is this: Insanely protect the borders for one generation and the terrorism will stop. If we remove our military bases from Muslim holy ground and stop believing we MUST have unrestricted access to oil that isn’t even ours, the poeple in the middle east will eventually stop hating us. If we quit oppressing them, they’ll stop hating us.
There was a picture of a young Iraqi boy of about 8 on the cover of Newsweek awhile ago, he was holding an machine gun. The headline said, “the next generation of Jihadists.” Unfortunately, our oppressive military presence is creating another generation of “haters.”

Those passages seem to me like you should think of others before yourself and try to rationalize why they are acting that way rather than retaliating with raw emotion. However, I don’t think it was meant to say not to defend yourself.

I agree with Donny about looking insane to others. Any time you feel strongly about something and take a stand (pro-life, gun control, animal rights, etc.) you polarize a group somewhere. I am sure some group somewhere thinks that non-Christians are insane.

As a Christian, how do passages like Jesus telling his followers to turn the other cheek when they are struck, and to give someone our cloak if they take our coat, and to go the extra mile (which I don’t see as commands to be passive doormats, but instead to be a non-violent way of standing up for one’s self), or the passage where Jesus said that his followers should not just love their friends, but their enemies as well, and where Jesus tells them that they have to pick up their cross to follow him. And the fact that the writers of the rest of the New Testament, Paul, John, Peter-all tell their audience to follow in Jesus’ example of living by self sacrifice, of being willing to suffer rather than doing harm…How should these passages affect how I respond to a situation like someone robbing me or beating me?

I totally understand what you wrote earlier about using violence as a tool, and how it can be used for good or for harm. And in a sense I agree with that, it makes sense. But I don’t see that kind of teaching in the New Testament-the kind of teaching that encourages followers to use violence for the cause of peace and justice. Instead it seems to discourage followers from using violence altogether.

So how should my response to being robbed be formed by the NT?

This reminds me of a true story I read a while ago. A lady was living by herself in a house, and she woke up in the middle of the night and saw a strange man standing in her room. She didn’t know if he intended to rob her or rape her, but instead of screaming she decided to talk. She asked him what time it was. He said he didn’t know cause his watch was broken. She asked him how he had gotten in, and he told her he had broken the kitchen window. She expressed how much that would cost to fix. They talked for a while, and then she asked him to leave, but he said he did not have any place to stay. So she made a place for him to sleep on her couch in the living room. The next morning he ate breakfast with her and left.

Perhaps this kind of reaction is unrealistic, I don’t know, but there is something incredibly beautiful to me about this story. And it reminds of Donnie’s message on Sunday that sometimes what we’re called to do may look insane to others.

If someone is trying to cause me harm, label me what you want. If I am able, I will be throwing that gentleman a beating with whatever God happens to put next to me (fist, tree limb, rock, etc.).

You don’t have to have shooting skills to own a gun. If someone is breaking into your house, shoot in his/her general direction and chances are good that they will stop breaking in.

This morning Donnie expressed some concern that he hadn’t blogged about anything that made me mad lately.

He promised to do better!

I have no business owning a gun. I don’t have experience firing one (not a pistol anyway), I’m not trained, and I certainly haven’t been educated on the psychological judgment and aftermath issues that coincide with actually using one.

But I don’t think that guns should be outlawed.

I’m much more comfortable with, say, the UK having nukes than Iran.

In response to what you said about a robber trying to steal a wallet and me defending myself-I see your point there. But what if it’s not as black and white as that. I mean-we all think that we are the most responsible persons or countries to own weapons. But when we look at the issue with Iran right now, our gov is basically saying that it’s okay for us to have weapons of mass destruction to defend ourselves but not for other countries to have them to defend their selves. But of course we think we are responsible enough to have them, right?
Somewhat relating to that-I read a quote by Jimmy Carter that said, “We cannot have it both ways-we can’t be the largest manufacturer of weapons and the biggest champion for peace.”

I also see your point that certain peoples will always be unhappy with us no matter what. However, at this point in history, I think much of that unhappiness is warrented when we consider the gap there is between how much America consumes of the world’s resources, and because of how we obtain some of those resources. At some point, if we do provide a livable life for everyone and some are still unhappy with us-then at least we can take pride that we have provided what all people deserve. Until then we have little reason to take such pride-not so much on a gov level anyway-but as the church of Christ is living out his mission, at least we can be proud of what we’re doing-and I’ve never been more proud of the church that I attend than I am with Trinity Family.

I don’t think violence affirms violence at all. Imagine some petty crime such as a person – with no weapons – trying to jump you and take your wallet. Let’s say you manage to subdue them and call the police.

This affirmation philosophy says that you are no better than the criminal because you responded to his fists with your fists. I don’t believe that. I believe you both used the same tools. He used his to cause harm, and you used yours to PREVENT it.

On the continuum with “America can do no wrong” on one end and “Everything you read about America’s evil is true” on the other, I’m sure the truth is in the middle somewhere. I hear your concerns and they are valid.

As we address those; however, we also need to realize that in the world’s view there is no right way to do this. If we stay away from everyone else we are criticized. If we aid others, but not enough according to some third party we are criticized. Anything we do that might happen to benefit America AND the 2nd party will be criticized. And obviously predatory activity will be criticized. There will always be critics – even if we all emptied our surplus to foreign charity. It will never be enough until the mentality that others deserve what we have just because we have it goes away (I’m talking beyond necessities).

I’m not saying we shouldn’t help – not at all. We should and will do more. But imagine that one glorious day, all people have clean water and clothing, sustainable food and medicine, and local economies to employ them. If our standard of living here in the States is still higher than theirs, we’ll be drug through the mud for not doing more.

I don’t mean that we should aid others for the brownie points. We should aid others because there is a need. I understand giving humbly, and even anonymously. I prefer it personally. I DO mean that public (world) opinion will never be a suitable way to measure our effectiveness.

If this stuff has been going on, and if we ignore it, then we are ignoring one of the bases for terrorism

The US gov has been more than reactive towards other countries that they feel pose a threat, however, the gov seems to be apathetic to countries that offer no incentive to help them.

It’s interesting that many church denominations view war from the just war theory-and that the Iraq war did not fullfill the requirements of the just war theory, yet most churches supported the war. This makes it look like churches talk about one thing and then live by another. I’m not sure off the top of my head if the Nazarene Church has anything in its manual about war or the just war theory though.

I see your point that we are not necessarily obligated to be reactive. And I think that wherever we have the ability to stop violence we should, however all the while seeking for a way to do it nonviolently if possible. Using violence to stop violence in one sense is preventing destruction, but in another sense it is affirming the same violence that we are trying to stop.

On a national level it is interesting to see how our gov has and will respond to other countries who they see as a threat. Even if we are working from a perspective of not waiting until someone else strikes-there was and still is no evidence that Iraq had the weapons that our gov claimed they did, and a gov study has come out that has said there is no evidence that Iran has the weapons that the Bush Admin. claims that they do. It will be interesting to see how our gov will deal with the Iran issue, but I hope that whatever lessons have been learned through our mistakes with Iraq will be applied to the issue with Iran.

There are several perspectives that can be taken with the Iraq was depending on the conclusion you want to come to. Perhaps we should be dismayed that we never got Saddam sooner because his local atrocities weren’t a good enough excuse. Maybe the real tragedy is that we sat by so long and it took the added incentive of economics to get us to act?

My main point is we are not necessarily morally obligated to be reactive. If you see someone about to be stabbed, you don’t have to wait until the strike to try to stop it.

Regarding the Family Guy Star Wars, let me say (if you haven’t seen it already) that I am sure everyone will enjoy it. I’ve seen it and it is really good stuff!

Also, tomorrow night we’re having a party to watch the Star Wars episode of Family guy. If any of you are fans of Family Guy feel free to come. (Although, if you’re not familiar with Family Guy…it’s not a kid’s show, so I wouldn’t recommend bringing your kids over, which I know unfortunately will probably eliminate the possbility of you guy’s coming, but if you can make it, sweet!)

I totally passed over something you wrote before so I wanted to respond to it.

You said,
“I think your logic of not voting for Huackabee because he is a Christian and Bush is a Christian and you voted for him…Christians and Christianity had its political chance and so now let’s try something else-that logic is flawed, it is throwing all Christians in the same bucket!”

Well I wasn’t trying to say (although I may have said it differently than I meant) that I will not vote for Huckabee because he’s a Christian. What I meant to say is that we should not get our hopes and think that he is going to turn this country around and lead it to Christ just because he’s a Christian, ans lets not assume that he’s the best candidate simply because he’s a Baptist minister. I don’t know how many people think this, but when Bush was elected, both times there seemed to be this idea among evangelicals that because he was a Christain he was going to save the country for Christ. And I’m saying that to whatever extent we beleived this, we should learn from it.

Right now I would not vote for Huckabee-not because he’s a Christian, but because his moral value radar seems to be too narrow. However, I still have some reserching to do.

The ultimate goal should not be to stop murderers (although that is important), the ultimate goal should be to get rid of murder-and we’re not going to accomplish that through war. Perhaps war is necesary at times. However, war does not ultimately lead to peace, therefore it should be used as the last option-which was not the case conceringing the war in Iraq in my opinion. War does not ultimately lead to peace-it may stop the fighting for a time, but eventually those who were defeated will rise up in violence again, or those who get trampled on under a world power will rise up in violence.

Were their benefits from us going to Iraq? Of course, it’s a good thing that Hussien is out of power-but whatever good side affects there are should not overshadow the issue of whether or not it was just for us to go to war in the first place.

You’re right Bill, holding our hands will probably not get rid of murderers or murder. And I don’ think we should hold our hands-we should seek avenues that lead to peace. And I don’t think that using force to disarm others is wrong-but we should be seeking for reconciliation when that is possible, not just the elimiination of the threat.

What is better, to be killed, or to become murderers ourselves? And what is our ultimate goal, to elimanate our enemies, or reconciliation.

My basic point that I think I’m getting at is that war does not lead to peace, so therefore it should be the last resort. And I’m having a hard time seeing how our war with Iraq was a last resort.

Finally, Bill your right, we do have it pretty cozy over here. And much of that is becuase of our hard work as a country. However, how much of that is because we use our power to exploit other countries for their resources.

And you may be right about us being able to do something about our country. However, I feel like this is becoming less and less true. There are so many things that go on in the government that we don’t know about because we’re the “lay people.” But shouldn’t we have a say in what goes in our government-in the people’s government. I feel less and less like we have a democracy. Ultimately I fear that the presidential candidates are all the same-they may have different views, but they all seem to be motivated by self interest.

I’ll tell you what is a myth. It is a myth that if we just hold hands long enough murdering types will stop their murdering.

You, DarthBen, and the rest of us are in a pretty sweet position over here. If you feel so embarrassed to be a part of this nation, at least it is one where you can do something about it. I can’t say the same for Iraq.

However, this war was may more complicated than that. The UN did not support us in this war because they said that Iraq did not pose that kind of a threat. Also Paul O’neil, a former member of one of Bush’s first cabinents, has come out and said that Bush wanted to invade Iraq way before 9-11, which is suspicious because the Bush admin. tried to link Iraq to the 9-11 attacks. Also, it has come out that the main reason we were ever interrested in attacking Iraq is because we tried to make an oil deal with Hussien and he refused. Now given, Hussein was no moral leader, but there was no warrent for this war. Now obviously we have to choose who we believe. Do we believe our gov, or people who have come out of the gov who are saying these things that I am referring too. However, Bush to me has proven to be most untrustworthy.

It is a myth taht removing a government through violence will establish peace-it may not be a myth that governments will ever get past, and it may not be myth that will be denied this side of Jesus returning, but it is a myth.

Hussien was not angel, but to me that fact was only an excuse to wage an unnecesary war that the UN did not want us to get into.

Also, if we want to remove governments who kill and oppress people-should we start with our own?

I know you mean well Ben, I know you…

I think your logic of not voting for Huackabee because he is a Christian and Bush is a Christian and you voted for him…Christians and Christianity had its political chance and so now let’s try something else-that logic is flawed, it is throwing all Christians in the same bucket!

I also echo Bill’s sentiments…I don’t want the US to be in an unwarranted war nor wage war against the environment nor inflict its freedom and liberty on weak, defenseless dictatorship counties that oppress their people.

I do want peace. And to achieve that sometimes leadership and governments that kill needs to be forcibly removed-this is the most pro-life and just thing that can be done.

-Derin-