I want to ask a question of the mind….. Not a question of belief or faith, but a question of the individual expression. Pretend for a moment that you are not responding as a Christian, but a friend…. I hope as this friend that you will listen intently to what I am saying, being both thoughtful of it in meaning and in response. As an observer outside of religion, I witness mass confusion; not only between different religions arguing which one is the true and correct belief , but within the religion itself who is correctly interpreting the words and 'inspiration' within it's constituents. Matthew 10 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. This is the passage that brought this thought forward within me. I understand the interpretive value, that Jesus is not necessarily saying that we should arm ourselves and fight against those who do not accept him…. But that many will deny this acceptance and respond with their own force of arms. Even then, this does pose a serious problem within my mind concerning the value of peace. What does this say then, that there can be no peace without war, that it has become inevitable through what Jesus has offered in thought? Does it say that we will be forced to place a weapon in our hand and anger in our minds in order to defend our position? It makes quite a statement about what is important, to being worthy of grace. Is it a position of belief, or a position of what is right in our own expression? I then imagined what peace looked like, what my mind and expression alone had to say for it. If I entered life within the idea of peace, being the owner of every expression of offering within it; what reason could you find to strike me down? If this expression is nothing more than an offering of peace, what is there to defend? I imagined then, if I was the composer of love and life….. What is important to it, that I be praised and worshipped for it, that I place my loyal subjects in a position to defend this praise and worship? Or is there zero ego in this offering, where the mind is set free from any burden of defense in order to encompass it? If I had composed love and life; I would offer no burden in it, other than for the individual to look deep within themselves to find it's beauty in expression. If I had one offering of expression of love in this example, it would be quite simple….. "If you are truly honoring yourself, you are simultaneously honoring every life; and in doing so, you are also honoring me". If there was a creator that whispered such an expression in my ear…. I could never look away from it, and I could never look away from the beauty that exists within my own expression. As a friend in your own expression, explain to me how none of this reasoning makes any sense?
It was rather hard to follow your train of thought there. Maybe you ought to try a more concise summary, and save the elaboration for further discussion?
Let's start here..... Jesus said in his own words, "I come not to send peace, but a sword" If I came into the equation a non-believer within a concept of peace alone; being the owner and author of every expression I offer to it.... What reason could be found to strike me down? On the same thought, if the expression doesn't require an adherence to belief, what is there to defend within it's offering?
To be honest I still didn't quite get your question. But risking to get completely off topic I'll try to answer it anyway: Sadly said quote has indeed been understood by many a Christian as a justification for going to war. Others see it sublated by other quotes such as Matthew 26:52: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." They tend to see Matthew 10:34-36 as a prophetic message: Even though Jesus is the Prince of Peace he did indeed not bring immediate peace, but the world kept on waging ever more atrocious wars. Especially in its context it can also be seen as a call to stick to Jesus even if those closest to you reject His message up to the point of martyrdom in a hostile world. Actually the context makes it very clear that it's not so much a call to arms as a call to be willing to risk death for promoting Jesus, i.e. peace.
So the idea is that no war or killing is just, that it is a completely pacifist ideal? Now here! If I was the creator of love, I would create it in expression where there was absolutely no burden within it. But there is an incredible amount of burden where the love of Jesus is concerned.... In fact, it is his desire that it consumes our entire focus.... Example..... I sacrificed my life for you, now you must be willing to sacrifice your life for me; what is the purpose? It's not for the expression of peace and love alone or the offering within it, but the knowledge that he is the savior...... It is all for the praise and worship of him..... If I had composed love and life; I would offer no burden in it, other than for the individual to look deep within themselves to find it's beauty in expression. If I had one offering of expression of love in this example, it would be quite simple .. "If you are truly honoring yourself, you are simultaneously honoring every life; and in doing so, you are also honoring me". If there was a creator that whispered such an expression in my ear . I could never look away from it, and I could never look away from the beauty that exists within my own expression. What Jesus is offering looks nothing like the love I know or the love that I would offer.
We get this a lot from atheists. And the issue is the actions that love drives - in the reality that not all men are driven by love. Would you defend you family? Your freinds? Would you intervene to stop a rape? Murder? Would you defend an innocent man from an enraged mob? Well, in some of these cases, the only way to do so is with violence. Please take a good look at the Arab Spring, when millions of people looked out and saw injustice and oppression ... and collectively decided that they would do something about it. That is what Jesus says. If you accept Christian values in a world dominated by Rome, you will look out and see tremendous injustice, poor governance and simple brutality. Those of honor and genuine love for their fellow man will be driven to do something about it. Indeed, its why Rome is no longer Pagan. Now, what does your concept of love drive you to when confronted with injustice and cruelty?
First, I would like to commend you for how you have entered into this discussion, it is definitely worthy of a response and worthy of the discussion alone What is rape and murder as an expression of the mind and what is the social aspect of causality that produces it? Back to a point I was making in a different thread .. If we were born of the identical genetic makeup, influence, soul and offering of choice within the life of a rapist or murderer . Would we be able to deviate from the same outcome within the choices made by this life? Let's simplify it more and ask another question saying that you were born of the identical genetic makeup, influence, soul and offering of choice within a life that never accepts Jesus as their savior .. Would we be able to deviate from that same outcome of never accepting Jesus? The entire belief system of Christianity is based upon choice; but when we begin to test this concept within thought, we run into several difficult questions within it's declaration when we step into the shoes of another life. And now we can apply this Matthew 10 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. When we test this idea, it finds an impenetrable wall in thought .. In a small twist of fate, we could have all been the life that denies him and consequently be denied in heaven .. Immediately we discover an incredible burden within love and the capacity of the individual to have understanding of it .. If it is indeed an individual choice, it is a burden that is placed there by the creator, and it is a burden that many will never be able to overcome .. To further the thought, it is a burden where any life that is placed within it's identical parameters would also never be able to overcome. So what does the message of Jesus say then .. Love is reserved only for those who were created to love him?
I want to add Neutral, because I didn't fully answer the question you have posed...... Of course I wouldn't allow rape or murder to happen in my presence, I would in fact take this life before it could destroy another..... But how far do we go in thought where murder and rape is concerned? Why do we allow an expression of humanity to exist that produces such a deviance of the mind? If it is the responsibility of the individual through the adherence of a choice based belief system, it is enough to follow the example given and discard them..... They are unworthy of anything beyond their own actions and atrocities, even if they are unable to escape them. If we address the health of the expression of humanity as a whole, every deviant behavior is a reflection of where humanity as an expression is failing. And now we can apply this...... "If you are truly honoring yourself, you are simultaneously honoring every life; and in doing so, you are also honoring your creator".
Did I lose you again? Remember we are having a discussion as friends..... Friends clarify meaning giving great care to understand what is being said. There is always something to offer or receive in doing so.
Two points: #1 - if you are going to engage in a rational discussion, then that has to be what YOU attempt to engage in. I am not terribly impressed to see that public smear fest that follows discussions with you in which you simply claim that I am not responding to points and then launch into a series of disgusting personal attacks. As you can see, I am responding to the points raised here, and am not impressed in the slightest with these antics. I doubt many people are. #2 - We are not talking abouty something esoteric. Rape and murder, indeed injustice are not nebulous concepts. They happen with frightening regularity. And teh question is what we do about them. The dedicated Pacifist is someone that I respect a great deal. Nominally, those who take this calling, do so simply to castigate others - and avoid any actual discussion about what to do in the face of provocation and injustice. Those who will not rise to the bait, if you will, are extremely rare and truely dedicated. I do not think there is anyone in this world who wil have their principles more sorely tested than an actual Pacifist. Theirs is a noble but extremly difficult path. Then there is the rest of us, the vast majority of us, who disagree and are not dishonorable as result. I for one cannot stand by while the innocent are prayed upon. It is simply not in me. There may be a tactical consideration (no point fighting an immediate and losing battle) but I will organize and resist grave injustice. Most people will. To defend the innocent is honorable and noble. There is also the question of violence itself though, and most people have no idea what it means to defend the innocent. Having seen a brutal enemy and his tactics, the fear he would use to enslave others, it takes ... difficult choices to stop that behavior. Having taken the actions necessary to stop injustice, I will say that there is a definitive gray area. Unlike the Pacifist, your principles are not directly challenged, but your pride, your emotions, and your moral code in the midst of chaos are pressed severely. There is no easy answer on this one. And those who choose a path of honor (and there is more than one path) need to understand a couple of things: #1 - You are not the first to select whatever path you follow. #2 - regardless of the path you choose, you will be tested. The words of Jesus can be a guide, and at times all of us in the pursuit of honor will find ourselves falling short of his ideal. THat is because we are human, we err. But we have the Love and Fogiveness of Jesus Christ to help us take the journey, to err and falter, and be righted and continue on our journey to becoming better people. That is what Jesus was talking about.
Your previous response to this thread was commendable, of which I made the point to say so..... The reference from a different thread where I criticized you..... Not a single response from you deserved anything but criticism..... Not one personal attack from me up to that point and a barrage from you..... Several times pointed to your attacks and asked for you to show once where I had attacked you in your accusations of such. And here you are removing things from context and slipping into your old habits acting inappropriately after you have been commended for acting appropriately...... Enough! No point in reliving the absurdity from a different post, and you will be ignored if you continue to do so.....
If the expression of humanity is the cause for all the deviant behaviors that exist within it...... Who is innocent and who is not innocent in sight of a solution for all of it?
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). When you start out a conversation by calling someone vile and disgusting - what do you expect someone to do? Take that as a thoughtful comment? When you end ith with accussatory psycho babble calling someone criminally insane, they are supposed to take that to heart? Because there is no way you are JUST being a petulent sore loser? And the guy you are 'reasoning' with? Did you notice rstones asking him to get help just a few posts later? What you did was wrong - period. And the fact that you justify it by attempting to blame your victim, claiming that someone calling you an atheist (and then pointed ignoring the reasons they are doing it), to launch into an accusatory and inflammatory accusation is beyond stupid. And ATHEISTS do it ALL the time. You could have rsponded, like an adult, to the claim that you are atheist by saying, "No, I am ... whatever." Instead you responded by calling me vile and disgusting, and when I rejected that, well, apparently not accepting such a love inducing cricticism, I was subjected to a public diatribe that accusses me of being criminally insane? I suggest you re-read your BS and apply it to your own position. I also suggest you apply that abusive drivel to real life kiddo. If you are involved in an inter-office disagreement and start hulring accusations about someone being vile and disgusting and then launch into a psycho babble accusing someone of being criminally insane - you would be escorted from the building - period. BTW slick, lets actualy talk about the mental health profession. You see, I am a rather seinor officer in the US military. Not only do we ALL get annual screenings based on what we've been doing for teh past decade or so, but we also have this thing called a command referral and we recieve routine training in order identify behavioral signs to drive those referrals. Do you know what that training tells me? No one is capable of making an accurate mental health assesment over the internet as a result of a discussion. That is even more difficult if such 'assessments' are made in the heat of an emotionally compromised moment when they are ALREADY ignoring civilized rebuttals and calling someone vile and disgusting. In short, you are doing nothing but being a sore loser and a raging jerk. You crossed a line, and you have no one to blame for it but you. YOU are responsible for you. And YOU are not doing a very good job on YOU. So, you take your own advice, and you examine why you were left in such a highly emotional state when the thesis being discussed was: Atheism: emotion or intellect? You are a vile, digusting, criminally insane person! Downright athtarded isn't it?
Inalienable rights. Not taking a side because you think you cannot determine good from evil is a cop out, not an arguement. Of course, the ability to discern good from evil is no doubt obviously a sign of someone who is criminally insane? Or is it the opposite? To those who have trouble discerning right from wrong the ones whose mental focus has blurred?
Answer these questions specifically and we will be able to continue the discussion in order to provide it a more solid form in what is declared. Thank you for staying on course.... commendable!
I did. Feel free to referrence them. Not liking the answers, and them not being answered are two very different things. You are presenting a black and white, I responded with the reality that it is gray. You are now claiming that I didn;t answer the question. Get that a lot from atheists.
Not, its not. Indeed, you apparently just skipped the part where I said its gray and not black and white. Which of us is not reading? Which of us accurately described the other person's arguement? Black and White (yes or no), and which one is again refusing to acknowledge the complexity of the answer as laid out for them? Your questions were answered - go back and read and stop using this standard atheist tactic - because they ALL do this.
Back to a point I was making in a different thread .. If we were born of the identical genetic makeup, influence, soul and offering of choice within the life of a rapist or murderer . Would we be able to deviate from the same outcome within the choices made by this life? Let's simplify it more and ask another question saying that you were born of the identical genetic makeup, influence, soul and offering of choice within a life that never accepts Jesus as their savior .. Would we be able to deviate from that same outcome of never accepting Jesus? What's grey about it? That is avoidance at best...... Show me the grey area that you describe to answer this question!
There are only three possible answers to this question without bare avoidance of it...... Yes I would be able to deviate from the path. No I would not be able to deviate from the path. Or, it is impossible to know what path I would have taken. Each one of these answers and positions taken bring about a very different discussion and supply a very different body to the discussion.
Again I find it hard to extract the actual points you're trying to make. So please forgive me if my answers to what I think they are go wildly off topic. That would be my interpretation of the message of Christ and the reason why many Christians are pacifists, refuse to take up arms in draft armies and are active in various peace-movements. Obviously there are also other Christians who follow different interpretations. Am I right in assuming that what you mean is that you would create a world without evil and that you wonder why God allows evil to exist in this world? There have been many possible answers to that ancient question. Such as that giving humans the freedom of choice you must give them the possibility to make wrong/evil choices. Or that like a painter will need to paint shadows in order to emphasize light in a picture, Good needs Evil to become visible. Or that we need Evil in order to learn how to do good and to have compassion. I too doubt that an entirely satisfactory answer has been found yet. No matter why, fact is that evil and resulting suffering exist. I believe that it must be countered with "faith, hope and love" if we want to let the "Kingdom of God", the realm without evil, trandescent into this world. I believe that it is our job to do so, to make this world a better place, and that God planted the seeds for this kingdom into our hearts and that we're promised to enter it/i.e. completely reunite with God in a place that for lack of another word is called "heaven". His desire is indeed that we should be entirely consumed by the love for good and love itself, which He is the embodiment of. As Paul said in his first letter to the Corinthians: "4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud 5 or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. 6 It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. 7 Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance." So love entails the willingness to carry and endure a burden. Would I be a good wife to my husband if I only loved him in good times but abandoned him in bad times? Is it not the fact that life with me isn't always a walk in the park, that makes my husbands love for me special? Same goes with the love for Christ and the resulting desire to do good. It's pretty easy to do good when it requires no real sacrifice. But there's little merit in such love, is there? Maybe it's not even worse to be called love. Is a millionaire who gives a penny to the poor a benefactor or does he take the mickey? You seem to be referring to rather fundamentalist ideas of how Jesus' sacrifice for us works and as to how He saved us. Some of these ideas are indeed rather illogical and abhorrent. I believe that Jesus was willing to suffer so that He could show an estranged world how to come closer to God/Goodness and tell us of God's grace and forgiveness. In this suffering he showed Godly compassion with our human suffering. He is with us when we suffer the sins of others and shows us a way to commit less sins ourselves that are destructive not only to others but also to ourselves. In that He saves all the world, not only a select few. Some people may reject His love and the salvation that it brings. But He'll never stop to reach out to us. He does not impose suffering on us to pay back for his suffering. Indeed he makes our suffering light by carrying it with us until we overcome it and go home to God. That's exactly what the creator whispers into your ear. He asks you to love your neighbour as yourself. If you didn't love yourself you wouldn't love your neighbour very much, would you? And in loving your neighbour, you love God: Matthew 25; 34-40: 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Its been answered. Indeed it was. If I answer it THIS time will you finally acknowledge it? Rape and murder are not genetic coded things. We make choices our entire life and accept the outcome. There is no little gene that makes you pull a trigger and shoot someone in cold blood. Your genes do not make you a murderer - your choices do. People change faiths all the time. Look up the concept of free agency. There is not gray about rape or murder, they are ALWAYS wrong. Life is however not so black and white. Tell me kiddo, I am a warrior by trade. I walked into places where brave men fear to go. I have killed people. I have also broken into rape and torture rooms and saved the innocent. There are things that I have done in this life that are honorable and righteous. There are also things in life that I have done that I know are wrong. (Granted I am no murderer or rapist). That is, just like I said, the mantel you inherent when you cannot follow the pacifist path. You will be tested, and you will find that the application of justice and righteous defense of the innocent is both necessary, and decided murky. No one fights in even the best war and comes home pure - no one. (And by that, I do not only mean shooting wars, if you get involved in a fight, be that political or whatever, you will be forced to take decisions that will test you). The opposite, supposedly, is pacifism. However, just like I said, the price of that path is near torture if you actually care about other people. To watch others be tortured? To know that you have the ability to stop it? That the only thing that prevents the torture of others from stopping is YOUR principle? That is a tough, tough road to walk. And those who choose it and can maintain it are some of the strongest people I have ever met. And they suffer for it. To take something as complex as that and reduce it to a question of genetics is to prfoundly miss the point. But of course, like all atheists, its easier to simply claim that your questions are not being answered. Like most atheists, I am guessing you are not at all pleased to discover that this criminally insane person was several steps ahead of you again? Debate requires two people, and if you only want to hear yourself, then perhaps this is not the place for you.
