|
Post by Patrick on Nov 25, 2010 14:11:12 GMT -5
Maarten, that scripture doesn't mean people can't do good. It means that no one can meet Christ's perfect standard without Jesus' help. Even though America has not attained to that standard, it has done a great deal of good compared to North Korea, and a great deal less evil. If you're not convinced, I'll give you some more scriptures. "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isa 64:6) "The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:2-3) For one, the North Korean government starves, slaughters, and tortures its people. Merge the evils of Communist Russia and those of the Nazis (give or take a little), and you have North Korea. That's why America is a better Nation than it. As I've stated before, America has probably caused more victims than North Korea. Again, I see two types of good in the World. The absolute good that satisfies God, and virtue, or decency. Virtue consists of some of the various components that please God, but to satisfy Him, one must arguably have all the components. That is a different issue all together. To compare one nation to another, we must speak of virtue, or relative good because no nation, and I believe no person has reached absolute good. You believe America has caused more victims than North Korea, I believe it hasn't. The US fought in Vietnam in order to free it from Communism. At that time, we saw Communism as the biggest threat to the World, and it was. We made some mistakes by Vietnam, and there were numerous casualties, but in that case, you cannot fault the United States as murderers. With Afghanistan, the people there are oppressed by the Taliban, and it would be in their best interest if we defeat the Taliban. They are also a greater threat to the World because they want to invade Pakistan in order to gain nuclear facilities. It's in everyone's best interest that we stop the Taliban. With Iraq, we have been greatly successful. We have deposed Saddam Hussein: another tyrant who oppressed his people. The area over there has become stabilized, although not perfect because the Islamist radicals are still wreaking some havoc. But it's now a semi-free nation instead of a dictatorship. I see that as improvement. So you cannot say that the United States has committed more murder than North Korea. The idea is absured. Keep in mind that the commandment says in the Hebrew, thou shalt not murder, not thou shalt not kill. There is a difference. The Bible actually calls for the killing of murderers.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 25, 2010 15:48:03 GMT -5
I see no reason to discern between those two kinds of goods. The bible says whoever lives according to the flesh, that is, whover is not (yet) born again of the spirit, cannot please God. All the virtue or decency you might have, outside of God, does not please God at all. Note however that I don't preach a hating God: God loves us despite our iniquity. "Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:5-8 So you cannot say that the United States has committed more murder than North Korea. The idea is absured. Keep in mind that the commandment says in the Hebrew, thou shalt not murder, not thou shalt not kill. There is a difference. The Bible actually calls for the killing of murderers. While one can claim some sort of moral basis for the wars America has caused, the fact remains that is has caused more victims than North Korea. Iraq wasn't invaded to free the Iraqi people of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was invaded because George W Bush claimed it had nuclear weapons, which was a lie. I do not believe America has the right to enforce it's justice on the rest of the world. America has no right to act as if it were the world's policeman, going arround rounding up all the corrupt regimes in the world. Martin Luther King once said: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." and, when advocating nonviolence, "....they asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent. " And I am inclined to agree with him. I'm not going to say I'd rather live in North Korea than in America, but you might see why America has lost some of it's good name in the rest of the world...
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 25, 2010 16:55:23 GMT -5
I see no reason to discern between those two kinds of goods. The bible says whoever lives according to the flesh, that is, whover is not (yet) born again of the spirit, cannot please God. All the virtue or decency you might have, outside of God, does not please God at all. Note however that I don't preach a hating God: God loves us despite our iniquity. I see plenty of reason to distinguish between those kinds of good. For one, Christians don't have a monopoly on all the decency in the World. (I know the teachings on salvation by faith alone, so I don't need to be reminded.) It's a fact that there are wonderful people who deny Christ, and Christians would do well to acknowledge it. It's also a fact that there are some born-again people who act quite poorly, and need to be rebuked. That's the reason I distinguish. Even though I am a Christian, I acknowledge that there are some Atheists, Jews, Leftists, Muslims, and people of all sorts of ideologies who are more virtuous than I. It's important to distinguish because it's a fact, whether it's easy to admit or not, that Christians don't have a monopoly on all the World's decency. America did not cause those wars. That's a piece of Left-Wing propaganda that they are even trying to feed us here. At that time, everyone believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The Democrats in our Congress did, the British did, Bush did, and so did many others. It was not a lie; it was just a falsehood the World had probable cause to believe. Why does America not have the right to act as the World's policeman? If we don't, who will? The UN is too cowardly to confront real evil, all the while they blame Israel for the World's problems because they are too cowardly too confront Iran and North Korea. Why should America not round up the world's corrupt regimes? Will Europe? I think not. The Left has sucked too much of the life out of the EU, and turned them into frightened cowards who blame the good guys because they don't have the guts to join America to fight the bad guys.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 26, 2010 9:26:34 GMT -5
I see plenty of reason to distinguish between those kinds of good. For one, Christians don't have a monopoly on all the decency in the World. (I know the teachings on salvation by faith alone, so I don't need to be reminded.) It's a fact that there are wonderful people who deny Christ, and Christians would do well to acknowledge it. It's also a fact that there are some born-again people who act quite poorly, and need to be rebuked. Yet those wonderful people cannot please God, as is evident from the scripture in Romans. All their righteousness is like a filthy rag in the eyes of the Lord. However, so is mine and anybody elses, be they Christian or not. Christians certainly don't have a monopoly on righteousness, however Christ does. It would be foolish and hypocrite to look down upon non-believers though, as not only non-believers, but everybody falls short of the glory of God, and can only possibly please God through Christ. America did not cause those wars. That's a piece of Left-Wing propaganda that they are even trying to feed us here. At that time, everyone believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The Democrats in our Congress did, the British did, Bush did, and so did many others. It was not a lie; it was just a falsehood the World had probable cause to believe. Please explain how invading a country is not starting a war . Though America might have had some moral grounds for starting the war, they certainly started it and are responsible for it. But so is my own country, as it participated in the war against Iraq and Afghanistan. Why does America not have the right to act as the World's policeman? If we don't, who will? The UN is too cowardly to confront real evil, all the while they blame Israel for the World's problems because they are too cowardly too confront Iran and North Korea. Why should America not round up the world's corrupt regimes? Will Europe? I think not. The Left has sucked too much of the life out of the EU, and turned them into frightened cowards who blame the good guys because they don't have the guts to join America to fight the bad guys. What?! Nobody needs to round up corrupt regimes and nobody has the right to act as the worlds policeman. Corrupt regimes in the middle east or in asia are not at all the responsibility of the west and the west should keep their nose out of other peoples buisiness. What is our responsibility is the poverty in such areas. Ever since having been colonized by European countries the locals of African and South American countries have been utterly exploited by us. After we abolished slavery and most of our colonies, we continue to exploit them through unfair trade. We should be putting our money into decreasing the poverty that we have created in such countries, rather than meddling with how they rule their own country.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 26, 2010 13:15:35 GMT -5
What?! Nobody needs to round up corrupt regimes and nobody has the right to act as the worlds policeman. Corrupt regimes in the middle east or in asia are not at all the responsibility of the west and the west should keep their nose out of other peoples buisiness. What is our responsibility is the poverty in such areas. Ever since having been colonized by European countries the locals of African and South American countries have been utterly exploited by us. After we abolished slavery and most of our colonies, we continue to exploit them through unfair trade. We should be putting our money into decreasing the poverty that we have created in such countries, rather than meddling with how they rule their own country. So what gave America the right to fight the Nazis in WWII? In your logic, America should've stayed out of Europe and dealt with their own problems (namely Japan). We could've said, "People in Concentration Camps across the sea aren't our responsibility and we should keep our noses out of other peoples' business." Indeed, we did that for a few years, and look what good it did! Millions of people were murdered, and we allowed our fellow man to be subjugated by cruel people. How is North Korea any different? Why should we stand by and let people get away with this kind of s**t? It would've been heartless to just let Saddam Hussein continue with what he did. But why is there poverty in these areas? Because of the monsters who rule the areas. There's poverty in North Korea because Kim Jung Il is withholding food from most of his people in order to starve them. They are enslaved under wicked leaders. America doesn't care about colonizing other nations, we just want people free from tyrants. That's why we're withdrawing from Iraq. All we wanted is for them to be able to rule themselves in freedom. I'm sad to say there will be no decrease in poverty in North Korea until their form of Government is overthrown. Cruel Governments are the single biggest problem in the World today (as should be especially clear to nations like yours who was liberated from one not too long ago).
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 26, 2010 13:35:33 GMT -5
WOII is not parallel to America invading the Middle East.
One important difference is that America did not act untill Germany delcared war to the USA. Japan forced the USA into WOII with Pearl Harbor and then Germany declared war to the USA as well. The USA simply overthrew the countries that declared war to the USA.
Another important difference is that the USA did not start WOII. Germany had conquered most of Europe all ready. If Sadam Hussein started a mass conquest against the entire middle east, undertaking action against him would have been more justified. If Kim Jong Il invades South Korea, helping South Korea, if they so request, would seem all right too.
Poverty in Africa and South America is not primarily caused by corrupt regimes, but by the West, who continue to induldge in unfair trade with these countries. Does it seem right to you that the African farmers who make (part of) our food live in hunger themselves?
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 26, 2010 14:03:56 GMT -5
Another important difference is that the USA did not start WOII. Germany had conquered most of Europe all ready. If Sadam Hussein started a mass conquest against the entire middle east, undertaking action against him would have been more justified. If Kim Jong Il invades South Korea, helping South Korea, if they so request, would seem all right too. You say war is only justified in self-defense, but I believe war should be to fight oppressors and stop them before they have the chance to invade another country. That is the different view America has taken toward war historically, and I believe it's a better view. If the Nazis would've stayed in Germany and carried out the final solution there, they would still need to be dealt with. It's only right. North Korea is almost parallel to that hypothetical situation. Poverty in Africa and South America is not primarily caused by corrupt regimes, but by the West, who continue to induldge in unfair trade with these countries. Does it seem right to you that the African farmers who make (part of) our food live in hunger themselves? It doesn't seem right. Please give me examples of this (i.e. illustrate what you mean).
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 26, 2010 14:19:12 GMT -5
Poverty in Africa and South America is not primarily caused by corrupt regimes, but by the West, who continue to induldge in unfair trade with these countries. Does it seem right to you that the African farmers who make (part of) our food live in hunger themselves? Sadly, slavery and child labour is still alive in certain African and east Asian countries. Nestlé's (the biggest single food manufacturer/producer in the world) attitude towards people from there is disgusting - they've made a token gesture of making their best-selling chocolate bar in the UK Fair Trade, however, considering that Nescafé is one of the, if not the biggest coffee brands in the world, and does not have this certification smacks of doing something to make a quick buck (there's more and more demand for fair trade goods in the UK now), rather than giving a s**t about people. I'm hoping that Kraft's takeover of Cadbury, (second biggest confectionary manufacturer in the world, who also own Green And Blacks[/url], whose UK range is completely Fair Trade, and their Australian range is going to be completely Fair Trade by the end of 2011) who made their biggest selling, and second most popular bar in the UK Fair Trade and have expanded their fair trade range slowly, will have a good influence on Kraft, as opposed to Kraft putting a halt on their Fair Trade range expansion, and if this happens hopefully it will put some pressure on the other major players in the global food industry. www.stopthetraffik.org has more information about the illegal slave trade and people smuggling. www.antislavery.org is a good site about modern day slavery.
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Nov 26, 2010 16:39:54 GMT -5
Maarten, that scripture doesn't mean people can't do good. It means that no one can meet Christ's perfect standard without Jesus' help. Even though America has not attained to that standard, it has done a great deal of good compared to North Korea, and a great deal less evil. If you're not convinced, I'll give you some more scriptures. "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isa 64:6) "The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:2-3) For one, the North Korean government starves, slaughters, and tortures its people. Merge the evils of Communist Russia and those of the Nazis (give or take a little), and you have North Korea. That's why America is a better Nation than it. As I've stated before, America has probably caused more victims than North Korea. I know more has been said since, however this post contains the two most distilled examples I would like to respond to. America and most other Western nations were founded on Christian principles. All of the founding fathers of the United States read Locke and were deeply familiar with the idea of a sovereign creator endowing humans with the ability to do good (as well as the notion of rights). I take it you are a Calvinist and as such are a devout advocate of total depravity. The concept itself is theologically correct, however your interpretation seems to imply that no kindness can come as a result of secular action, which is untrue. It is possible to be both kind and ungodly. Next, I'd like to tackle the statement that the US government is somehow worse than North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or any other third world wasteland. You seem to assert that the only thing that matters when judging the goodness of a nation is its body-count. In this case, military veterans are worse men than muggers, rapists, or murderers who stay under the body count of the servicemen. Intent is a very clear distinction that must be made. When America invades a horrible country like Iraq, it intends to make the country better. America has an earnest desire to do good which resulted in us trying to rebuild Iraq, and currently Afghanistan, when we had every excuse to just kill Sadam and leave. I think the fact that the official laws of Iraq no longer hold any place for stoning adulteresses or homosexuals speaks to the good intentions of the US. Additionally, the insurgents have killed more civilians than the US by 10:1. Blaming the US for these casualties (which major news outlets do) is like charging a hostage negotiator with murder when the hostages are killed. Even without our good intentions abroad, the treatment America has for its citizens proves its worth over other nations. We have clear and carefully defended rights. These things are changing (with the Secular Humanists leading the charge), however. Certain groups are in danger of losing their rights. I want to briefly lampoon the idea of secular humanism. Secular humanism is the belief that, although the product of unguided evolution, humans have intrinsic value that must be defended. This is a logically incoherent statement. If secular humanists are correct, our values are simply an engineered biological trait no more remarkable than our hands, eyes, or predisposition towards language. They vary from person to person and should no more be enshrined than any one individual's body parts. Life becomes solely about indulgence and procreation. Life is about achieving as much comfort as possible for yourself and engaging in the act of spreading your genes. There is no good and there is no evil. There is what feels good. Life without faith is life without purpose. If the purpose of life is to live, we are all slaves to circular logic. All life is predetermined by chemical sequences inside our brains. We prefer things because that is what we are set to prefer. It is pointless to resist. Nothing is bad or good, it is simply what we prefer. This is Nihilism, and this is the only logically sound alternative to Theism. It is certainly no place to go in search of morals or values and it definitely has no place to condemn religions. If it were presented to America in this honest packaging, I bet more people would be in a hurry to go to church once more.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 27, 2010 9:04:19 GMT -5
I take it you are a Calvinist and as such are a devout advocate of total depravity. The concept itself is theologically correct, however your interpretation seems to imply that no kindness can come as a result of secular action, which is untrue. It is possible to be both kind and ungodly. Kind, yes. Good/righteouss, no. As I've said, there are many secular people who are much kinder than I am, I do not doubt such. I barely remember why I even started discussing this though, I think you're right and I got a bit over-zealous in advocating total depravity . You seem to assert that the only thing that matters when judging the goodness of a nation is its body-count. In this case, military veterans are worse men than muggers, rapists, or murderers who stay under the body count of the servicemen. Intent is a very clear distinction that must be made. It is mostly that I get horribly annoyed by the West when it demonizes the Middle East and North Korea without thinking about their own wrongs and the suffering and war they themselves have caused. I should've stated more clearly that I don't actually think North Korea is better than the USA . I don't think it is reasonable to compare the USA with the world's most horrible psychotic dictatorship and then claim it's a righteous nation. Whether the intent was good or not, America's foreign policy has caused a lot of casualties and problems. Off course the intent matters, you are right, however, we should not blind our eyes to the misery the West has caused in other countries. This misery is not just related to the wars named in this thread, but also, as Davo pointed out, how we treat the Africans that make our food. I believe the West would do much more good for the world if it spend its money in for instance fair trade with poor countries, rather than invading the few poor countries that have some horrible dictator running the country.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 27, 2010 14:35:38 GMT -5
“Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
War is all about politics and power. It is foolish and dangerous to suggest something more.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Nov 27, 2010 14:46:51 GMT -5
Violence is not the answer. It's the question. And the answer is yes.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 27, 2010 21:02:21 GMT -5
War is all about politics and power. It is foolish and dangerous to suggest something more. What evidence can you give to prove to me that most of America's wars have been about politics and power? I believe it is about, or at least it should be about stopping the maniacs of the World. There's no reasoning with them. Violence is the only language that violent men can respect and understand. Put simply, tyrannical people fight wars for politics and power, and free nations fight wars to stop the tyrants.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 28, 2010 9:14:18 GMT -5
Didn' t Jesus tell us to turn the other cheek??
I' m not silly enough to believe that would work on a nationwide level. But the principle of fighting violence with violence is something fundamentally un-Christian.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person."
We are not the judges of this world, God is. It is not the place of the USA to judge the world and violently destroy any government it deems sinfull.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 28, 2010 13:25:04 GMT -5
Didn' t Jesus tell us to turn the other cheek?? I' m not silly enough to believe that would work on a nationwide level. But the principle of fighting violence with violence is something fundamentally un-Christian. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person." We are not the judges of this world, God is. It is not the place of the USA to judge the world and violently destroy any government it deems sinfull. That's the one part of Christianity I have the hardest time accepting, and take the most issue with. I find it hard to believe that there is anything just about allowing violent people to have their way. Perhaps Jesus only meant on the individual level. I find it incredibally immoral to allow someone to harm others. If I were in a public place, and I happened to have a gun, and saw someone shooting others, I would shoot the killer in an instant, and by that one act of killing, I would have saved the lives of many people. Also, many people interpret this scripture differently. Here's more of the scripture for a fuller context: You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV Never did Jesus say, "If someone kills one of your neighbors, let him kill the rest." The idea is absurd, and I dare say cruel. The most merciful thing to do would be to kill the murderer. Here's a link to a page that explains some of the different views on this doctrine: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek.
|
|