Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: What does it mean to be a Christian? Message-ID: <5204@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 09:51:30 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.5204 Posted: Thu Apr 25 09:51:30 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 09:26:39 EST References: <603@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 108 Keywords: nuclear war, arms race Xref: watmath net.religion:6751 net.religion.christian:671 A response to Tim Sevener's article: >He [Pres. Reagan] said: >****************************************************************** >* You might be interested to know that the Scriptures are on our side >* on this - Luke 14:31 - in which Jesus, in talking to the disciples, >* spoke about a king who might be contemplating going to war against >* another king with his 10,000 men. >* >* But he sits down and counsels how good he's going to do against the >* other fellow's 20,000 and then says he may have to send a delegation >* to talk peace terms. >* >* Well, I don't think we ever want to be in a position of only being >* half as strong and sending a delegation to negotiate, under these >* circumstances, peace terms with the Soviet Union. >****************************************************************** > >Wouldn't the Christians and others who admire Jesus Christ's life >of nonviolence say that this is a travesty of all that Jesus >stood for. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than >oppose his persecutors with violence. Here is the actual passage >President Reagan referred to: > >****************************************************************** >* Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not >* sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten >* thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? >* And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an >* embassy and asks terms of peace. >* >* So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has >* cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:31 >****************************************************************** > >Isn't it clear that Jesus, as with all his life and words, is counseling >Peace rather than War? I don't think this particular passage can be used to support either position. The emphasis of the passage is that persons should count the cost of becoming a Christian before doing so. He uses more analogies than this one to illustrate this (i.e. "building a tower" in the previous verses). Jesus desiged the analogies to talk about counting the cost of discipleship not about war and peace. Jesus doesn't deal with the question of what would be right if the king decided he *could* defeat his enemy. Another thing: Jesus died willingly on the cross for a very good reason. That is, to atone for the sins of mankind. Do we have a similar mission for dying passively at the hands of our enemies? Perhaps Christians do, since their kingdom is not of this world. But what about the non-christains in this country? Is it fair to ask them to be passive in the face of their enemies? What about third parties (e.g. Afganastan, Poland)? >In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: >(Matthew 5:9) "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called >sons of God." Jesus did NOT say "Blessed are the warmakers and >those who prepare for War." OK. Here's an application for you: How could we have made peace with Hitler? I am totally convinced of the virtues of being a peacemaker, but you seem to be equating peacemaking with passivity. >When Jesus was seized to be crucified Matthew 26:51-52 says: > >****************************************************************** >* And behold one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand >* and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut >* off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into >* its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." >******************************************************************* Here you are on better ground. But again, Jesus has a specific cause in mind here (i.e. his own sacrificial death). However, I do think you're right in that the last sentence puts forth a general principle of non-aggression. But the universal application of it escapes me. Again, taking the example of Hitler; when he draws the sword, by whose sword will he perish? >Our President has been wrapping his militaristic policies in a cloak >of Christianity. Is this what Christianity really means? Are >Christians going to support such policies as other "Christians" >supported the Inquisition and the Crusades? I think there has been a great deal of cloak wrapping on both sides. I admit that I have been more confused than illuminated on this whole issue. My inclination is that the Bible is setting up a delicate tension here and that it doesn't provide the exact formula for each situation. Both you and Reagan seem guilty of thinking that it does. It would help me a lot more to see someone take a consistent approach to Scripture with regard to this issue in general and our situation in particular. >Fundamentalist Christians were reported to have voted for Ronald Reagan >by a margin of about 77%. Is this what you voted for? So, a vote for Reagan was a vote for war. That simple, huh? There are two superpowers playing in this game. Who votes for the other one? How have they demonstrated their respect for human life and liberty? Do *they* know what Christianity really means? >Do the Christians on the net really believe the lesson of Christ's life >was to abandon all other social goals to prepare to incinerate the >planet? No, this one doesn't. (What a loaded question.) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd