posted September 15, 2012 01:05 PM            

This is an excellent article and a sermon with such literary quality, that I enjoyed reading it, even though I don't consider myself much of a Christian.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance237.html

A sensitive topic, but I thought I would share it.

P.S. I hope this will not get moved the Global Unity because it is more of a religious inquiry into foreign policy.

posted September 15, 2012 02:42 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted September 15, 2012 02:55 PM            

There are different perspectives and viewpoints, and pretty much everyone believes that theirs is right. People for war believe that they're "liberating" people--the "right" people. People against war believe that they are saving people. In both cases, innocent people will likely get caught up in the mix. Pro-war people might likely kill innocent people and civilians along with the guilty. People against war might allow dangerous, unstable people who are threatening to live instead of killing them, which may enable them to go and kill people.

Really, I think that war must be taken on a case-by-case basis, and should be considered as an option if and only if all other reasonable methods of resolving conflicts have failed. It should be a last resort when there are no other choices and not fighting would mean that more innocent people die or are terrorized.

I do think that peace talks, treaties, and negotiations are much better options than war, and should be the first methods of conflict resolution. Diplomacy is better than war, definitely. However, if some group goes and bombs another country, then no, that country shouldn't just have to sit there and take it, either, without trying to save their people.

I don't believe in frivolous or greedy wars, such as wars to gain more territory or natural resources or goods. If a conflict can be solved without war, it should be.

posted September 15, 2012 03:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
This pacifist stuff is not the Bible. If you are a pacifist, that is fine, but don't say the Bible calls you to it. The Bible calls you to stand up for what is right( and to fight for it)This goes for individuals and countries.

---

I think you would find there is a lot to think about in that sermon I posted.

I'm not really into sermons, but that one was brilliant.

It's something so grave, I think we can't afford nebulous opinions about it. I myself appreciate clarity...and the more critical the issue is, the more clarity I seek.

The Bible may leave room for "just war," but that doesn't absolve Christians of the intellectual duty of determining what qualifies for a just war. So far, I haven't encountered a pro-war Christian who is prepared to lay out a solid case for their belief that our current wars are just.

I wish they would think about it more.

posted September 15, 2012 03:10 PM            

I find it hard to relate to my Christian friends who are pro-war. Their arguments seem based off of propaganda. Then I wonder what they are doing, yielding to persuasion, without looking at the roots of where that persuasion is coming from. Often times, it is not coming from a Christian source, it is coming from people who are looking to make money off the wars.

My Christian friends are very smart and do their research about all kinds of things, but seem totally naive and given over to a violent mentality when it comes to foreign policy. It's like they are eager for a fight.

I marvel at it, think it's not good, and yet have no idea how to approach them about it. I think my "pacifism" irks them, actually. But it's hard to have a discussion.

posted September 15, 2012 03:49 PM            

To be honest, I myself find it hard to relate to certain viewpoints popular with some denominations. There really is a great deal of diversity within Christianity.

**

Also, @ Linda Jones, I didn't close the last thread because of you or any one single person. It was getting too out of hand in general, so by no means was it personal. Please know that I really enjoy your contributions and hope that you'll keep posting!

I wouldn't want a thread closed just because two disagree, or because a person disagrees w/a specific person. It's when it gets really nasty that I feel a time-out is needed or would be helpful.

posted September 15, 2012 04:47 PM            

I just read the sermon.

quote:

---

I close by quoting the words of the great Jeremy Taylor. "As contrary as cruelty is to mercy, and tyranny to charity, so contrary is war to the meekness and gentleness of the Christian religion."

---

Thank you for sharing the site; it gives one hope in a loving and merciful future. .

posted September 15, 2012 07:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
Faith, I apologise for the need to close your thread

I just read the sermon.

Thank you for sharing the site; it gives one hope in a loving and merciful future. .

---

No worries about closing the thread, and thanks very much for taking the time to read that sermon. I was hoping someone would, I hate enjoying pristine logic all by my lonesome.

posted September 15, 2012 08:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
Also, @ Linda Jones, I didn't close the last thread because of you or any one single person. It was getting too out of hand in general, so by no means was it personal. Please know that I really enjoy your contributions and hope that you'll keep posting!

I wouldn't want a thread closed just because two disagree, or because a person disagrees w/a specific person. It's when it gets really nasty that I feel a time-out is needed or would be helpful.

Not sure if this was the right place to say that, but I wanted to be sure you knew that.

---

Just saw this. Thank you Regardes. I'd like to respond if I may, but I don't wish to derail Faith's thread.

So if you(or anyone else)can guide me about where I can post, I'd appreciate it.

posted September 15, 2012 08:34 PM            

I think the entire essay is an eye-opener for anyone in doubt about whether war is necessary.

This part in particular, is worth quoting--
.
"Let us at least do so much that if ever our country engages in another war, we shall feel no share of the guilt. Let us each do so much that if we should ever walk over a battle-field, stunned with the groans and curses of the wounded, and horror-struck at the infernal spectacle, we can feel that we aid all we could to avert such an evil. Let us clear ourselves of blame. No one of us can put a stop to war. But we can help stop it – and combined and persevering effort will stop it."
.

I like the promise in these words, because in war no one wins. Everyone loses.

And I agree with you that this is an important topic.

posted September 15, 2012 11:08 PM            

Even today there are all too many Christians with those ethics best abandoned to the dark ages. For example, I recall reading an interview with a Serbian Orthodox sniper who BRAGGED about shooting a woman in the gut and her small child in her arms in the head. The reason why? Because he wanted her to live long enough to see her child to die before she went to burn eternally for belonging to the wrong religion. Such much for Christianity making people better (thank the gods that the Age of Enlightenment came about that gave hope that one day religions like Christianity might be fully redeemed and as harmless as say Jainism or Wicca or Universal Unitarianism).

Speaking of Christian snipers that reminds me of something we US taxpayers fund:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed- secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794#.UFVAwFH8mdE

quote:

---

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the U.S. military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as "the light of the world." John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

---

I am genuinely curious if the snipers feel anything when they notice the Bible being quoted (comfort or discomfort or bemusement or what?). I suppose it depends, being reminded of the Bible probably makes some on one end of the spectrum want to utter a tearful plea for forgiveness while on the other end snipers take as much pride & joy in the kill as that Serbian Orthodox. I suppose most have learned to compartmentalize it (and be a different person whether at church on on the battlefield) to get through life. Of course some obviously can't keep it compartmentalized and end up going on rabid killing sprees either in the countries they're in or once back in the USA (a marine base not all that far from me has had more than one such person make national headlines after snapping, one of which even ambushed the cops by calling 911 and waiting with his military assault rifle IIRC).

And I wonder if it would make a difference if the Bible verses on the sniper scopes were like "thou shall not kill" or "do unto others as you'd have them do onto you."

Ah well, this is for you Faith, I'm sure you'll like this:
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html

posted September 15, 2012 11:25 PM              

War is never ever justified. Ever.

posted September 16, 2012 03:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
Just saw this. Thank you Regardes. I'd like to respond if I may, but I don't wish to derail Faith's thread.

So if you(or anyone else)can guide me about where I can post, I'd appreciate it.

---

I'm not sure exactly where would be the best place, so I'll defer to Randall/other mods on this one. I appreciate you not wanting to derail Faith's thread; I don't wish to either.

posted September 16, 2012 06:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
Just saw this. Thank you Regardes. I'd like to respond if I may, but I don't wish to derail Faith's thread.

So if you(or anyone else)can guide me about where I can post, I'd appreciate it.

---

Good Job, Linda

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted September 16, 2012 10:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
Also, @ Linda Jones, I didn't close the last thread because of you or any one single person. It was getting too out of hand in general, so by no means was it personal. Please know that I really enjoy your contributions and hope that you'll keep posting!

I wouldn't want a thread closed just because two disagree, or because a person disagrees w/a specific person. It's when it gets really nasty that I feel a time-out is needed or would be helpful.

Not sure if this was the right place to say that, but I wanted to be sure you knew that.

---

I have not addressed Regardes at all in iQ's thread, so I'm not sure what you mean by "convo is terminated"

If I may, I'd like to respond to Regardes's post above made in this thread (not on iQ's thread) without derailing this particular thread.

I've seen posts in LLC2 where members address each other, as has also been suggested for PixieJane's dilemma. Either I could do it there or just post my response to Regardes in a new thread on this forum.

Thank you.

posted September 16, 2012 12:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
Also, @ Linda Jones, I didn't close the last thread because of you or any one single person. It was getting too out of hand in general, so by no means was it personal. Please know that I really enjoy your contributions and hope that you'll keep posting!

I wouldn't want a thread closed just because two disagree, or because a person disagrees w/a specific person. It's when it gets really nasty that I feel a time-out is needed or would be helpful.

Not sure if this was the right place to say that, but I wanted to be sure you knew that.

---

Thank you, Regardes, and no worries. I didn’t take the closing of that thread to mean that you did it because of me. [BTW, if it wasn’t clear already, then I want to say that my last post in iQ’s thread was not addressed to you. It was made in response to what was said to me a couple of posts earlier].

To continue, I feel the thread had gotten out of hand on the first page itself. And it is along these lines that I wanted to mention a few things for which I’m seeking clarification, and it would be great if you could help.

So for example, on iQ’s thread there was this clear anti-Islam and anti-Quran rhetoric. I understand that at the moment the atmosphere is compelling people, shall we say, to point fingers and blame an entire religion.

But I’m sure you’ve noticed (as I have), that there have been other times too when the same sentiments have been expressed quite openly.

According to LL Rules—
.
”You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually explicit, pornographic, threatening, personally insulting of any member, invasive of a person’s privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.”

Continued below ...

posted September 16, 2012 12:42 PM            

Defaming another religion I’m sure is unacceptable. So my question is, that if despite this, someone still denigrates another religion, can’t that person directly be asked politely to either refrain from doing so, or to simply not post on threads that they are so much against?

Without disagreeing with your desire to close that particular thread, I guess I’m wondering in general how much closing a thread really helps in such a situation because when the topic comes up in another thread, the same thing happens all over again.

I wondered if you think that, as a Mod in the forum, it would be more effective to just ask the particular person to refrain, rather than deprive others of an otherwise good discussion. Just like you did in the thread on Fundamentalism, which actually proved to be very effective, and we all ended up continuing to enjoy a very good discussion, after the member had been asked to refrain.

As for my personal thoughts on this, I just find it surprising and disheartening that one single religion can be singled out and belittled several times with no one to say anything to the member directly. Rather, it seems preferable to close the thread. If it is only one member who’s being anti, isn’t it more effective to just tell that one member?

Again, please don’t think I’m being critical of any of your actions as Mod (I actually think you’re very conscientious about your responsibilities). But I’m just throwing this out as a possibility since it’s quite disheartening (for me at least) to read again and again about one religion or one person being bashed, and also noting that thread closing is not really solving the problem.

I feel that just like a relationship between two people is sacred and off limits to others, so also a person’s faith and religion are sacred (to him/her), and should be off limits to everyone else, i.e., to not be belittled, defamed, disparaged, or blasphemed in any way.

Additionally, my posts in iQ’s thread also had to do with iQ (of all people) being referred to as “deluded.”

In my limited knowledge about people, I’ve learned so far that, more often than not, people behave with you based NOT on who YOU are, but on who THEY are. This is why iQ, who’s never impolite with anyone, was the object of such rudeness ... also very disheartening for me to note.

I’ve repeatedly read members being rudely referred to as “stupid” and “unintelligent,” even in simple conversations just because there’s a difference of opinion … but referring to iQ of all people as “deluded” is a level of rudeness I hadn’t expected.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts circling in my head and I thought I could freely bring them up with you, particularly since you were considerate enough to let me know that the closing of iQ’s thread was not directed at me [even though I knew that already ]

Please feel free to lemme know what you think, or even if you feel that I’m being too idealistic in my expectations about the issues of respect toward members and their religions, and about directly asking a member to refrain when either is being breached.

Thanks for reading through my usual massive collection of words , which was why I'd wanted to post this elsewhere, but ... oh well

posted September 16, 2012 01:38 PM            

quote:

---

Without disagreeing with your desire to close that particular thread, I guess I’m wondering in general how much closing a thread really helps in such a situation because when the topic comes up in another thread, the same thing happens all over again.

---

I agree

Locking threads because of one or two posters ruining it for the rest of us is just sweeping issues under the rug, its not conflict resolution, its conflict propagation...

I don't feel a thread should ever be locked unless it has completed devolved into a b.itch-fit by the overwhelming majority of users...

I do not included heated (even set on fire) constructive debate in my version of a b.itch-fit

Often a good discussion, even fight... clears the air! Human nature I'm afraid, what ya gonna do?

Just my opinion -nods-