Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the Church does not support the idea of preemptive military strikes...then where does the government get the priests who go out and bless the soldiers as they depart for the foreign lands?

And I don't mean just the Catholic priests; I mean ALL the Christian priests. I've seen priests of ALL denominations "blessing the troops"...and telling them that "God was with them".

A totally different question. First I cannot speak for every Christian denomination in the world. Second, I understood, the context of your conversation with Class was about the Roman Catholic Church and the concept of self-defense.

Third the Chaplains in the U.S. military are in the military and they are there to support their congregations, the troops, not to decide government policy, but to follow orders.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Ahhh...we went from protecting the lives of our sisters who are getting raped in front of us, to believing in "self defense". And what does "self defense" mean to you, Classhandicapper? In order for you to "defend yourself" against me, must I attack you first...or do you have the right to attack ME first...on the mere suspicion that I MIGHT be contemplating attacking you in the future?

Did you know that our government "believes" in preemptive military strikes? It was one of the first "powers" that our government attained for itself after the attacks of 9/11. Our government is the only one in the world who can now bomb an innocent country on the mere SUSPICION that this country may be a future threat to us. And then our country shrugs its shoulders and says "Ooops"...when it's discovered that the threats of us "getting attacked" were unfounded.

I wonder if the Church says "Yes" to that too.

If I am certain someone is inevitably going to attack, do I have to wait until a lot of people are dead to respond?

I think not and I think the church would agree with that even though I don't know the official view.

The thing is, I agree with you. it's very dangerous to act preemptively. You have to be certain. The US was not. That's why it was a mistake. But you have to understand that the Christian right was convinced (though lies, misleading information etc.. ) that Saddam had a role in the attacks.

So the criticism should be aimed at the neocon liars. It should not be aimed at the fact that many of those that were wrong and wanted to attack were Christian. The thought they were acting in self defense. Call them idiots if you want. Just don't blame the religion for that one.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

OF COURSE you were taught "Yes". Who was going to tell you "NO"...the CHURCH? Doesn't the Church also say "YES" when you ask her if our government should send troops to a far-away land...to wage war on people who have never even SEEN us...much less raped our loved ones? Don't the priests bless the invading army...and tell us that "God is with our fighting men"?

The Church can teach whatever she wants, Classhandicapper...and it shouldn't matter at all. The teachings of Jesus, fragmented though they may be, are out there...and we can see for OURSELVES what Jesus has said on these matters. What Church could be trusted to interpret the sayings of Jesus in the manner that you are suggesting?

If Jesus's teachings were "depended of circumstances", as your Church told you they were...then WHY didn't Jesus point OUT these "different circumstances"?

"I was taught yes"...he says.

I have a different mindset on this.

It's kind of like the constitution to me.

The framers said a lot of things, but they couldn't possibly cover every foreseeable scenario for all time. In some cases they were talking in more general terms. So the Supreme Court gets to interpret and make the case on issues that were not specifically addressed. Of course in the US we are forced to accept those decisions even when we disagree. In religion, we can choose to reject them or even hate the Church as you do. I prefer data on results.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

A totally different question. First I cannot speak for every Christian denomination in the world. Second, I understood, the context of your conversation with Class was about the Roman Catholic Church and the concept of self-defense.

Third the Chaplains in the U.S. military are in the military and they are there to support their congregations, the troops, not to decide government policy, but to follow orders.

In reply to el papa's misguided quote:

I wonder why God drove the 7 nations out of the Land in the OT??? And I also wonder why God made a Covenant of Law with the Israelites???

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

After all these posts...I have concluded what I had suspected all along:

God didn't create man. It was MAN, who created "God".

This goes a long way towards explaining basically everything...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

A totally different question. First I cannot speak for every Christian denomination in the world. Second, I understood, the context of your conversation with Class was about the Roman Catholic Church and the concept of self-defense.

Third the Chaplains in the U.S. military are in the military and they are there to support their congregations, the troops, not to decide government policy, but to follow orders.

The point of my conversation with Classhandicapper is the same as the point I have ALWAYS addressed here...when it comes to the teaching of Jesus. We don't KNOW what Jesus meant by the things that he said...and we have each assigned our own meanings to these sayings. When I to want follow the teachings of Jesus...I shouldn't have to go to St. Augustine or to St. Aquinas for an explanation of what Jesus really meant.

Where is the proof that Jesus supported "self defense"?

Where is the proof that he would support the idea of a WAR...of ANY type?

Classhandicapper says..."the church taught me this, or that". I say...who CARES what the Church says...I want to go to the REAL source for the information. The Church has become a major business conglomerate...and I no longer trust the sanctity of the message that it dishes out. I want the authentic teaching of Jesus, so I could get the information that I need STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE.

But the only teaching of Jesus that I can get my hands on comes in disjointed fragments...which can be interpreted in distinctly different ways. And...I am back where I started from.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The point of my conversation with Classhandicapper is the same as the point I have ALWAYS addressed here...when it comes to the teaching of Jesus. We don't KNOW what Jesus meant by the things that he said...and we have each assigned our own meanings to these sayings. When I to want follow the teachings of Jesus...I shouldn't have to go to St. Augustine or to St. Aquinas for an explanation of what Jesus really meant.

Where is the proof that Jesus supported "self defense"?

Where is the proof that he would support the idea of a WAR...of ANY type?

Classhandicapper says..."the church taught me this, or that". I say...who CARES what the Church says...I want to go to the REAL source for the information. The Church has become a major business conglomerate...and I no longer trust the sanctity of the message that it dishes out. I want the authentic teaching of Jesus, so I could get the information that I need STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE.

But the only teaching of Jesus that I can get my hands on comes in disjointed fragments...which can be interpreted in distinctly different ways. And...I am back where I started from.

How do you know there are only "disjointed fragments" of Jesus' teaching? Can you prove this?

[Tom]

Are you looking for a comment somewhere, "I am Jesus Christ and I approved this message."

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The point of my conversation with Classhandicapper is the same as the point I have ALWAYS addressed here...when it comes to the teaching of Jesus. We don't KNOW what Jesus meant by the things that he said...and we have each assigned our own meanings to these sayings. When I to want follow the teachings of Jesus...I shouldn't have to go to St. Augustine or to St. Aquinas for an explanation of what Jesus really meant.

Where is the proof that Jesus supported "self defense"?

Where is the proof that he would support the idea of a WAR...of ANY type?

Classhandicapper says..."the church taught me this, or that". I say...who CARES what the Church says...I want to go to the REAL source for the information. The Church has become a major business conglomerate...and I no longer trust the sanctity of the message that it dishes out. I want the authentic teaching of Jesus, so I could get the information that I need STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE.

But the only teaching of Jesus that I can get my hands on comes in disjointed fragments...which can be interpreted in distinctly different ways. And...I am back where I started from.

Yes, your overarching point is what Jesus taught. The question of your overarching point cannot be answered in this format.

I will give you a basic highlight, as best as I can. First your emphasis is on teachings i.e. Buddha, Socrates, etc. The emphasis for enlightened Christians is on who Jesus is and why did Jesus come into time and space.

The emphasis is he is God, the Second Person of the Divine Trinity, and he come into the world so man can become God. Jesus is the bridge between the uncreated and the created.

Deus fit homo ut homo fieret Deus (God became human that humans might become God), is the emphasis.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How do you know there are only "disjointed fragments" of Jesus' teaching? Can you prove this?

It's obvious that the teaching is nothing but a bunch of disjointed fragments...because nothing is ever adequately explained.

We have Jesus saying that we "must be like little children" in order to gain entrance into heaven...but there is no follow-up to tell us what "being like a little child" really MEANS. So...we have to provide the meaning all by ourselves.

I say that he meant we should be carefree and playful...and you come along and say that he meant we should be "faithful".

Which one of us is right...and couldn't we both be WRONG?

Jesus's entire teaching is like that. Mysterious quote after mysterious quote...without any follow-up explanation.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

This goes a long way towards explaining basically everything...

Actually, it does not. It begs the question whether we imagine things, because they already exist.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

Are you looking for a comment somewhere, "I am Jesus Christ and I approved this message."

No. But I am not looking for a comment which says "I am Boxcar, and I know what Jesus really meant", either.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It's obvious that the teaching is nothing but a bunch of disjointed fragments...because nothing is ever adequately explained.

We have Jesus saying that we "must be like little children" in order to gain entrance into heaven...but there is no follow-up to tell us what "being like a little child" really MEANS. So...we have to provide the meaning all by ourselves.

I say that he meant we should be carefree and playful...and you come along and say that he meant that we should be "faithful".

Which one of us is right...and couldn't we both be WRONG?

Jesus's entire teaching is like that. Mysterious quote after mysterious quote...without any follow-up explanation.

Which is the big problem of Sola Scriptura, absent Apostolic Tradition.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes, your overarching point is what Jesus taught. The question of your overarching point cannot be answered in this format.

I will give you a basic highlight, as best as I can. First your emphasis is on teachings i.e. Buddha, Socrates, etc. The emphasis for enlightened Christians is on who Jesus is and why did Jesus come into time and space.

The emphasis is he is God, the Second Person of the Divine Trinity, and he come into the world so man can become God. Jesus is the bridge between the uncreated and the created.

Deus fit homo ut homo fieret Deus (God became human that humans might become God), is the emphasis.

I thought Jesus said somewhere that he came into the world to save sinners????? But to elevate man to the very status of God himself? Really? Do you know that is what Satan wanted to do? He thought he could share the throne with God.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Jesus also DENIED that he was God.

No he didn't. That verse has been rehashed numerous times. Either Jesus didn't know he was (since he claimed he was God) or you lack understanding of the passage. Methinks strongly it's the latter in your case because you interpret the passage out of context.