orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/28/84)
What should the Christian position be regarding War? Does Christ teach that one should prepare to obliterate one's enemies and the rest of the world as well if you don't agree with them? I have tried to get a response from the Christians on this newsgroup to the issue of the morality of nuclear war. Hardly anybody responded, except for an inane exchange of arguments about which side is left, right or wrong. (e.g. Left-proFreeze, anti-Life,etc,etc) Yet if Christians wish to make any pretense towards concern with morality, how can they ignore this issue? And how can they ignore the example of Christ himself? Gandhi, the greatest practitioner of nonviolence in this century said he was profoundly influenced by the teachings of Jesus Christ on this issue. Yet there are "Christians" like Carl McIntire who espouse the philosophy of "kill a commie for Christ". There is currently sitting in the highest office in the land a man who wraps himself with claims of being "Christian" even as he presides over the greatest nuclear arms buildup in the world's history. Even as he makes jokes about "bombing the Russians". There are Evangelists going around claiming that the ONLY "right to life" anyone should worry about (especially Christians) is the right of creatures who haven't even been born yet. Are today's Christians going to sit by or even encourage the destruction of our planet? While I have found NO indication anywhere in the Gospels that Jesus ever advocated violence, some of the worst atrocities in human history have occurred in his name. The Crusades were brutal and bloody. The Inquisition resulted in the torture and death of thousands. Will Christians speak up against or will they encourage the nuclear destruction of our planet? Will Christians consider only the rights of those not even born yet to the exclusion of all others right to life? I hope this provokes some discussion--it is time for Christians to follow their principles or admit that they really have no principles worth following. Tim Sevener Bell Labs, Whippany whuxl!orb
russ@ihuxi.UUCP (Russell Spence) (09/28/84)
> What should the Christian position be regarding War? Does Christ > teach that one should prepare to obliterate one's enemies and > the rest of the world as well if you don't agree with them? > I have tried to get a response from the Christians on this newsgroup > to the issue of the morality of nuclear war. > ... > Are today's Christians going to sit by or even encourage the destruction > of our planet? > ... > Tim Sevener Tim, of course you are right. Christ said "Turn the other cheek". He clearly didn't advocate violence of any kind, much less war. Christians wonder why people like me think they are hypocritical. Well, this is one of the main reasons. Anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ shouldn't have anything to do with war. Of course I realize that not everyone is perfect, and you can't become peaceful and perfect over night, but you should at least be committed to gaining peace. If you are a Christian, this DEFINITELY does NOT mean peace through superior arms. This means peace through love. Everyone knows that Christ was love and that he never advocated violence. He said "the MEEK shall inherit the earth" not he who has the biggest guns. As for nuclear arms, I personally would find it very hard to consider anyone to be a Christian who did not advocate unilateral disarmament. To build a huge stockpile of weapons such as nukes is clearly WRONG according to Christ's teachings. Now I realize that we may not be strong enough spiritually to carry out a plan of unilateral disarmament, but if you are a Christian, at least you should realize that this is the correct goal and begin to move towards the realization of it. -- Russell Spence ihnp4!ihuxi!russ AT&T Technologies Naperville, IL
stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (09/28/84)
Sorry, I'm tired of this: --------------------[begin sarcastic mode]-------------------- > While I have found NO indication anywhere in the Gospels that Jesus ever > advocated violence, some of the worst atrocities in human history have > occurred in his name. The Crusades were brutal and bloody. The > Inquisition resulted in the torture and death of thousands. Point scored, **again**. Of course, all of us Christians share the stain of the Nazi's and the Inquisition. Because these people acted in the name of Christ, it is obvious that every single Christian (we are all alike of course) is every bit as culpable as Hitler or Torquemada. We should all be damned for our hypocracy. ARE YOU SATISFIED? > There are Evangelists going around claiming that the ONLY "right to life" > anyone should worry about (especially Christians) is the right of > creatures who haven't even been born yet. Yes, ITS TRUE! just as you all believed all along: every single Christian ever agrees 110% with Jerry Falwell. YES! When we are baptized we were submerged just long enough to become mindless automata! EXCUSE US ALL TO HELL! > ... how can they ignore the example of Christ himself? Gandhi, the > greatest practitioner of nonviolence in this century said he was > profoundly influenced by the teachings of Jesus Christ on this issue. WHAT? A CHRISTIAN ACT LIKE CHRIST? Thats against our beliefs! We only act as dear 'ole Jerry tells us the Bible says we should. As for Gandhi, he was just a dirty little indian. DON'T YOU KNOW JESUS CAME ONLY TO SAVE WHITE MEN! > What should the Christian position be regarding War? Does Christ > teach that one should prepare to obliterate one's enemies and > the rest of the world as well if you don't agree with them? KILL GODLESS COMIES! Thats right -- we should nuke them and dedicate their radioactive ashes to the GLORY OF GOD!!! --------------------[end sarcastic mode]-------------------- The Roman Catholic Church in America recently released a bishops letter condemning nuclear weapons. I guess this escaped your notice. Main-line protestants have also spoken against war of agression and against the use of any weapons against civilians. Christians as a whole have been against war. You'll recall that during the First and Second World Wars almost all concientious objectors were either Quakers, Mennonites or Brethern -- solid Christians all of them. Stu
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/01/84)
> > Yes, ITS TRUE! just as you all believed all along: every single > Christian ever agrees 110% with Jerry Falwell. YES! When we are > baptized we were submerged just long enough to become mindless automata! > EXCUSE US ALL TO HELL! > > > The Roman Catholic Church in America recently released a bishops letter > condemning nuclear weapons. I guess this escaped your notice. > Main-line protestants have also spoken against war of agression and > against the use of any weapons against civilians. > > Christians as a whole have been against war. You'll recall that during > the First and Second World Wars almost all concientious objectors were > either Quakers, Mennonites or Brethern -- solid Christians all of them. > > Stu The Catholic Bishops letter condemning nuclear weapons has not escaped my notice. But where are the Catholic bishops making headlines now? Archbishop O'Connor is making headlines by urging his Catholic flock to ignore all other issues in this election and vote only on the basis of candidate's stands for or against making abortion illegal. The Republican Convention bathed itself in hosannas and religious fervor- where were the Christians to question whether Christianity means "full speed ahead" for the nuclear arms race ? I realize that there are many Christians who are against war and the current arms race. But their voices are seldom heard, unfortunately. There were many Christians against the Nazi persecution of Jews--but were they vocal enough to counter the "Christians" who supported or at least condoned such actions? Perhaps it is simply the bias of the media but the only Christians seen in the media are the militarist variety. I did not wish to tar all Christians with the same brush--I am well aware of the other side of the Crusades and the Inquisition, that in fact one reason the early Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire was that many of them refused to serve in the Roman Army at a time when it was desperate for personnel. In fact Christians were also at the forefront of the fight to abolish slavery, and certain sects have always been conscientious objectors to War. But if that is what Christianity should stand for then those Christians who support that viewpoint should raise the issue of the nuclear arms race in their churches and not let their quiet support for peace be drowned out by the Jerry Falwells of this world. Abortion is an important moral issue and regardless of whether I agree with the Catholic Church's position on this issue, at least I think they have been consistent in advocating not only the fetal right to life, but all humanity's right to life by advocating a stop to the nuclear arms race. It is unfortunate that other Christians have for the most part ignored the threat to everyone's right to life posed by the nuclear arms race. Tim Sevener Bell Labs, Whippany whuxl!orb *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (10/01/84)
> Christians as a whole have been against war. You'll recall that during > the First and Second World Wars almost all concientious objectors were > either Quakers, Mennonites or Brethern -- solid Christians all of them. I don't want to disagree with your main point as I understand it, that many Christians sincerely oppose war, and that Christianity cannot be judged by the actions or statements of one group. However, your statement above is simply not true. *Most* Christians in *most* times have *not* been sufficiently opposed to war to become conscientious objectors. During the Vietnam War, only a small minority registered as CO's, went to Canada, etc., and in previous wars (Korean, WW I, WW II) even fewer took the CO position. Even among draft-age Quakers in WW II, there was a substantial number, it may even have been a majority, who took up arms. Richard Nixon is only the most famous example. It's one thing to "be against war", and it is quite another thing to take a stand such as being a CO that puts one at personal risk vis-a-vis the government and your peers. By the way, a substantial number of Quakers would dispute your assertion that Quakers are "solid Christians". Many doubt that present-day Quakerism is a branch of Christianity at all, although they do recognize the historical roots of Quakerism in Christianity. -- "Biblical signoffs are for the smug." Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/01/84)
Russell and others,
MEEK does not mean WIMP !!
A meek man is one who has submitted himself to a Superior
other. This can be theological or natural submission to
training for his/her betterment. Moses was described as the
"meekest of men" and he was hardly a wimp. In fact, a meek
servant in the hands of the living God can be a powerful force
on the face of the earth.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/02/84)
A friend of mine once said, "The extreme Christian position is that we should lay down our weapons with the full expectation of being nuked out of existence." Unfortunately, I'm not sure that this really works. In this day and age I think I have to consider the effects on my non-christian neighbors. It's the same problem as with fighting the Nazis in WW II; you either adhere to your holy pacifism, or you allow all those jews to be killed. I agree that simply building a bigger stockpile is has obvious problems. I think that unilateral disarmament is reckless. Between the two extremes, I see no clear path. THe best idea I've come up with is to have the weapons, and never use them, not even in the face of a massive attack. This too has obvious problems, technical and moral. I suspect there is no satisfactory solution. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "My wings are like a shield of steel."
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (10/02/84)
> A friend of mine once said, "The extreme Christian position is that we > should lay down our weapons with the full expectation of being nuked > out of existence." > > Unfortunately, I'm not sure that this really works. In this day and age > I think I have to consider the effects on my non-christian neighbors. It's > the same problem as with fighting the Nazis in WW II; you either adhere to > your holy pacifism, or you allow all those jews to be killed. > > I agree that simply building a bigger stockpile is has obvious problems. > I think that unilateral disarmament is reckless. Between the two extremes, > I see no clear path. THe best idea I've come up with is to have the > weapons, and never use them, not even in the face of a massive attack. > This too has obvious problems, technical and moral. > > I suspect there is no satisfactory solution. Or, as one person (I forget who) pointed out, it is not that Christianity has not been tried, but that it has been tried and found difficult. -- "Biblical signoffs are for the smug." Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/02/84)
> > Russell and others, > > MEEK does not mean WIMP !! > > A meek man is one who has submitted himself to a Superior > other. This can be theological or natural submission to > training for his/her betterment. Moses was described as the > "meekest of men" and he was hardly a wimp. In fact, a meek > servant in the hands of the living God can be a powerful force > on the face of the earth. > > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} And refusing to engage in violence does not make somebody a wimp. Jesus Christ could have allowed himself to be defended by the sword in the Garden of Gethsemane--he didn't, instead he said "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Lashing out in irrational violence is often our first response to provocation but it is not a sign of strength, rather it is a sign of weakness and lack of will. As Gandhi said, it takes more strength and courage to continue to oppose evil nonviolently than it does to resort to violence. Tim Sevener Bell Labs, Whippany whuxl!orb
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (10/02/84)
>>But where are the Catholic bishops making headlines now? >>I realize that there are many Christians who are against war and the current >>arms race. But their voices are seldom heard, unfortunately. Both groups show up in one medium: the National Catholic Reporter. It's an independent newspaper which has been publishing peace and justice issues for years, even before it was fashionable. There's a decent cross-section of ideas, and generally lively debate on many moral issues. (I'm sure they will highlight the National Council of Catholic Bishops' pastoral letter on the economy that should come out after the election.) Mary Ann Zeszutko ihnp4!ihuxf!features
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (10/03/84)
From Tim Sevener (whuxl!orb): > As Gandhi said, it takes more strength and courage to continue to > oppose evil nonviolently than it does to resort to violence. A principle well worth applying in this newsgroup, too! -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/05/84)
REFERENCE: <193@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <604@utastro.UUCP> It was G. K. Chesterton who said, "It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it's been found difficult and not tried." Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/10/84)
> > I agree that simply building a bigger stockpile is has obvious problems. > I think that unilateral disarmament is reckless. Between the two extremes, > I see no clear path. THe best idea I've come up with is to have the > weapons, and never use them, not even in the face of a massive attack. > This too has obvious problems, technical and moral. > > I suspect there is no satisfactory solution. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Between the two extremes: how about stopping right where we are? That is the solution suggested by the Catholic bishops in their pastoral letter. Once we agree with the Soviets to stop, then perhaps we can continue on to reduce both nuclear stockpiles. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/15/84)
>> I agree that simply building a bigger stockpile is has obvious problems. >> I think that unilateral disarmament is reckless. Between the two extremes, >> I see no clear path. > Between the two extremes: how about stopping right where we are? > That is the solution suggested by the Catholic bishops in their > pastoral letter. Once we agree with the Soviets to stop, then perhaps > we can continue on to reduce both nuclear stockpiles. > Tim Sevener whuxl!orb I have no problems with this position-- provided we continue to verify that the Soviets cannot neutralize our weapons. Charley