|
| |
|
Friday, October 04, 2002 |
|
|
More on Neihas' statements last week (about a pre-emptive attack possibly "qualifying" for "Just war" status) on NPR (the post I made then: Niehas Says Iraq attack could be a just war cause - I am not so sure.)
The same "Just War" criteria as set forth by Augustine also includes the crteria that "non-combatants" are not to be involved. If they are, then this is NOT a JUST war, atleast not in the Christian sense of "just". Many Christians seem to miss that. It is precisely BECAUSE of the nature of modern warfare ( the weapons of choice do not meet this criteria) that there are very few wars that are "just" ---- although many Christians throughout the years since Augustine have appropriated the phrase. "Whoops! We regrettably killed a few dozen, a hundred. Oh well. That's war." Unacceptable. Not JUST. Doesn't quite do it. Sorry. Gotta reject that argument.
Another question to all these Christians in this country. If it were to be American soil where these "preemptive strikes" were to take place, do you not think there just might be a bit more "concern" for the inevitable loss of innocent human life? But if it's "over there" somewhere, in the home of a foreigh culture, where these perpretators come from, then it is fine. Not quite the mind of Jesus I don't think.
When I saw on TV last September , after the attacks, shots of some of the suspected masterminds of the attacks standing on the balcony of an aprtment complex in America, the thought occurred to me that I often hear people say that "harboring terrorists" is a crime , and so these "hotbeds" of terrorism need to be "taken out" and the people around there, well, they should know better than to stick around in such areas. So, it would be fine to just take out that apartment building? Not many would say so. But it's fine when it's "over there", in those foreign lands. We gotta protect "our way of life". What would Jesus do? I think he was into protecting Life.....period.
11:59:18 PM 
|
|
|
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then we shall see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (I Cor. 13: 11-12)
As I read in the first chapter of Brenda Brasher's Give Me That ONline Religion, and she points out the widespread construction of "places" in cyberspace to explore religious experience, and that "almost no consideration has been given to why and how people turned to computer mediated technologies to find or create the spiritual experiences they craved" (p.10). For me, it has been a desire that is as old (and older) than the scriptures, expressed above by the Apostle Paul: To Be Known. It is the desire to share our deepest interests, concerns, hopes, and fears. It is "Be Known" in the way that faith tells us we have been "fully known" (by our creator). We seek confirmation and realization of this hope in the Christian community, and in all theological comunities.
9:59:20 PM
|
|
|
e-church expresses disdain about something which irks me as well:
"However, it is offensive to me (as liberal Christian) to think that some pundits assume the conservatives ought to be biblical. I am continually frustrated with the right co-opting evangelicalism/religoin for its own gain. I essentailly agree with Mr. Rummo's arguement -- I just think that O'Reiley demonstrates the mistake it is to presume the conservativism (or liberalism) is biblical."
Yes, the reputaton of the term "Biblical" has suffered mightily because of conservative abuse. I often wonder how the WWJD (What would Jesus do?) people are applying this to the , say, the Iraq question (attack or diplomacy?) ......My guess is, it never occurred to them to ask such a thing. If confronted with it, many seem to feel this is an unfair question. It's like asking the question of what Jesus would do is to be unrealistic. "This is the real world". I guess Jesus' kind of "idealism" is just too simplistic, unrealistic, and blind. Hmmm,, and who's not being "biblical"?
7:03:02 AM
|
|
| |
