Posted on 04/16/2002 7:07:12 AM PDT by marshmallow
Let's see one side tries to limit civilian casualties the other to create civilian casualties. And this is not good guys vs. bad guys? What am I missing here?
The clergy in the church have testified numerout times that they're not hostages, as have others on the outside. If such statements were being made only for public consumption, it wouldn't explain the vehemence from the Vatican and Rome that the Israelis need to back off.
Then they have chosen sides in this and they should be treated in exactly the same way that the peaceniks in Arafat's compound are being treated. I am not a respector of persons when it comes to that.
You appear to have surrendered to the secularist notion that all right and all law come from men. You're wrong there too.
Where did you get that idea? I quoted scripture to prove my point. There was no rush by the early church to locate and sanctify the birthplace of Jesus or any other so called "Holy Site." God is in the hearts of those who serve him. The only places that are Holy are those He Himself declared holy.
Would I be sad if the church building was destroyed? Of course, but it is not worth protecting with human life. Wars have raged around this spot before and wars will continue to rage around it until the end of the earth it's self.
That wasn't much of a flaming, was it?
No, you were very polite. I tried to be just as polite in disagreeing with you.
a.cricket
What on earth does that have to do with it? The situation is happening now, which makes it an exceedingly appropriate time to discuss it, I think.
I'm not talking about the church's credibility on matters of doctrine or anything having to do with spiritual matters at all. I am questioning their conduct in this situation.
What is wrong with a statement saying, "You may not use this church as a shield in this conflict." Can you imagine what Islam's response would be if, say, the Serbs had used a mosque to hide their tanks in Kosovo during our aerial bombardment?
And which side would that be? Some really dire things happened to civilians on the West Bank last week. And no, I do not justify the PA's horrific record of terror bombings of Jews, no more than I do its cynical manipulation of its people in that direction. But as a Christian, I assume you like me, reject the ethics of payback.
Then they have chosen sides in this and they should be treated in exactly the same way that the peaceniks in Arafat's compound are being treated. I am not a respector of persons when it comes to that.
The Franciscans are refusing to choose sides not because they're terrorist sympathisers or moral cowards who refuse to distinguish between good and evil, but because they're moral heroes who refuse to let one evil stampede them into the arms of another. Christianity is full of such inconveniences, but it's the spiritual legacy of Francis that moral clarity is a simple matter that once accepted, no matter how superficially inconvenient, allows everything else to snap into place.
You seem to be unaware that the Church's historical role as sanctuary has nothing to do with the moral worthiness of the refugee. Sanctuary is not about moral cowardice and sheltering the guilty; it's about non-violence, reconciliation, and the nature of sacred space. These concepts don't receive much attention in our culture, but they deserve to. I am not implying that the clergy are happy to have their church full of armed men. But isn't that the way it always is? Being a Christian means just one damn thing after another; the Christian life is full of such and even worse inconveniences and dangers that are entirely without meaning to those who're blind to the larger imaginative vison of what the Church is.
The Israelis are doing a more-than-competent job of defending themselves from the Palestinians, but I invite you to ponder, once they've succeeded in reducing the Palestinians to subhumans or stateless refugees, who will save the Israelis from themselves?
If reconciliation sounds preposterous and impossible-just as preposterous as "love your enemy"-so did "He is risen." It's the only solution.
Remember your last rock concert? Remember when the keyboardist hits that REALLY deep note that vibrates the entire arena and holds it, the crowd goes crazy, the lasers come on etc.? Now picture that happening, but the note is lower than you can hear (typical human hearing is 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz), your body still "feels" the note. Imagine "feeling" that note for a couple days and you start to get the idea.
Well, perhaps you are right. I just don't know.
When the Romans finally invaded old Israel intent on destroying Jerusalem, the Christian Jews didn't fight with the other Jews against the Romans. And the Christian Jews didn't fight with the Romans against the other Jews. Neither did the Christian Jews just sort of hang out in the middle of the bloodshed hoping they didn't get hurt, hoping they didn't get forced to choose up sides or get used by one side or the other as hostages...
The usually accepted history goes something like this:
... Not one Christian perished in the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ had given His disciples warning, and all who believed His words watched for the promised sign. "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies," said Jesus, "then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out." Luke 21:20, 21. After the Romans under Cestius had surrounded the city, they unexpectedly abandoned the siege when everything seemed favorable for an immediate attack. The besieged, despairing of successful resistance, were on the point of surrender, when the Roman general withdrew his forces without the least apparent reason. But God's merciful providence was directing events for the good of His own people. The promised sign had been given to the waiting Christians, and now an opportunity was offered for all who would, to obey the Saviour's warning. Events were so overruled that neither Jews nor Romans should hinder the flight of the Christians. Upon the retreat of Cestius, the Jews, sallying from Jerusalem, pursued after his retiring army; and while both forces were thus fully engaged, the Christians had an opportunity to leave the city. At this time the country also had been cleared of enemies who might have endeavored to intercept them. At the time of the siege, the Jews were assembled at Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles, and thus the Christians throughout the land were able to make their escape unmolested. Without delay they fled to a place of safety--the city of Pella, in the land of Perea, beyond Jordan. ...
[The Great Controversy, Chapter 1, The Destruction of Jerusalem, p. 30-31]
The vision of Christians as idiots who sit around while real people go about the business of real life trying somehow to work around the doofus Christians is an embarassing one. Rather than being "inconvenient," it is simply inconsistent with actual Christianity, and seems to owe more to fringe Catholic sects than Christian history.
Mark W.
That would do it...thanks
I have a question:when I was a bit younger,I went to see Mr. Malsteen (Guitarist) first row and while he was soloing w/ all the other band members taking a break, He hit a really Low E that was a Distorted "MMMMM" Sound,it sonded Compressed and man,I had to sit down,(felt like it was swooshing through the people 3-5 people to my left and right) I was sick to my stomach for a good 20-30 minutes and it ruined my whole show.This was before I drank Adult Beverages too.Is that what I felt coming out of those speakers for that brief time?I thought I was going to pass out.I wasn't the only one either.
When you sow the wind you do reap the whirlwind. Bad things happen in war zones. The blowing up of families who were sitting down to partake in a Biblically mandated celebration started this latest round of dire things.
And no, I do not justify the PA's horrific record of terror bombings of Jews, no more than I do its cynical manipulation of its people in that direction.
Do you also reject moral equivalence between that and the actions of IDF that is specifically not targeting civilians?
But as a Christian, I assume you like me, reject the ethics of payback.
This is not pay back but an attempt to bring terrorist to justice and hopefully prevent future homicide bombings. If this were pay back the Israelis would have simply started shelling or started playing by Hama rules like Syria did in the early 80’s
The Franciscans are refusing to choose sides not because they're terrorist sympathizers or moral cowards who refuse to distinguish between good and evil, but because they're moral heroes who refuse to let one evil stampede them into the arms of another. Christianity is full of such inconveniences, but it's the spiritual legacy of Francis that moral clarity is a simple matter that once accepted, no matter how superficially inconvenient, allows everything else to snap into place.
There is that moral equivalence thing again. So,by your words, in the eyes of the Franciscans both sides are evil. Terrorist and Soldier all the same.
You seem to be unaware that the Church's historical role as sanctuary has nothing to do with the moral worthiness of the refugee. Sanctuary is not about moral cowardice and sheltering the guilty; it's about non-violence, reconciliation, and the nature of sacred space. These concepts don't receive much attention in our culture, but they deserve to.
I am quite aware of the history here. And I disagree with both the concept and how it is being used.
I am not implying that the clergy are happy to have their church full of armed men. But isn't that the way it always is? Being a Christian means just one damn thing after another; the Christian life is full of such and even worse inconveniences and dangers that are entirely without meaning to those who're blind to the larger imaginative vision of what the Church is.
The larger vision of the Catholic church is to shelter terrorists? From their resent actions here and in other places it does seem so. If that is not the case they need to start making that clear. Or this could get real ugly real fast.
The Israelis are doing a more-than-competent job of defending themselves from the Palestinians, but I invite you to ponder, once they've succeeded in reducing the Palestinians to subhumans or stateless refugees, who will save the Israelis from themselves?
Now, that statement is the height of arrogance. Why should they need saving? As to the idea that the Israelis are reducing the so-called palestinians to sub-human, isn’t that something that they have done to themselves? When you teach your child to hate to the point that he or she will go commit a homicide bombing and then encourage then to do so and then accept money for that action… Well, what more is there to say? No one did that to them, they did it to themselves. As they have made choices that have left them without a state. Actions have consequences.
Compare the actions of the Israelis to those of the rest of the Muslim world. Do you see dancing in the street? Or do you see a professional attempt to protect themselves while attempting to keep the civilian causalities on the other side to a minimum.
If reconciliation sounds preposterous and impossible-just as preposterous as "love your enemy"-so did "He is risen." It's the only solution.
Only if both sides want peace. Otherwise you do not have a solution, just a recipe for suicide for one side.
a.cricket
We can forgive them for killing our children, what we can not forgive is that they are making us kill their children. Golda Meyer
Yeah; that's what war criminals always say.
I stand by my comments. The packaging of the Israelis as the good guys -- the plucky, put upon defenders of democracy -- is a myth. Did I believe it in 1967, and again in 1973? Sure; who didn't? It was the standard model at the time. But there's a lot of blood under the bridge since then.
No, that is what civilians always say. Ever been in a war zone? Not healthy. People tend to die, a lot. Proof of war crimes please. I can produce tons of information on homicide bombing.
I stand by my comments. The packaging of the Israelis as the good guys -- the plucky, put upon defenders of democracy -- is a myth. Did I believe it in 1967, and again in 1973? Sure; who didn't? It was the standard model at the time. But there's a lot of blood under the bridge since then.
There generally is a lot of blood when you are surounded by countries bent on pushing you into the sea.
65 years ago the Jews did not believe that the Germans meant it when the said that they were going to kill the Jews. They learned diffently when it happened. You will have to forgive them if when someone says that they are going to kill them that they now believe them and push back.
a.cricket
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.