Why oppose this war? Is war or violence ultimately wrong? If it makes things better is it still wrong? Is it wrong because Jesus says it is? Or maybe it's wrong because Bush and Cheney say it isn't?
At the time of the American Civil War, the South was primarily agricultural and the North was industrial. One made the equipment for the other; a mutually supportive system. Then, the South found out that they could buy the same equipment for much cheaper by buying it from overseas sources. The North, though the Lincoln administration, arranged for taxes and tarriffs so high that the South had no choice but to buy from the North. It was Northern opression of a free market that was a catalyst for the South to cecede from the Union.
Lincoln allowed it, supported it, and used slavery as an excuse. He wasn't the great humanist that history claims. He and his wife Mary were greedy, money-grubbing wolves in sheep's clothing.
Hmmm. I have to say I disagree. What you are saying completely follows the rhetoric of the south that was being touted in England and France during the war and prior to Antietam and the Emancipation. The best answer to that was John Stuart Mill. I won't repeat it
( ... )
Mark 11.15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves;
I see no taking up of arms or kicking of people's asses. Are you referring to a different passage? I am using the New Revised Standard Version, which is generally fairly well-reputed, but do you know of a version that specifically mentions Jesus engaging in violence?
Compare and contrast with
Matthew 5.38-45
"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you
( ... )
I would agree. It seems that the Sermon on the Mount does rule out violence on the whole. But not ass-kicking. You don't have to be violent to kick a whole lot of ass. Take the money changers and dove sellers in question here. Jesus did turn over their tables, destroying their property and releasing the livestock (doves) in question. He didn't hurt anyone per se, but turning over the tables could be seen as a big old ass kicking.
If you want to call that "ass-kicking," I'm not going to argue with you. You're absolutely right; I think Jesus is giving us a good example of what sort of aggression is appropriate. Harm their wallets, not their bodies.
"I see no taking up of arms or kicking of people's asses."
John 2:13-5
"13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
All right, there's some taking up of arms, but there's no "kicking of people's asses." How do you reconcile your belief in violence with the Sermon on the Mount?
Violence, when used for right, is not always a bad thing.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
At the time of the American Civil War, the South was primarily agricultural and the North was industrial. One made the equipment for the other; a mutually supportive system. Then, the South found out that they could buy the same equipment for much cheaper by buying it from overseas sources. The North, though the Lincoln administration, arranged for taxes and tarriffs so high that the South had no choice but to buy from the North. It was Northern opression of a free market that was a catalyst for the South to cecede from the Union.
Lincoln allowed it, supported it, and used slavery as an excuse. He wasn't the great humanist that history claims. He and his wife Mary were greedy, money-grubbing wolves in sheep's clothing.
Reply
Reply
Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves;
I see no taking up of arms or kicking of people's asses. Are you referring to a different passage? I am using the New Revised Standard Version, which is generally fairly well-reputed, but do you know of a version that specifically mentions Jesus engaging in violence?
Compare and contrast with
Matthew 5.38-45
"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Here here! I agree.
Reply
John 2:13-5
"13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment