kilroy@cs.umd.edu (Darren F. Provine) (07/26/90)
In an earlier article, Joe Buehler asked how the Antichrist would be able to use the Roman Catholic Church to achieve his ends. I suggested that if the Antichrist could trick Christians into disgracing themselves, that would prevent many others from becoming Christians; a reasonable goal for someone called `the Antichrist'. Further, I offered some examples of disgraceful crimes committed in the name of Christ, suggesting that perhaps we've _already_ been deceived on a few occasions. (My examples included the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, but I specifically disclaimed the idea that the RCC is the only culpable Christian sect.) In reply, Joe has asked: > >Darren: I am curious. What do you want to found society on? What should >be the standard of what is good and evil, what is lawful and unlawful? Which seems totally irrelevant: why does it matter what society is founded on, if Christians engage in behaviour which brings nothing but disgrace to our Lord? Getting back on track, let me try illustrating it this way: There is no record that Jesus told his disciples to go out and take charge of governments; there is no record that Jesus told his disciples to go out and oppress people who did not believe; there is no record that Jesus wanted his followers to engage in pogroms slaughtering thousands. Since there is no record that Christ wanted us to do those things, who do you suppose did? kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely- inspired book, admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (08/08/90)
Darren wrote:
There is no record that Jesus told his disciples to go out and take
charge of governments; there is no record that Jesus told his
disciples to go out and oppress people who did not believe; there is
no record that Jesus wanted his followers to engage in pogroms
slaughtering thousands.
Since there is no record that Christ wanted us to do those things,
who do you suppose did?
I disagree with your drift, because of something that Our Lord said:
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father
but by Me.
Thus my point:
-> Governments are for maintaining temporal concerns above all, but
-> governments formed by Christians also have to keep in mind the
-> eternal destiny of their citizens, as taught by Jesus Christ. Their
-> laws should be framed with the teaching of Jesus Christ in mind.
-> Those who wish to spread ideals that, according to the teaching of
-> Jesus, lead to eternal death, should be opposed.
God does not believe in Liberalism, in other words.
God did not tell the Apostles to run governments, but He did teach them
things that must necessarily influence the laws made by a nation of men
who follow the Apostles. If Jesus taught that fornicators cannot enter
into eternal life, then people who know this, yet, when forming a
government, allow the free spread of such things, what can be said of
such people? They deserve to be committed, more than anything else!
There is a difference between Jesus's times and ours. When He was
crucified, He had few followers, and they were weak. In modern times,
He has many more who call themselves Christians.
Consider what would have happened at Lithostratos if Pilate had been
surrounded by a Christian crowd. Ha! He would have been lucky if he
had retained a position as street-sweeper. Perhaps even his life, in
the excess of people's indignation. Imagine, a Roman governer trying to
crucify God. What a mob-scene that would have been. Pilate wouldn't
have had a chance.
Unfortunately, there are many nowadays who think that the Christian
thing to do in that 1st century situation was: nothing.
If we won't defend the Body of Christ, our brothers and sisters in
Christ, then they, and He, will continue be crucified again.barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (08/12/90)
[Darren commented that Christ did not want us to take charge of governments, oppress people, and slaughter thousands of non-Christians. He said > Since there is no record that Christ wanted us to do those things, > who do you suppose did? Joe Buehler aruges that governments need to keep in mind the eternal destiny of their citizens. > Those who wish to spread ideals that, according to the teaching of > Jesus, lead to eternal death, should be opposed.... > If we won't defend the Body of Christ, our brothers and sisters in > Christ, then they, and He, will continue be crucified again. --clh] And the fight belongs to the Lord. We can witness, we can pray, we can do spiritual battle with the demons. We do not pass secular law on society, nor do we engage in killing for Christ. This idea that christians are called to be warrior defenders of the faith is demonicand can only lead to the proverbial hell. How many Jews hate christianity for this very reason? How many proverbial christians will be called to court for creating this hatred by killing for Jesus? How many devout christians were burned by those who felt it was their duty to kill for Jesus? How many have burned Jesus to protect Jesus? Christianity has always grown strong through persecution, as well as has grown in numbers. We can "reason" and search the scriptures to defend the faith. Barry Olson
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (Michael Bindner) (08/12/90)
I think the poster misses the point of liberalism. Liberalism in thought and government assumes that, aside from preventing external danger, government shall stay out of morality in both belief, practice and morals (though most governments have not followed this tenant very well). To do otherwise puts the state in the position of forcing moral and religious behavior. Such forced behavior has less merit than a freely chosen belief in God and His Word. Seen in a modern light the work of St. Thomas Aquinas on free will also supports this. The divine right of governments rests with God given free will, not from a superstitious birthright of first born princes or in resorting to a theocracy.
vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) (08/17/90)
>This idea that christians are called to be warrior defenders of the faith >is demonicand can only lead to the proverbial hell. No, it's not demonic. But attacking the wrong 'enemy' is no good. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph. 6:12) We don't just "reason" and "search the Scriptures" (both are good), but we DO fight, as well. But we often miss the target. We should not fight other people (to further Jesus and the gospel...I'm not addressing war and its morality). We fight the devil and his minions. If we don't, we're in for a rough ride. Denying that there is a REAL enemy and a REAL fight is ignorance, and satan loves it. -Vince Mulhern
barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (08/25/90)
[Barry had comments that the idea of defending the faith as warriors is demonic. Vincent Paul Mulhern responded with Eph. 6:12 about spiritual warfare. --clh] Maybe i didn't state clearly what was my intent. Christians as the warrior defenders of the faith against other christians would be what I was meaning. This idea is demonic. Killing Jesus to defend Jesus. Barry O
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (08/25/90)
In article <Aug.12.02.33.13.1990.15894@athos.rutgers.edu> barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: > >And the fight belongs to the Lord. We can witness, we can pray, we can >do spiritual battle with the demons. We do not pass secular law on >society, nor do we engage in killing for Christ. I essentially agree with you, Barry. While we are not the sole source of secular laws, we should have input inasmuch as possible for us. I do not believe that Christians are called to go warring and destroying for Christ. > >This idea that christians are called to be warrior defenders of the faith >is demonicand can only lead to the proverbial hell. How many Jews hate I think this may be merely a problem of word choice. We are warriors. Notice that Paul tells us to put on the whole armor of God. Who puts on armor but warriors, soldiers. But also notice the position of battle--on our knees in prayer. As Paul points out, we wrestle (battle) not against flesh and blood, and the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty spiritual weapons. So, yes, I do believe that we are warriors defending the faith. But our war is not carnal. It is a spiritual war that we are fighting, and it starts with ourselves first. Just my thoughts on the matter. May His joy be yours, Gene
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (09/20/90)
All this business about killing, death, murder, torture, has nothing
whatsoever to do with the subject under consideration. I really have no
idea where it came from, certainly not me, because I know jhpb's
theology pretty well.
Darren's original objection that started this whole thread was that
putting people to death for what they believe is a tool of the
Antichrist.
My point is that, abstracting from what form such opposition might take,
opposing people on grounds of what they believe -- AND cause to be acted
out -- is quite appropriate. (Beliefs not translated into acts
are certainly beyond the scope of any government.)
Darren wrote:
The main point of Joe's article seems to be here:
> Those who wish to spread ideals that, according to the teaching of
> Jesus, lead to eternal death, should be opposed.
Yes!
But this has two problems:
1) Jesus did not tell us to do this; he told us to spread the Gospel,
not murder the unconverted.
2) Doing this interferes with obeying Jesus' commands, by clearly
informing the unconverted that Christianity is something nobody
sensible wants anything to do with.
Besides the point. My point is quite a good one, and is nothing else
than Christian common sense. I'll repeat it:
Those who wish to spread ideals that, according to the teaching of
Jesus, lead to eternal death, should be opposed.
Notice, I said "opposed". I didn't say "murdered", "tortured", or even
"beaten to death with a wet noodle". I said OPPOSED. I said nothing
about murder or mayhem of any kind. Ecuador had none of that, yet you
saw the article in the concordat. Probably a complete surprise to
everyone here.
I admit the force of your essential objection, only it has nothing to do
with the argument. You are only touching on what OPPOSED would mean,
which is in great part a matter of prudence. Great prudence.
I am not addressing that matter, however, I'm talking about the idea of
governmental opposition to spiritual havoc in and of itself. What I
just repeated in that indented paragraph above is both logical and in
accord with Jesus's teaching.
It is quite as possible to be a murderer in the spiritual realm as it is
in the material. That is the entire gist of what I'm saying. If the
charity of Christ urges me to defend my brother from temporal death, so
much more does it urge me to defend him against those who would murder
his soul and cast him alive into Hell for all eternity.
"Christian" Liberals believe in giving perfect freedom to anyone to
ridicule the Bible, blaspheme Christ and his Blessed Mother, push as
many people as possible into atheism, immorality of all kinds, as long
as they preserve public order. In a word, take as many as they can to
Hell, but don't give anyone a headache.
I think that sort of thinking is worthy of ridicule. Don't steal his
car, but feel perfectly free to convince him that God doesn't exist? A
case of slightly disordered values. I think.
Governments are obliged to watch over the temporal order, yes. But
Governments composed of Christians have an added duty, to defend their
weaker brothers in Christ from those who would rob them of Christ, given
half a chance. And there are always such around.
Christ had to be crucified. But when Christ is in danger -- in your
brothers in Christ -- you don't stand idly by while He's killed again.
You do something about it. I think the pro-life people would
understand.
Keep in mind that I am saying nothing about the US of A, but rather, how
things *should* be in a nation made up of followers of Jesus. We hardly
have such a situation here at the moment.
And please forget this stuff about death and torture. There have been
*plenty* of Catholic countries in the past few centuries, just like
Ecuador under Garcia Moreno, and they had none of that.
A modern example to some extent is Ireland, where, so one poster in
t.r.m told us a while back, abortion, divorce, and contraceptives are
illegal. Undoubtedly, for the reasons I have just given.
Joe Buehler