greg from canada July 25th, 2007

This Hamas show cant seem to think of any origiona characters at all. First ripping off Mickey Mouse from Disney, now the bumble bee man from the simpsons…. They cant seem to respect anyones copyright

Seriously though, years ago I thought about if I was ever drafted I hoped I could atleast be in a medical unit or something like that so I would never have to kill anyone in a war…

Erik July 25th, 2007

Yeah…Merton thought about that too before becoming a monk and sidestepping the draft issue all together. I think that's a reasonable path. You're able to hold to your convictions and still serve your country.

Doug in Indiana July 26th, 2007

Erik,
The confusion in this weeks show about Christianity and politics was simply a problem of confounding personal practice and civil policy. An individual can turn the other cheek and he alone suffers harm. Not so with a country or a people. Romans 13 sets forth the God ordained purpose and boundaries of civil government (i.e. administering justice to evil doers and providing protection for the citizens – bearing the sword, and promoting and rewarding the good). Remember that Paul's call for the Christian's submission to civil government was made when Nero was Caesar. Personal responsibility and reaction is never to be that of a government nor may an individual usurp the God ordained role of government and act towards others as a law unto himself.
The condemnation of the Canaanite tribes during the Exodus was not a blanket genocide (hence the warnings against intermarriage). Rather, when God identified a person or a people for destruction their specific crime were listed. In Genesis 15:12-20 God speaks of the years of grace He gave the Amorite people to repent and indicated that the role of the descendents of Abraham would be as His instrument of justice against them for their wickedness. Deuteronomy 20 and 21 lists Gods laws to His people concerning how war was to be waged, the crimes for which the nations were being judged and the treatment of prisoners of war. Augustine's concept of a "just war" was developed in the context of a "christianized" Roman Empire and was based on these Old Testament instructions. Not quite a good fit when taking the rules of a theocracy and applying them to a empirial dictatorship but it was an attempt to generalize to all forms of government.
As for the Bush/Jesus analogy/metaphore. You remind me of the Geico motorcycle commercial with Smokey. "Yah, old Smokey was never good with metaphores." Good attempt to try and bridge modern day human governement to the example of Christ. However, next time you want to walk a tightrope over a waterfall don't forget to bring the tightrope.

greg from canada July 26th, 2007

Erik, Where is the picture from this week's show from? The guy in the front looks like the waiter from John Cleese comedy Fawlty Towers.

Erik July 26th, 2007

I think that's Elliot Gould. The pic is from an old SNL bit, "The Killer Bees."

Zach July 26th, 2007

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmond Burke

Tim July 26th, 2007

Man, this was an interesting show. I have a lot of thoughts, but I'm not sure if I can get them out in one post, and they might be kind of all over the place

Zach – I hear that quote, but in this discussion it seems to equate pacifism with laziness. I don't think that Ghandi did "nothing" – he simply didn't use violence to do something.

Violence is all about power. I want power over you, so I'm going to assault you and prove that I have power over you through violence. And that doesn't have to be physical violence, it could be verbal violence, etc.

But I also don't think that killing people is necessarily a "sin." I really believe that sin isn't so much about specific actions, as it is about this disease we have that infects everything we do. I also believe that God's biggest gift to us is the ability to make choices that have real consequences. So is killing someone in self defense a "sin?" I honestly don't think so. Is it a choice that will have consequences? Yeah.

When Jesus says things like "live by the sword, die by the sword," I think he's merely stating the obvious. If you use violence to gain power the chances are enormous that someone else will use violence against you to steal that power. Then the same thing will happen to them, and so on. It's just the way things work.

So I guess I disagree with Erik that all killing is a "sin" – I really it's just a choice that can have very negative consequences depending on the situation.

That said I totally don't buy the idea that ethics are different for individuals than they are for groups of people or nations. I don't think that the Bible says that anywhere.

Now in regards to islam and terrorism, I think there is a lot of conflicting views/misinformation. Check out this article. It will take some really creative thinking to find a peaceful solution in the face of this kind of thinking…and I don't think the "bush: man of peace" idea is it either…

Tim

Zach July 26th, 2007

I agree with you Tim, Ghandi didn't do nothing. Acting could be fighting terrorests, or fighting the terror.

By the way, I noted that there is another way to act in the "shoot the gun man or watch your family die" secnario. You could shot to wound the man, not to kill. That is how we as Christens should fight war. Not to eliminate the enemy, but to disarm him.

g-rock July 27th, 2007

"You could shot to wound the man, not to kill. "

but not everyone is a marksman shooter… chances are, if someone is about to kill your family, you won't have a second to try and aim at a non-vital organ… you're just gonna aim and pull the trigger…

g-rock July 27th, 2007

i can try and love my enemy and have a civil conversation about our differences, as f**ked up as they may be… but if my "enemy" absolultely refuses to try and have a peaceful disagreement, and all of a sudden he wants to attack, then you better believe he's going down… normal human instinct is if you are threatened physically, you are automatically gonna DEFEND yourself by all means… to not do so is to deny human nature… emphasis is on the word "defend"… the whole "turn the other cheek" thing goes much deeper than we think, imo….

ninjanun July 27th, 2007

I can't believe this week's show. It was excruciatingly painful to listen to. Very upsetting. I think you guys should stick to buffoonery and leave the politics and stuff to people who have done more research on it than just read/watch Faux News.

If not for Erik, I don't think I would have been able to stomach it at all. I can't believe so many people are equating war, in Iraq or otherwise, with someone coming in to kill your family. It seemed like everyone but Erik was trying to make excuses for why they didn't think Jesus' words applied to them. Most wars are likely started because no one took Jesus' commands about loving your enemy seriously enough to begin with. I was especially disturbed by Matt repeatedly trying to defend his views by demonizing the enemy, instead of seeking to understand why they, too, think they are justified in resorting to acts of violence against their enemies.
Jesus' way works.

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." -Chesterson

Erik July 28th, 2007

Yeah Ninjanun, we probably should just stick to buffoonery. Heck, maybe we did.

"Every clown wants to play Hamlet." -Arthur Fiedler (1894-1979)

regular jeff July 30th, 2007

ninjanun,

I don't know that anyone was advocating killing. Instead, I think that they were saying in what situations that they would. Even Erik said that if someone was attacking his family that he would disobey God and kill the person.

I listened to the show this weekend and I think that it is important to remember that, as Sharon kept saying, that there is Grace when we do the wrong thing.

I have always assumed that when Jesus said love your enemy and turn the other cheek that it had to do with personal relationships. That we as Christians should not hurt or kill people for our own personal gain. I could be wrong. I also don't know how that translates into global wars. I also don't know that we can broad stroke and say that ALL killing is wrong. In our limited human understanding, there are times when we do what comes from instinct.

By comparison, God hates divorce, but Jesus did say that it is permissible in the event of adultery. Does that mean that divorce is ever right or the best thing? I don't know, but God understands us enough to know that adultery may be impossible to deal with.

I don't know if this makes any sense. It does to the voices in my head.

g-rock July 30th, 2007

"instead of seeking to understand why they, too, think they are justified in resorting to acts of violence against their enemies."

i totally believe we should try and understand our differences non-violently without resorting to force… HOWEVER, if the person you're trying to understand absolutely refuses to come to a mutual agreement, and he resorts to try and bomb the sh*t out of your home, then you HAVE to defend yourself… it's impossible to not have a normal human reaction and defend yourself… and this has nothing to do with the iraq war, etc because i have my own beef with that…. just simply talking about the concept of defending yourself.. and i don't think it would be "wrong" if in your defending yourself against a murderer, etc, that person dies…

and if i'm wrong, then there's grace for that too…

señor jefe July 30th, 2007

What is missing in this conversation is the spiritual response, as opposed to 'creativity'.

Until Jesus GAVE His life, every attempt to seize or kill Him was twarted… usually by Him walking right through the middle of them. How'd He do that?

If Christ's life is the example, we as Christians are to live above the world. The "kingdom of God" that Christ preached supercedes the ways of man.

You guys kept talking about the Old Testament God & the Israelite wars, & Abraham sacrificing Isaac…etc. But all that was done away with when Christ was perfectly sacrificed. At this point, didn't He become the Prince of Peace?

I don't think there is any excuse for one human taking the life of another, whether it is abortion, death-penalty or war.

The Bible says that wisdom is the principle thing, therefore get wisdom. Could it be that if we'd quit shooting guns for a while, we might be able to hear God's wisdom & learn His ways (that are higher than ours)???

I think the kingdom/wisdom/power of God dynamic is necessary for such a discussion…

regular jeff July 30th, 2007

Senior jefe,

I would agree with the last part of that statement. I just don't know how that fits with Jesus saying get a sword.
Luke 22.
35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

I don't know why he would tell his disciples to get swords if they weren't to use them at some point.

Zeke July 30th, 2007

Reg. Jeff, you have stumbled upon one of the truly WT*?? red-letter passages in the Bible.

Wayne July 30th, 2007

Ahh, but let's read further…

Later in Luke 22 we see that the disciples show Jesus that they indeed have 2 swords and Jesus says, referring to the two swords "That is enough."

Still later in the chapter – when Jesus is arrested in the garden, at least one of the two swords is used to whack the ear off of the High Priest's servant. At which time Jesus says "No more of this!" and proceeds to heal the man's ear.

I'm not so sure that we can extrapolate a clear doctrine of war from this passage.

Wayne July 30th, 2007

Erik -

I'm glad you took this detour from buffoonery. Don't get me wrong, I's loves my buff-ooon'ry, but it's good to take a look at the deep things every now and then.

señor jefe July 30th, 2007

The sword in Luke 22 is not referring to a sword of war. It is the greek word 'mavcaira', which is a small sword used to cut animals… ie- in sacrifices in the temple.

Given the context of the scene, as well as Jesus previous teachings regarding turning the other cheek, loving enemies…etc. I do not think one could go so far as to extrapolate a war sword from this scripture… especially in a room full of fishermen (who probably cleaned a lot of fish, as well)

Could it be that Jesus is actually referring to worship (maybe even a vocational tool)? Those are both considerably more fitting to the context of Jesus' whole teaching than a sudden, uncharacteristic, out-of-context reference to war…

Chemical Erik July 30th, 2007

Senor – did you know context is a combination of the words "con" and "text"?
Con meaning to fraud or trick
text refers to words.
This must mean you are trying to confuse all of us war mongers with your words by adding "context"!

señor jefe July 30th, 2007

d'oh!

Matthew July 31st, 2007

Oh, Ninjanun, why did you have to go and disagree with me? Now I have no choice but to demonize you.

Kidding aside, how do you demonize someone who has no compunction about using kids as bombs? I wouldn't know where to start. It's not my policy to dismiss or demean people I disagree with. Much more fun and stimulating to have a thoughtful discussion like we did last week instead.

I (we) do make fun of people and their choices, but that's a whole different thing and we only do that because first and foremost we laugh at ourselves. When it comes to things like being left-handed, using the metric system, or even praying to Mecca, I can respectfully agree to disagree with those do these things. But when it comes to abusing and/or killing helpless people, I think that's something we all can– and should– agree is wrong.

Matthew

Matthew

greg from canada July 31st, 2007

I don't think Matt was trying to demonize anyone. The fact is that these people who created this "children's" show hold human life with so little value that they will send their children out to die to push thier ideological agenda. That is not demonizing, that is the cold hard facts. Its really sad that someone treats a wonderful precious gift from God like a piece of military equipment.

Carl August 1st, 2007

Good show gang–listening late (as usual). If you agree, Eric, that defending your family in the event of an attacker, then that idea is extrapolated out into defense of the nation. In other words, when war occurs in defense of the nation (yes, that begs the question of who decides that and also how pre-emptive strikes fit in), you support the war on the basis of "defending your family."

The reality of Ghandi and MLK is that, if you disagree with war as I described above (which, by the way, MLK did not generally and only turned against Vietnam in 1967, long after JFK sent our troops into the country), then you equally must say that you would stand by and allow the killer to take out your family. You might try to reason with them, you might even take the bullet for them, but you would do nothing to stop them.

Erik August 1st, 2007

I have some more to say about this, but for now…

Carl,

I want to be clear on my position. From what I see of Jesus' teaching, I believe all killing is wrong.

With regard to the case of defending my family from an attacker; even if my choice came down to killing the assailant or watching my family be murdered, killing the attacker would be a sin.

But…

…from what I know about myself thus far, I would go ahead and disobey the teaching to love my enemy and kill the attacker to protect my family. I've certainly sinned for far less noble reasons, so I'm pretty sure this would be my course of action.

This doesn't mean I think killing the attacker would be right. It just means that I recognize my failure to live up to Jesus' divine ideal for humanity.

Carl August 13th, 2007

At one level, your logic makes sense, until you bring in the Bible where God directly tells his people to rid the land of what He would consider impurity or unholy people. And later, the Israelites are condemned by God (and given a judgement of eternal conflict with these same people—perhaps explains a lot about the Middle East) for NOT killing these people. So, the same God who gave the command you feel you would be breaking by killing your attacker, considered it a sin, a moral failure, for his people to NOT kill in this specific situation.

Now, you and I could determine that they were under orders and those orders supercede the other command which, we could assume, stays in effect normally. But then, we can extrapolate that it must be okay, in some situations (i.e., NOT a sin), to go ahead and kill. Now, moving further (and hopefully to avoid the infamous "slippery slope"), what was the specific circumstance?

Those He wanted killed were a blemish on the land, unholy, impurity in what He wanted to be a pure land. From that, it would not be too far of a jump to say, in the instant that our hypothetical killer has come into your house, said person also has become a blemish on the land, unholy and an impurity in what God wants to be a pure land (your house). If we are close in this, perhaps the only sin would be for you to not defend yourself and/or your family and kill the attacker.

I know its perhaps obtuse and maybe a stretch, but as I strongly believe, our God is so far beyond our comprehension and so often, from my point of view, operates in a tension that cannot be relieved (not to kill, clearly a Top 10, yet ordered to kill in specific circumstances. . .hmm??).

Vern the Voice August 17th, 2007

People in the New Testament were looking for a military type Messiah because of prophecies. Jesus spoke peace when He came because He came as the lamb. Further New testament and unfulfilled prophecy says that next time He comes, He will come as a lion and from what I see in the Bible it will be far from non-violent.

In the old testament, the same God that prohibits murder in the ten commandments categorizes killing of people (intentional vs unintentional) in great detail and also commands wars. This really does not contradict Jesus teachings even for Mennonites, but it does cast aspersions on the reason why man declares war and kills. For Jesus to have taught against the Law with his "turn the other cheek" concept would be a huge theological problem. Especially in light of God Himself striking a couple of people dead in Acts.

There is a balance that God strikes concerning this, and He strikes it in all of its mind-boggling tension of justice vs mercy as early as Genesis 4. This is the same God as in the New Testament, and I see no reason in the First Coming for the divine position to have changed.

Carl August 18th, 2007

Good point on the Acts reference. I had forgotten about that one.

Erik August 19th, 2007

That's not a good point, it's twisting scripture to make a case for a previously held position.

In Acts, that was God killing, not God ordering men to kill. In a sense, God kills everyone eventually. The statistic is one out of one. But just because people eventually die, doesn't mean we should be involved in speeding up the process.

On the Old Testament reference, Jesus didn't teach against the Law, He fulfilled it. Remember when the righteous leaders saw their opportunity for a Biblical killing with the woman caught in adultery? Jesus did not affirm their intended Law-justified stoning; rather He directed them to consider their own evil hearts.

They were not righteous judges, and neither are we. Who gets to decide who's worthy of killing? You? That's another reason I believe God said our business is singular…to love…even our enemies. Leave the judgment and killing to the One righteous Judge.

Vern the Voice August 19th, 2007

The reason for the Acts reference was this:

"I want to be clear on my position. From what I see of Jesus' teaching, I believe all killing is wrong."

You said all killing is wrong, so I showed you God killing. You sound like your OK with that idea, so what you really mean to say is not "All killing is wrong." Niether can it be that man killing man is always wrong, because that would say that man was wrong for killing when God told him to do it- both in the case of the holy wars and the laws in Leviticus. Jesus can't say that man killing man is always wrong either, because Jesus is the same person as the God that told them to do it in Leviticus.

The Law is not and never will be evil, it was a statement of the will of God for the people of Israel. It cannot teach evil.

Now at the time of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus had not yet fulfilled the Law (because had not died) but was keeping the law perfectly, and in that scene He wrote some things that caused people to walk away real quiet like. Seems probable to me that at least some of that stuff had to with things they should themselves have been to death for. Assuming that the woman did it, which seems implied by the language, Jesus asserts His equality with God here by an act of divine mercy. Which is what I think the lesson of the scene is: divine mercy. Which is the same lesson you find many times in the old testament, the book of Jonah for example.

Now if you believe in the old testament military messianic prophecies, or that Revelation teaches a future battle of the forces of light vs the forces of darkness in which God steps in at the last minute (also in the last chapters of Zachariah), then what you have is holy war after Jesus came.

On the other hand, If what you really mean to say is that man should never kill man unless God specifically calls for it even in cases where your family needs your protection, I think that's a much more arguable point. Which would lead to some question of if the founding fathers really did have and to what extent had God's leadership when the US was born. Perhaps you think that they didn't, at least as regards this. Regardless of all of that though, for you killing somebody even in protection of your own family would be a sin because you would not be doing it in faith.

Erik August 20th, 2007

Vern,

I see where you're coming from. When I said that I think all killing is wrong, I was referring to humans killing humans. God can do whatever He wants in my book (and His). He's the only one equipped to make a truly good call on who stays and who goes.

Also, I agree with you about the story of the woman caught in adultery being about God's mercy.

As for the rest, I'm gonna be honest, I don't think I'm educated enough on the history or the Bible to say much more than I already have. But, my impression is that you're in the same boat I am, you're just being more dogmatic about your position. I could be wrong, that's just my impression based on an admittedly truncated exchange.

Steve used a quote from Pascal in a recent post that I think applies to this conversation…

"People do evil completely and cheerfully when they do it from religious conviction."

Erik August 21st, 2007

Here's something on Just War theory from a guy we're having on the program 8/31.

George McFly January 29th, 2008

I think it was Jimi Hendrix that said, "War is serious." It might have been Ed Asner, I'll have to double check.

BillyD February 10th, 2008

Sometimes in a fallen world oppressors are a reality, sometimes in a fallen world those with power and seeking more power over the weak can only be stopped by the sword. I'm thankful to all the warriors who picked up a sword so that I may have the freedom we have. In a fallen world war is never neat and never surgical, it is bloody and unpleasant. It is easy to theorize about war, talk to someone who has lived under oppression, talk to someone who has lost their homeland to an oppressor, talk to someone who has has the God given human dignity afforded to them by "pneuma" denied by an oppressor before pontificating from the comfort of your arm chair. "War is serious" and sometimes unavoidable….

cathleen February 26th, 2008

I have two thoughts on this whole subject. First – to kill or killing. Is this one of those words in the Bible like love? One English word to describe what translates into many? What is meant by "Thou shalt not kill"? Thou shalt not sin. What is sin? Is it not, bottom line, a matter of the heart? So does not the sin of killing start in the heart? You all have to answer that one for yourselves.
As far as war. Not in the past, not in the future. Today. Today, if we "turn the other cheek" and just love our enemy, tommorrow I will be wearing a burka and we all will not be conversing on this web site and none of us will ever be able to mutter the name of Jesus again. That is the goal of today's enemy. And, personally, I do not want to wear a burka, although it would probably look good on me, hiding all those things age has done I also think we can fight this war, we can do all the killing, and in the end it will not make any difference because we are on a road that has been set down before us long long ago and is in reality a war of principalities and powers and will only end when our King shows up. But in the meantime, I for one, will fight for my freedom and rights, and my God against anyone and everyone who tells me I must renounce my Jesus. "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus"