Re: The evil within us
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:12 am
We live under the gospel of Christ.
It has been challenged on here in the past how the new covenant relates to christians in regards to the OT.
Matthew 5:18
The laws purpose was fulfilled and it become obsolete. It was not destroyed by superseded by a higher law; the Gospel.
Why then when it suits do we use the OT as justification when we know better?
Pacifism is such a loosely coined term. It is not a definitive description of a particular ideology. It varies widely depending on who is 'borrowing' the term and for what purpose.
It is derives from the Latin word 'pacific' which means 'peace-making'. On the sermon of the mount Jesus says 'blessed are the peace makers'. 'peace makers' is the Greek word eirenopoios, eirênê meaning peace and poiesis 'to make'.
In this ideal, Jesus was a pacifist in every sense of the word.
I call myself a pacifist but I am not opposed to defending the lIves of others when faced with an imminent threat. It is intent. Always.
Police officers have one the most important jobs to do and unfortunately for the safety of others this means that at times they must use deadly force. Does that justify every single death at the hand of a police officer? No! I won't go into examples of why that is so, I think it speaks for itself.
If someone was hurting my children, imminent threat, I would do what ever it takes to protect them at all costs. It would be instinctual. If I was to form a vigilante coup after the fact and use my vengeance and retribution, no matter how justified it appears, that would be surpasses the instinctual behaviour to protect and would be murder.
If our borders were infiltrated and a foreign country was invading, I would personally defend my country and family, I would not flash them the peace sign and sing them Kambaya.
But I am opposed to the unjustified use of violence, by the state or the individual. So what is unjustified? I don't think its so hard to find the line. To protect our right or other's right to LIVE in an imminent threat. If there is no imminent threat or the driving force is revenge by the individual or greed or power or religious subservience by the state then there stands no justification. That justification does not stand by blindly following orders if one is in the military, the police force or any type of law enforcement. It does not stand by living in a glass house and throwing stones.
My country has partook in military action that was due to imminent threat and has also followed blindly into military action that they had no place or right to do so. It was not based on imminent threat but greed. I applaud the former and I stood in protest (literally) against the other.
I have heard stories of the most astounding acts of peace and love in the face of violence. Whether its Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or the everyday person. To react with violence against violence is not courage, it's necessity. Some courageous acts have been done out of necessity, usually in the form of sacrafice but true courage takes its form in rising above violence and superseding it with love and 'peace-making'.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
Nelson Mandela
"The reason I can't follow the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy is that it ends up leaving everyone blind. Somebody must have sense and somebody must have religion. I remember some years ago, my brother and I were driving from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tennessee. And for some reason the drivers that night were very discourteous or they were forgetting to dim their lights...And finally A.D. looked over at me and he said, 'I'm tired of this now, and the next car that comes by here and refuses to dim the lights, I'm going to refuse to dim mine.' I said, 'Wait a minute, don't do that . Somebody has to have some sense on this highway.'
Martin Luther King
It has been challenged on here in the past how the new covenant relates to christians in regards to the OT.
Matthew 5:18
The laws purpose was fulfilled and it become obsolete. It was not destroyed by superseded by a higher law; the Gospel.
Why then when it suits do we use the OT as justification when we know better?
Pacifism is such a loosely coined term. It is not a definitive description of a particular ideology. It varies widely depending on who is 'borrowing' the term and for what purpose.
It is derives from the Latin word 'pacific' which means 'peace-making'. On the sermon of the mount Jesus says 'blessed are the peace makers'. 'peace makers' is the Greek word eirenopoios, eirênê meaning peace and poiesis 'to make'.
In this ideal, Jesus was a pacifist in every sense of the word.
I call myself a pacifist but I am not opposed to defending the lIves of others when faced with an imminent threat. It is intent. Always.
Police officers have one the most important jobs to do and unfortunately for the safety of others this means that at times they must use deadly force. Does that justify every single death at the hand of a police officer? No! I won't go into examples of why that is so, I think it speaks for itself.
If someone was hurting my children, imminent threat, I would do what ever it takes to protect them at all costs. It would be instinctual. If I was to form a vigilante coup after the fact and use my vengeance and retribution, no matter how justified it appears, that would be surpasses the instinctual behaviour to protect and would be murder.
If our borders were infiltrated and a foreign country was invading, I would personally defend my country and family, I would not flash them the peace sign and sing them Kambaya.
But I am opposed to the unjustified use of violence, by the state or the individual. So what is unjustified? I don't think its so hard to find the line. To protect our right or other's right to LIVE in an imminent threat. If there is no imminent threat or the driving force is revenge by the individual or greed or power or religious subservience by the state then there stands no justification. That justification does not stand by blindly following orders if one is in the military, the police force or any type of law enforcement. It does not stand by living in a glass house and throwing stones.
My country has partook in military action that was due to imminent threat and has also followed blindly into military action that they had no place or right to do so. It was not based on imminent threat but greed. I applaud the former and I stood in protest (literally) against the other.
I have heard stories of the most astounding acts of peace and love in the face of violence. Whether its Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or the everyday person. To react with violence against violence is not courage, it's necessity. Some courageous acts have been done out of necessity, usually in the form of sacrafice but true courage takes its form in rising above violence and superseding it with love and 'peace-making'.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
Nelson Mandela
"The reason I can't follow the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy is that it ends up leaving everyone blind. Somebody must have sense and somebody must have religion. I remember some years ago, my brother and I were driving from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tennessee. And for some reason the drivers that night were very discourteous or they were forgetting to dim their lights...And finally A.D. looked over at me and he said, 'I'm tired of this now, and the next car that comes by here and refuses to dim the lights, I'm going to refuse to dim mine.' I said, 'Wait a minute, don't do that . Somebody has to have some sense on this highway.'
Martin Luther King
