Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dave Land wrote: snipped A pack of Saudi terrorists hijacked planes on the date of 9/11. A pack of Robin Hood-in-Reverse thieves then hijacked society on the basis of 9/11. Nice rethorics. Sonja GCU: Mudslinging=off ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is? L3
Dan Minette wrote: I'd give him a bit more leeway than that. While he and we are not God, he and we can be willing instruments of God's will for the world. The idea of the United States as the last best hope of mankind didn't begin with him or Reaganit is a quote from Lincoln. Lincoln -- and every other US president who did it -- quoted Scripture quite differently, as I see it. I have no problem with a president using the Bible to illustrate a point or to argue that their chosen path is moral. What I see Bush doing with Scripture is setting himself and our country in God's place. (But the last best hope... isn't Scripture, is it?) This view has its risks of course. Calls are often mistaken for liscence. But, it is without doubt that the US is the most important single power in the world. It seems clear to me that this power's net effect has been more for the good than for the bad. Turn the US into Balkanized, feuding groups of states...a very possible outcome of the Civil War...and liberal democracies might very well be few and far between now. There's quite a leap between we do good and we are god or we are god's chosen instrument, don't you think? Discernment is a critical issue, of course. But, there are some things that are reasonably straightforward. The continuation of slavery in the US was wrong. The actions of Stalin were wrong. Some things we should end if it within our capacity. It's wonderful to be able to say that we have done good things. Is it Christian to boast of them? Do we have license to get a big head about it? We're reading that quite differently, perhaps. This says to me that faith calls and empowers us to good works, and to avoid the temptation of simply offering lip service. Ouch -- substitute grace for faith there. I understand that's a fairly traditional non-Methodist Protestant approach. But, quoting the Cost of Discipleship, about 1/4th of the way in the Call to Discipleship chapter: The idea of a situation in which faith is possible is only a way of stating the facts of a case in which the following two propositions hold good and are equally true: 'only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes.' I don't see the point you're offering here...? I don't think so, not completely. The point to stop worrying is at the end point of the struggle, not the beginning. Well worry is probably the wrong word to use; wressle would probably be better. That's completely different, assuming you mean wrestle in the manner of how Israel gained its name. I see it so, also. Rereading it, I see he also talks about joining our suffering with that of Christ...a very Catholic concept. Its not that he argues that we are not saved by grace; its that he argues that we are only saved by costly grace. Thus, we can't just start by saying we are forgiven...that has to be the capstone..to quote him again. Thus returning sacrifice to a central position in our faith, where it belongs. Do you hear this in GWB's rhetoric? Again, that's a worthy goal...but we don't have to play God with them in order to respond. People like Bin Ladin have a vision for the future of the world...a vision I find abhorent. There is a real conflict...and he and other terrorists will be willing to kill millions to have the world as they want it. Did I suggest otherwise? I agree with Tommy Aquinis in that God wants us to use our reason. Again, did I suggest otherwise? Is that not happening right before your eyes? What can I change about the Sudan? My vote, for one thing. Where I donate money (Lutheran World Relief is in there, thank goodness). They are, but unfortunately the difficulties are mostly political. Of course. Give us this day our daily bread has always been answered, figuratively and literally. But people have kept others' bread from them. I have walked through (dodging human waste everywhere), worshipped in and had serious conversations with people of some of the poorest places on earth. Not as horrible as what's happening in the Sudan, but devastatingly tragic. I will never forget a mother who apologized to us for her skinny daughter's big stomach -- she said that her little girl, who was perhaps five years old, just likes to hold her stomach that way. I stood there, realizing that she had no idea that her daughter was dying of malnutrition. And why? One answer is that they live in a country where corruption is rampant, where any sort of labor organizing is fiercely repressed. Another answer is that we were willing to buy cars built there by cheap labor, and we buy their best corn and send them our worst (as animal feed, but people eat it). Another answer is that the church has helped maintain a harsh class system there for centuries and only since the mid-60s began to try to exercise a preferential option for the poor. There are many answers. A photo I took in a squatters' settlement hangs on my wall, a little boy with a
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dan, OK, I agree that we cannot stop all terrorist-type activities. But, I think it is a reasonable long term stretch goal to reduce terrorists to just another type of criminal...without the ability to alter society. First of all, I'd like to commend both you and my old friend Nick for carrying on one of the most gentle, meaningful, and respectful dialogs that it has been my good fortune to experience on Brin -L. Both of you seem to be genuinely interested in understanding, not just changing the other. A wonderful rarity in our fiercely divided world. Secondly, allow me to observe that your statement is nearly identical to one by a certain senator from Massachusetts, for which he received much criticism. In these polarized times (we're on a WAR FOOTING, for God's sake. TERRIBLE things could happen to you if you are not in a state of CONSTANT FEAR!), it is apparently unacceptable to express anything short of unwavering certitude on absolutes. While I quite agree with your reasonable long-term stretch goal, of reducing terrorism to just another type of crime, I doubt very much that, even if we were reduce the threat of terrorism to the extent that you and Senator Kerry suggest -- a mere nuisance for most folks most of the time, rather than the central focus of our effort as a nation -- we will not alter its ability to alter society. Terrorism's ability to alter society is partly a result of the strength (or cleverness or fearlessness or ...) of the terrorists. But it is at least as much the result of our willingness to allow it to alter our society. I find the current administration lacking /any/ will to prevent terrorism from altering society. In fact, the current administration has actively and assertively /granted/ terrorism its ability to alter society and enhanced its ability to do so. This administration /wants/ terrorism to be able to alter society. The current administration came in with the intent to alter society. It was unwittingly (I hope) helped in that task by the terrorist acts of a certain date a couple of years ago. A pack of Saudi terrorists hijacked planes on the date of 9/11. A pack of Robin Hood-in-Reverse thieves then hijacked society on the basis of 9/11. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is? L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is? Dan Minette wrote: Anyway, you're starting with a premise that I reject -- that we must stop terrorism. Although that sentiment is not quite in a league with wiping out all the evil-doers, it strikes me as a tempting distraction. Let's do our best to stop terrorists -- from attacking and from coming into existence -- with a humility that accepts the fact that we cannot eradicate evil from the world. OK, I agree that we cannot stop all terrorist-type activities. But, I think it is a reasonable long term stretch goal to reduce terrorists to just another type of criminal...without the ability to alter society. GWB's use of scripture and religious language says to me that he thinks he can, that we as a nation can. But he's not God and neither is the United States. I'd give him a bit more leeway than that. While he and we are not God, he and we can be willing instruments of God's will for the world. The idea of the United States as the last best hope of mankind didn't begin with him or Reaganit is a quote from Lincoln. This view has its risks of course. Calls are often mistaken for liscence. But, it is without doubt that the US is the most important single power in the world. It seems clear to me that this power's net effect has been more for the good than for the bad. Turn the US into Balkanized, feuding groups of states...a very possible outcome of the Civil War...and liberal democracies might very well be few and far between now. Discernment is a critical issue, of course. But, there are some things that are reasonably straightforward. The continuation of slavery in the US was wrong. The actions of Stalin were wrong. Some things we should end if it within our capacity. But, as you said, while the United States is strong, it is not all powerful. Thus, prudence must also be cautioned. We had to stand aside and not interfere with the invasion of Hungary and Tibet because going to war was not a reasonable option then. That is just a reasonable conservative view...which I think you express. Are you thinking that I'm in favor of only helping people I happen to bump into? I don't think that's my idea. It is a daily struggle for me to have some glimmer of an idea of what's my business and what isn't, but that's not based on who I bump into. OK, that's a good clarification. The faith of James. James 2:18-17,24 We're reading that quite differently, perhaps. This says to me that faith calls and empowers us to good works, and to avoid the temptation of simply offering lip service. I understand that's a fairly traditional non-Methodist Protestant approach. But, quoting the Cost of Discipleship, about 1/4th of the way in the Call to Discipleship chapter: The idea of a situation in which faith is possible is only a way of stating the facts of a case in which the following two propositions hold good and are equally true: 'only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes.' The big problem I have with measuring morality by outcomes is that we generally give in to our human desire to try to control things that are beyond our control, such as the existence of evil. In my experience, when I demand that things go the way *I* think they should, I'm playing God. Not that I've managed to let go of much of that sort of habit in myself. That's a problem. That's tied into our inability to earn salvation. But, that's only one of the potholes. The other, as Bonhoeffer elequently puts it, is cheap grace. Right now, I'm struggling with how to have this discussion without demanding that you see things my way, for example. Not everybody struggles with this, but everybody struggles with something. I'd be happy to see things how you see them; I'd just reserve the right to see things differently. You are right, we all struggle with something. My point is that this struggle is essential to accepting grace. For example, do you agree with the Bonehoffer on Christian duty in the face of evil? Or do you think he was self-righteous. There's some self-righteousness in Bonhoeffer, but not much -- far less than in most of us. What I appreciate most about him at the moment is his insight into how to live in community. I don't think he had pat answers to our response to evil (did he talk about duty or reponse?), He called himself a soldier. which earns my respect. The Cost of Discipleship describes very human struggles with understanding the Beatitudes, which seems rather nutty from a worldly viewpoint. We probably focus on different parts of the book, which is fine. As for worrying just about our own sins, I think we're called to let go of worry about anybody's sins, including our own, as they were nailed to a cross 2000
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
At 02:49 PM 21/10/04 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Dan Minette wrote: By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. Certainly not economically. His personal concerns are unknown to me, but I'm certain that he may be reacting to his perception of how his people, however he might categorize them, are treated. I'm not sure it matters. I suspect that we could find economically oppressed people among those whom are led by him. I think that if you want to try to understand why humans do things you have to look at how our psychological mechanisms were shaped in the EEA, the environment of evolutionary adaption. That is to say hunter gatherer tribes. We did this for a million years and like other animals our hominid ancestors over populated their world from time to time. So, once or twice a generation, if something else didn't get them, human groups reduced their populations by violence, i.e., wars. *Chimps* wage something very much like war on neighboring groups, sometimes completely wiping them out (genocide). What trips off the psychological mechanisms leading to wars is something that has the same effect of looking out over a land where the game had been hunted out and the berry crop eaten up. I have used looming privation and falling income per capita as descriptive of the trigger for the behavioral switch. It takes a while for this mechanism to work. It does (I propose) by turning up the gain on the circulation of xenophobic memes among a population facing looming privation. You can see an echo of this in the well known fact that neo nazi movements do better in hard economic times in the US. Since income per capita is the proposed trigger, it can be set off by economic disruptions (Nazi Germany) or population that is rising faster than the growth of the economy (Rwanda). So why now and not 50 years ago for Bin Laden? Simple. High population growth and low economic growth in the Islamic countries has switch a substantial enough number of them into this mode. When this mode was switched on 100k years ago, even up to Biblical times, one tribe would attack another, with the winner killing all of the loser tribe except for the young women who became extra wives for the winners. In any event, I don't think we are called to figure out the self-justifications of a terrorist, so I'm not sure where you were going with this...? I think it informative to understand what is going on to drive the social disruptions in the Mid East even if does not lead to obvious ways to fix the situation. But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East better will change things all that much. Are we not called to treat people with justice and mercy -- love -- simply because they are people, rather than to achieve some outcome? Aren't we called to do small things with great love (Mother Theresa's words), rather than trying to focus on the big picture of West v. Middle East? Is it Christian to measure our morality on outcomes? Where is the faith in that? In my experience, faith (and peace, joy, happiness) has meant doing the next right thing without being attached to the outcome, trusting that the big picture is already covered. Unfortunately morality seems to be optimized for the other side of the cycle, where the humans are small in numbers compared to the resources available. In such times it makes far more sense for war mode to stay switched off and for the humans to concentrate on hunting and raising kids for the *next* cycle. There is more of this depressing subject, but unless someone wants more I will cut it off here. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Keith Henson wrote: I think that if you want to try to understand why humans do things you have to look at how our psychological mechanisms were shaped in the EEA, the environment of evolutionary adaption. I have to? There's no other way? ;-) No non-evolutionary explanations? Not that I am proposing to discard evolution. It just seems to me that there's more to us than can be explained by evolution, especially given our limited understanding of it. So why now and not 50 years ago for Bin Laden? Simple. I doubt that. High population growth and low economic growth in the Islamic countries has switch a substantial enough number of them into this mode. When this mode was switched on 100k years ago, even up to Biblical times, one tribe would attack another, with the winner killing all of the loser tribe except for the young women who became extra wives for the winners. Seems vastly over-simplified, but perhaps useful. My question is, how is this meaningful to the decisions I may make today? Unfortunately morality seems to be optimized for the other side of the cycle, where the humans are small in numbers compared to the resources available. In such times it makes far more sense for war mode to stay switched off and for the humans to concentrate on hunting and raising kids for the *next* cycle. There is more of this depressing subject, but unless someone wants more I will cut it off here. I do appreciate Thom Hartmann's thinking along these lines with regard to my favorite disorder, ADHD. http://www.thomhartmann.com/home-add.shtml especially this: http://www.thomhartmann.com/addapt.shtml Nick P.S. Not long ago, I was chatting for the first time in about 10 years with the guy who was my product manager at CompuServe when I used to manage some of their forums. He was updating me on some of the other folks who we both knew from there and he mentioned Thom Hartmann. Until then, I hadn't realized that I actually used to know this guy whose books I've enjoyed so much since recognizing my own ADHD. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: Who does GWB think he is? Following up on John Edwards' yucky statement that paralytics will rise up from their wheelchairs under a Kerry administration, suggesting to some that Edwards thinks Kerry is Jesus, here is language that our president and his speechwriters chose. On the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks: Our prayer tonight is that God will see us through and keep us worthy, Bush said. Hope still lights our way, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness will not overcome it. Well, except for the fact that, according to Paul, none of us is worthy, this statement doesn't over-reach. We can still rely on the light that shines in the darkness during our toughest times; without considering ourselves the light. Worthy of grace is very problematic from a Christian perspective, In the State of the Union speech: There is power -- wonder-working power -- in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people. If one is very generous; one would say this is a Body of Christ statement, but I do have problems with it. To me, it is a far different thing for a vice-presidential candidate to make foolishly hyperbolic campaign remark than for the president of the United States to give major speeches in which he all but says straight out that his political agenda is God's mission and his chosen enemies are demons. Jesus calls us to be peace-makers, not dividers of the world into good nations and evil-doers. But, here is the question that has faced Christians for ~1600 years. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? One certainly has to be careful in judging the actions of others, but I don't think that means one cannot see evil in the world and state what one sees as wrong. For example, someone who rapes, tortures, and murders a 5 year old girl is an evil-doer. Whether he is a sinner or not is between him and God (he might be sufficiently mentally ill so that he does not pass the full will test for sin). But, we can label his actions evil. There is no doubt that the attack on the WTC was an evil act. I see Bush's view as the vast majority of the people of the world falling into the good people camp, with relatively few evil-doers spoiling it for everyone. Let me give an example apart from Bush. There are people practicing genocide in the Sudan. That practice is evil. The people actively engaged in this are evil-doers. We don't have to be self righteous in order to be indignant over genocide. I don't think we have to be sure we do no wrong before stopping genocide. I think it is acceptable to stop genocide even though one knows that, by doing so, one will accidentally cause the death of people who might have lived if we did nothing. AFAIK, you aren't a pacifist, so I won't ask you the list of questions I have for pacifists. But, even though I agree that self righteousness is a real risk; I don't place the almost complete emphasis on it that your posts seem to call for. I certainly think that GWB has too much of a black and white view of the world. Not everyone who opposes us is an evil doer; our actions aren't perfect. But, at the same time, refraining from pointing out the spec in one's neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in one's own is not the same as refraining from pointing out the log in one's neighbor's eye before removing every spec from one's own. IMHO, there needs to be a balance between avoiding self righteousness, and being willing to take a stand. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dan Minette wrote: Jesus calls us to be peace-makers, not dividers of the world into good nations and evil-doers. But, here is the question that has faced Christians for ~1600 years. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? I don't think that's the question at hand, although it's a fine question, one that belongs in every consideration of use of force. Aside from the fact that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, the question today, as I see it, is whether we end terrorism by imagining that we can wipe our evil-doers or shall we agree with Jim Wallis that unless we drain the swamps of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we will never overcome the terrorist threat. I don't hear God calling on me to wipe out evil-doers, but I certainly hear a call to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly! The beginning of Psalm 37, where the word evil-doers shows up: 1 [1] Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong; 2 for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away. 3 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. 4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart. 5 Commit your way to the LORD ; trust in him and he will do this: 6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun. 7 Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:41 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is? Dan Minette wrote: But, here is the question that has faced Christians for ~1600 years. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? I don't think that's the question at hand, although it's a fine question, one that belongs in every consideration of use of force. It certainly sounds as if you imply it with your comments, including the comments below. So, it sounds as thought the use of force is occasionally Aside from the fact that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, the question today, as I see it, is whether we end terrorism by imagining that we can wipe our evil-doers or shall we agree with Jim Wallis that unless we drain the swamps of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we will never overcome the terrorist threat. But, this implies that those who use terror do so against those who opress them, and do so out of reaction to that opression. By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. He easily could have lived on an income that is many times yours, mine, Gautam's, Davids, JDGs combined. He is the son of a family with billions in wealth. If you look at those involved in terror groups, you do not...for the most part, see Africans living hand to mouth. Rather you see, on average, people who are educated and relatively well off. Further, while the government of the terrorists are often opressive, the terrorists would wish to set up even more repressive governments, with them at the head. Now, that doesn't say that a Middle East filled with liberal democracies would not undercut terrorists. Most people, including Bush, would agree to that. But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East better will change things all that much. As it stands, ex-pats are third or fourth on the totem poll in the Mid-Eastdepending on how you slice it. The totem poll is: 1) Citizens of the country 2) Non-Palestinian Arabs 3) Palestinians 4) ex-pats 5) Pakis The attitude of #4 is not critical. I don't hear God calling on me to wipe out evil-doers, but I certainly hear a call to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly! So, we are called to simply pray in response to evil. Was it wrong to stop the genocide in the Balkins? Would it be wrong to stop it in the Sudan? Are Christians required to be passive, worrying only about their own sins? The beginning of Psalm 37, where the word evil-doers shows up: 1 [1] Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong; 2 for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away. 3 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. 4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart. 5 Commit your way to the LORD ; trust in him and he will do this: 6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun. 7 Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. So, what I hear from this is that we should let evil happen in the world, and wait for divine intervention to stop it? It would be wrong to work against those that do evil. The Psalm accurately represents an early viewpoint of Judaism; the Lord would reward and punish people in this life. But, by the time of Eccleasties and Job, this was being strongly questioned. By the time of the Macabees, it was clearly seen that people were expected to fight against wrongdoing. Indeed, the idea that Israel shouldn't fight is not in the OT, AFAIK. Now, I realize your denomination was founded by someone who threw Macabees out of scripture when someone successfully argued against him from these books. :-) But, nonetheless, it is part of the cannon for most Christians (both Roman Catholic and the various Orthodox churches). Were the Macabees wrong to fight? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:46 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is? Finishing a thought. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? I don't think that's the question at hand, although it's a fine question, one that belongs in every consideration of use of force. It certainly sounds as if you imply it with your comments, including the comments below. So, it sounds as thought the use of force is occasionally acceptable, but I am having serious trouble seeing where from your posts. I'm trying hard to put boundaries on your views (as a means of understanding..Nick views are somewhere between here and there) but am having trouble. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dan Minette wrote: By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. Certainly not economically. His personal concerns are unknown to me, but I'm certain that he may be reacting to his perception of how his people, however he might categorize them, are treated. I'm not sure it matters. I suspect that we could find economically oppressed people among those whom are led by him. In any event, I don't think we are called to figure out the self-justifications of a terrorist, so I'm not sure where you were going with this...? But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East better will change things all that much. Are we not called to treat people with justice and mercy -- love -- simply because they are people, rather than to achieve some outcome? Aren't we called to do small things with great love (Mother Theresa's words), rather than trying to focus on the big picture of West v. Middle East? Is it Christian to measure our morality on outcomes? Where is the faith in that? In my experience, faith (and peace, joy, happiness) has meant doing the next right thing without being attached to the outcome, trusting that the big picture is already covered. I don't hear God calling on me to wipe out evil-doers, but I certainly hear a call to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly! So, we are called to simply pray in response to evil. Was it wrong to stop the genocide in the Balkins? Would it be wrong to stop it in the Sudan? Are Christians required to be passive, worrying only about their own sins? Was this sarcasm? I don't recall that you're ever sarcastic, but I'm unsure if you're really serious, since I didn't say I hear a call to prayer alone. So, what I hear from this is that we should let evil happen in the world, and wait for divine intervention to stop it? It would be wrong to work against those that do evil. Only if you take Psalm 37 out of context. You described some things about Lutheranism, but left out just war theology. Without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace (Martin Luther). Obedience to authority was a strong theme in Nazi Germany, which many argue was encouraged by Lutheran tradition. Lutherans have no corner on truth. What is the first casualty of war? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is? Dan Minette wrote: By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. Certainly not economically. His personal concerns are unknown to me, but I'm certain that he may be reacting to his perception of how his people, however he might categorize them, are treated. I'm not sure it matters. I suspect that we could find economically oppressed people among those whom are led by him. In any event, I don't think we are called to figure out the self-justifications of a terrorist, so I'm not sure where you were going with this...? I'm trying to figure out your arguement. The question is whether we'll stop terrorism by simply being as just as we can But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East better will change things all that much. Are we not called to treat people with justice and mercy -- love -- simply because they are people, rather than to achieve some outcome? But, becasue they are people, are we not called to act to help them, not just treat them decently when we happen to bump into them. If our actions do not actually help them, Aren't we called to do small things with great love (Mother Theresa's words), rather than trying to focus on the big picture of West v. Middle East? Sometimes, but not all the time. I think Bonehoffer was a saint, for example. His actions as well as his writings speak to his committment to Christ. Is it Christian to measure our morality on outcomes? Yes. Where is the faith in that? The faith of James. James 2:18-17,24 How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good axct claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ' I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plentyu,' without giving them theser bare necessities of life, then what good is that.You see now thit ist is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified. In my experience, faith (and peace, joy, happiness) has meant doing the next right thing without being attached to the outcome, Yes trusting that the big picture is already covered. But that is only true in the very broadest sense...as sense where the Holocaust can occur because a bigger picture has been covered. It depends on the balance one wishes to strike. I'm trying to find your viewpoint on where that is, but you seem to be dodging direct questions. If the questions are not relevant, why not? That hight help me.' For example, do you agree with the Bonehoffer on Christian duty in the face of evil? Or do you think he was self-righteous. So, we are called to simply pray in response to evil. Was it wrong to stop the genocide in the Balkins? Would it be wrong to stop it in the Sudan? Are Christians required to be passive, worrying only about their own sins? Was this sarcasm? I don't recall that you're ever sarcastic, One rare occasion, with someone who's arguements I have lost respect for, I have been. Maybe a few times in the last 5 years. I respect your point of view, so I've never been sarcastic in my replies. but I'm unsure if you're really serious, since I didn't say I hear a call to prayer alone. Actually, I was wondering why you quoted: quote Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. end quote with respect to this discussion. You also said the big picture was taken care of. If it is, then we only need to focus on our immediate surroundings; social injustice is none of our business. But I don't think you believe that, So, what I hear from this is that we should let evil happen in the world, and wait for divine intervention to stop it? It would be wrong to work against those that do evil. Only if you take Psalm 37 out of context. OK, but then what is the context when deciding whether to act? You described some things about Lutheranism, but left out just war theology. Which goes back to Augustine...who I know Luther liked. Without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace (Martin Luther). OK, but is it OK to wage war to stop injustice instead of just repelling it from one's own home? I'll agree that great care is needed to be sure that this isn't just self-justification, but there are times when it is clearly true. Going to the Sudan again, my daughter Neli's best friend Naomi is from a family caught up in the violence there What would
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dan Minette wrote: I'm trying to figure out your arguement. The question is whether we'll stop terrorism by simply being as just as we can That's not a question for me. I don't think we're called to stop terrorism. I don't think that's within human power. The question for me is how to love God and love my neighbor. It is certainly arguable that sometimes the way to love my neighbor is to kill him. Anyway, you're starting with a premise that I reject -- that we must stop terrorism. Although that sentiment is not quite in a league with wiping out all the evil-doers, it strikes me as a tempting distraction. Let's do our best to stop terrorists -- from attacking and from coming into existence -- with a humility that accepts the fact that we cannot eradicate evil from the world. GWB's use of scripture and religious language says to me that he thinks he can, that we as a nation can. But he's not God and neither is the United States. But, becasue they are people, are we not called to act to help them, not just treat them decently when we happen to bump into them. If our actions do not actually help them, Are you thinking that I'm in favor of only helping people I happen to bump into? I don't think that's my idea. It is a daily struggle for me to have some glimmer of an idea of what's my business and what isn't, but that's not based on who I bump into. The faith of James. James 2:18-17,24 How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good axct claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ' I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plentyu,' without giving them theser bare necessities of life, then what good is that.You see now thit ist is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified. We're reading that quite differently, perhaps. This says to me that faith calls and empowers us to good works, and to avoid the temptation of simply offering lip service. The big problem I have with measuring morality by outcomes is that we generally give in to our human desire to try to control things that are beyond our control, such as the existence of evil. In my experience, when I demand that things go the way *I* think they should, I'm playing God. Not that I've managed to let go of much of that sort of habit in myself. Right now, I'm struggling with how to have this discussion without demanding that you see things my way, for example. Not everybody struggles with this, but everybody struggles with something. For example, do you agree with the Bonehoffer on Christian duty in the face of evil? Or do you think he was self-righteous. There's some self-righteousness in Bonhoeffer, but not much -- far less than in most of us. What I appreciate most about him at the moment is his insight into how to live in community. I don't think he had pat answers to our response to evil (did he talk about duty or reponse?), which earns my respect. The Cost of Discipleship describes very human struggles with understanding the Beatitudes, which seems rather nutty from a worldly viewpoint. As for worrying just about our own sins, I think we're called to let go of worry about anybody's sins, including our own, as they were nailed to a cross 2000 years ago. Actually, I was wondering why you quoted: quote Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. end quote with respect to this discussion. You also said the big picture was taken care of. If it is, then we only need to focus on our immediate surroundings; social injustice is none of our business. But I don't think you believe that, Oh, I see now. I don't read that Psalm as just pray. I think it urges us to accept the world as it really is, instead of demanding that it should be some other way or trying to control things that we cannot. It calls us to put great trust in God to take care of that which is beyond our control, trust that God is at work in the lives of our friends and enemies, freeing us from playing God in their lives, allowing us to be real with them. OK, but then what is the context when deciding whether to act? That's where prayer enters in, along with other means of piety, discipleship, grace, study, etc. -- and faith, lots of faith. Not to mention acceptance, perhaps especially acceptance that people of faith disagree. The real question for me is the extent to which I have accepted the fact that I am acceptable as I am, that God loves me not despite my errors, but comes to me in my errors, freeing me from the trap of guilt. To the extent that I don't accept this, I
