About once a year or so, our Youth Minister, Roger, presents a telling of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. He has committed the sermon to memory and tells it, much as it must have sounded hearing Jesus tell it. It's a wonderful, powerful way to consider the teachings of Jesus.
This year, Roger prepared an introduction to the Sermon, to give us some context. This, too, I thought was very cool, and so I present it here (cross-posted at the Jeff Street Baptist blog) for your consideration.
Palestine in the time of Jesus was difficult. Galilee, Samaria, Judea and the rest of the eastern Mediterranean region was under the occupation of the Roman Empire. Luke’s birth narrative begins with, “In the days of Caesar Augustus…” and Caesar Augustus was the first full-blown emperor of Rome. Rome had been a republic until Julius Caesar seized control and began the transition away from more democratic principles toward empire. His nephew, Octavius, inherited his power, took the name Caesar Augustus, and consolidated Rome’s position as an empire. Not only did Caesar Augustus consolidate political power, but he began to consolidate religious power as well. The expectation was for the conquered lands to worship the divine Caesar as a god.
This proved to be a problem for the Jews. Whereas most of the Mediterranean world already believed in many gods and had little difficulty assimilating Caesar in as another god to be worshipped, it was not the same for the Jews. The Jews believed there was but one true God, the creator and master of the universe. “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”
There was no way they could worship God and worship Caesar. Fortunately, because this was their religion when Rome took control, they weren’t forced to sacrifice at the altars to Caesar Augustus, but they were expected to capitulate to the political and social expectations of the empire.
But even this was too much for the Jews. “How can we, the chosen people of God, live in this unacceptable situation? Why are we again under the rule of the pagan gentiles? Didn’t we have our own rulers and our own temple? What has gone wrong?”
There were four significant points of view on this question in the days of Jesus. The zealots wanted to rise up like the Maccabees and violently drive Rome from the Promised Land. “It’s our land and we’ll kill the Romans and their lackeys to keep it.”
The Sadducees and Herodians urged the people to go along to get along with the rule of the empire. “If we rise up we’ll be destroyed. We must work together.” The Sadducees and Herodians had a credibility problem with the people, though, because as collaborators with Rome they became rich oppressors themselves.
The Pharisees viewed Roman rule as punishment from God for the people’s sin. “If we would only purify ourselves and truly become God’s holy people, then God will send his Messiah to lead us to victory against God’s enemies.” They were pretty serious about this, too, developing over 600 specific rules to make sure they were pure in the sight of God. This approach left little room for error and as a result the Pharisees tended to be a tad judgmental and intolerant toward those who didn’t follow their rules just so.
The Esseenes said, “All y’all are crazy and don’t get it” and they withdrew from society into the wilderness and refused to trouble themselves with earthly concerns and conflicts.
And in the region of Galilee from the town of Nazareth, Jesus, a carpenter turned rabbi, began a ministry of healing and of signs and wonders that the people had not seen before. And he had a message that put him at odds with everyone.
The zealots liked the way he exposed the hypocrisy of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, but he also said, “Do not take revenge against the evil doer” and “Love your enemies, too, like God does.”
The Sadducees liked Jesus’ words of blessing to the poor people of the land, but when he enjoined them to stand up to those who backhand you and turn the other check to make them treat you like an equal or to stand naked before the judge and expose the economic injustice of the system or to turn the tables on Roman law by refusing to give a Roman soldier back his backpack after he has forced you to carry it for a mile – why, that just rocks the boat too much!
The Pharisees liked many of the themes of Jesus’ teaching – almsgiving, praying, and fasting, these were good, measurable acts of righteous in their eyes – but then he sums up the law with “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” and their 600 plus rules seem a bit silly and extreme.
The Esseenes could relate to the times Jesus withdrew to the mountains in solitude to pray, but then he always came back to the people and invited them to participate in the kingdom of God right now. And this participation was not based on how zealous or rich or pious or mystical one was. “It’s not even about calling me Lord,” Jesus said, “or prophesying, or casting out demons or performing miracles. That’s not how you know me and that’s not how you participate in the realm of God.” Instead it was based on recognizing the traps that pull us to sin and avoiding them. It was based on embracing God, not as the master of the universe, but as our Abba, our Daddy, and on carrying on the family business of reconciliation and love. It wasn’t about selfish prestige, or monetary gain, or being afraid and worrying about getting it right. It was based on simply treating others the way we’d like to be treated in return.
The Sermon on the Mount is the longest sermon of Jesus in the Gospels. Listen for these themes. Listen to how his message was heard by the zealots and the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Esseenes. Listen to how his message was heard by his disciples and by the people of the land. And then listen to how his message sounds to you as you try to live your life with integrity in the empire today.
The Sermon on the Mount
100 comments:
Very, very nice introduction to the Sermon on the Mount. I like how Roger gives you the historical background and how Jesus' teaching gave everyone, from all point of view, something to chew on.
In that section, about challenging viewpoints, I think Roger may be taking the wrong message from some of Jesus' words. He says:
The Sadducees liked Jesus’ words of blessing to the poor people of the land, but when he enjoined them to stand up to those who backhand you and turn the other check to make them treat you like an equal or to stand naked before the judge and expose the economic injustice of the system or to turn the tables on Roman law by refusing to give a Roman soldier back his backpack after he has forced you to carry it for a mile – why, that just rocks the boat too much!
It's my impression / understanding that turning the other cheek was, not an insistence that you be treated like an equal, but an act of humility. The same for taking a pack the extra mile; humility and service combined, even to those who hate you. It turns human nature on its head. Insisting on rights and "refusing" to return property certainly don't seem like habits of one of the Kingdom. Jesus laid down His rights to even be born, let alone be crucified. I think Roger may be getting the wrong message in those instances.
But otherwise, a fantastic overview of the context. Thanks for posting this.
Thanks, Doug, I'll pass that on to Roger.
Re: backhanding: I don't know that I (or anyone) can say for sure, but Roger I know was referencing the scholarship of folk like Walter Wink (but not limited to him), who have researched the topic and has some very interesting opinions on the matter that seem quite sound to me, given the context.
Wink says...
Jesus could not have meant those kinds of things. He resisted evil with every fiber of His being. There is not a single instance in which Jesus does not resist evil when He encounters it. The problem begins right there with the word resist. The Greek term is antistenai. Anti is familiar to us in English still, "against," "Anti"-Defamation League. Stenai means to stand. So, "stand against." Resist is not a mistranslation so much as an undertranslation...
When Jesus says, "Do not resist one who is evil," there is something stronger than simply resist. It's do not resist violently. Jesus is indicating do not resist evil on its own terms...
Imagine if I were your assailant and I were to strike a blow with my right fist at your face, which cheek would it land on? It would be the left. It is the wrong cheek in terms of the text we are looking at. Jesus says, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek..." I could hit you on the right cheek if I used a left hook, but that would be impossible in Semitic society because the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. You couldn't even gesture with your left hand in public. The only way I could hit you on the right cheek would be with the back of the hand...
Now the back of the hand is not a blow intended to injure. It is a symbolic blow. It is intended to put you back where you belong. It is always from a position of power or superiority. The back of the hand was given by a master to a slave or by a husband to a wife or by a parent to a child or a Roman to a Jew...
in the process of turning in that direction, if you turned your head to the right, I could no longer backhand you. Your nose is now in the way. Furthermore, you can't backhand someone twice. It's like telling a joke a second time. If it doesn't work the first time, it has failed. By turning the other cheek, you are defiantly saying to the master, "I refuse to be humiliated by you any longer. I am a human being just like you. I am a child of God....
It's a powerful, strong interpretation that strikes me as very reasonable. You can read more, if you want, here.
Wink's work on "the powers" is powerful stuff. Read in the context set by your youth pastor, what we have is the beginning of a rethinking of Jesus' ethic in regard to the whole legal structure of first century Judaism, which one can see fleshed out further in St. Paul's letters in particular.
Hmm, that just seems an extreme over-analysis of the text. Jesus is speaking of returning evil for evil. He starts, as He does in a number of specific teachings in the sermon, with a concept that the people are familiar with. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'" And then he corrects it. "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." The conventional wisdom was that revenge was cool. Jesus said it wasn't, and provides a number of examples, each one of which requires humility.
It seems like Wink draws way too much in to try to come to his conclusion. "...if you turned your head to the right, I could no longer backhand you. Your nose is now in the way. Furthermore, you can't backhand someone twice. It's like telling a joke a second time." This seems really forced.
And Wink is categorically wrong when he says, "There is not a single instance in which Jesus does not resist evil when He encounters it." What about the crucifixion? That itself is a huge example where Jesus did not resist evil, to achieve a greater good. When a Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, Jesus didn't scold him for being an occupier or for owning a servant. He honored the man's faith and did it. There in front of him was the symbol of the oppression of Israel, and he helps him and moves on. Jesus did not confront Zaccheus head-on; He just came over for dinner.
I think that Jesus did confront evil in the church whenever He came in contact with it. Separate issue.
So many analyses of the Sermon on the Mount have been done, as it's such a great message, that I think some folks try to read much more into it to come up with something unique. It's messages are simple for, essentially, an uneducated people.
"what about the crucifixion?" I think it is perhaps the greatest example of extreme resistance given in the Bible.
To a people under the threat of political oppression and torture, even upon the Roman cross, Jesus undermined that threat and fear by saying, "Take up your cross and follow me!"
Dang, that is subversive resistance! Powerful, powerful stuff, that!
Seems to me.
As I noted, though, I don't think we can "prove" that Jesus did or did not intend his Sermon in the sense that Wink has interpreted it. I happen to think that it strikes as VERY believable and unbelievably powerful.
Totally undermining that popular image of Jesus-as-milquetoast/doormat and setting a standard for living that is spiritual and potentially effective in the real world for people with real problems.
You apparently don't. I can't prove it one way or the other and I expect you can't either.
I certainly think there is something to be gained from the "submission as humility" take on the passage, I just don't think that Wink's take on it undermines the humility model. I mean, what kind of powerful humility does it take to disrobe in court!
And just to reiterate a point, because I think it's important, where you said...
That itself is a huge example where Jesus did not resist evil, to achieve a greater good.
I think the cross WAS resisting evil. Just because Jesus did not summon an angel army to meet violence with violence is not to say that he wasn't resisting systemic evil. As I noted: He had already begun to undermine/dismantle the threat of the Roman empire and its Jewish collaborators by ENCOURAGING taking up one's cross.
This resistance proved to be much more powerful than the Zealots' meeting violence with violence. The Zealots are all gone, perished by the sword they lived by, but Jesus lives on.
I suspect that would be Wink's response to the suggestion that Jesus did not meet the cross with resistance. At least, this is my take on it.
Again, I don't see taking up one's cross as a political statement, any more than these other statements in the sermon.
When He talked about taking up one's cross ("daily", as recorded in Luke), he's talking about the humility of the soul as a prerequisite to (after denying himself) following Him. How could this be political when He follows this with, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?" What good is it to gain the Roman empire? Or tear it down? What matters is yourself. Context still matters.
Prove that Jesus meant what He said, rather than prove some hidden meaning based on body physics and the retelling of jokes? I think my job would be easier than Wink's.
Doug...
Again, I don't see taking up one's cross as a political statement, any more than these other statements in the sermon.
Again, I don't think we can know for sure how it was intended or what it sounded like to first century ears, and so you are welcome to your take on it. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right.
I'm just saying this makes sense to me.
Consider, though: The cross is what Rome used to kill off her political prisoners, her rabble rousers, her trouble makers. Threats to the empire.
In THAT context, I can't see how the hearers of Jesus' words could see it any other way. To us, today, the cross has been largely robbed of its context and horror. It's just a shiny thang we wear on the necklace.
Look at the context in which it is found. Jesus, in Matthew 16, is predicting his coming death at the hands of scheming religious politicians...
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life...
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.
I'm just saying this makes sense to me.
I have no doubt that it does. But, like the story of Joseph we discussed a while ago, I think you're more than willing to go with the more complex explanation that arrives at a conclusion that fits the "social justice" narrative. With Joseph, you had to assume that, while the text constantly says the the Lord was with him, there were particular things that Joseph did where the Lord was not with him but the text doesn't happen to mention that. Cherry-pick the Lord out of this and that action, and you can concoct a whole new meaning that fits your narrative and makes sense to you. And now here, in the midst of examples of humility, if we assume that a couple of those examples really mean to demand your rights and stick it to da' man, hey, it makes sense to you. I keep going back to your description of yourself as taking the Bible seriously, and these examples don't seem to line up with that. You do take it seriously, but insofar as it can be made to say what makes sense to you.
Stripping the cross of some political imperative robs it of nothing. Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world anyway, no matter the evil empire or utopia you live in. As Roger himself noted, the Zealots were looking for a political leader and yet Jesus avoided that completely. While He died at the hands of religious politicians, Jesus blasted them for their religious issues, not their politics. To deny yourself is to take up your cross. It's the ultimate expression of it. Jesus denied His position as creator of the universe and all-powerful God to do precisely that. And why? Because he understood that all things work together for good to them to love God and are called according to His purpose. And to top it all off, he forgave, among others, those Romans for putting Him up there. His last gesture towards them, his political oppressors, was to, indeed, turn the other cheek one more time after a full day of cheek-turning.
Jesus lives on not because He is a worldly king, as the Zealots wanted, but a heavenly king of all kings. Not because He was perhaps some seed that fomented the fall of the Roman empire, but because His kingdom supersedes any and all earthly kingdoms. To insist that the cross was some sort of political imperative seem to me to reduce its power to that more compatible to the Zealots. It continues to draw people to it, not because of its politics, but because it transcends politics. And thus it seems that to use politics in interpreting what Jesus meant when speaking of it only serves to give us a wrong impression.
Yes, of course, we don't know what was running through Jesus' mind when He said those words, nor the minds of the typical first century listener. But we at least have the words. And the preponderance of the words don't show a Jesus concerned with worldly politics, or at least only very tangentially. Overemphasizing what He didn't emphasize will only give us misinterpretations of what He did mean.
Doug, go attempt to shake hands with someone living today in the Middle East (or much of the third world for that matter) with your left hand and see if you then believe that Wink's assumptions about the nature of first century Middle Eastern habitus seem quite so complicated.
Or as another modern example, simply forget to say please or thank you in front of my mother. She'll not only assume that you have no manners, but that you're parents and (probably their parents) were slobs who knew nothing about parenting and she'll make all sorts of other assumptions about you, your intelligence, your employment, etc.
Of course, Wink cannot prove his interpretation any more than you can prove yours. But it is a simple matter to prove that even tiny acts that are almost unnoticeable to the outsider can have deep meaning in any society. And it is a simple matter to note that these acts and their meanings can easily be re-discovered even millennia later through any number of artifacts and literature left behind.
So the complexity you claim for Wink's interpretation simply doesn't exist.
It's not so much how the people took Jesus' words, it's what Jesus meant by the words. The target of the strike is irrelevant. It's the strike that counts in Jesus' message, and how one should respond to it. He could easily have said, "If someone punches you in the stomach, stick out your chin and let him punch that as well." What's more, the idea that an enraged Middle Easterner would maintain enough self-control to not strike someone with his left hand is downright ludicrous. If anything, he'd be sure to us that hand to add insult to the injury.
I meant to add:
The turning the cheek message is similar to the lesson of giving one's tunic if someone takes one's cloak. The left hand explanation of Wink is as Doug suggests.
Indeed. I did not deny that such a cultural element, such as Alan explained, exists. I simply said that Winks is incorporating it into his explanation to make it fit some desired outcome. I say this with some certainty precisely because the outcome is so diametrically opposite to the examples that surround it behind and before.
Again, you both are free to understand the verse how you wish. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that Wink makes a lot of sense to me, and that he seems to be taking into consideration how Jesus would have meant it/how it would have been heard than mere bowing and scraping humility could explain.
None of us can say for sure that Wink's interpretation is off or on so we're at a guessing game as to who is "right," if that is what our goal is. My goal is not to say THIS INTERPRETATION IS THE ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION APPROVED BY GOD!
My goal is to strive to understand the teaching as best I can as it would have been understood in the day and as we should understand it today. Wink's take seems to me to take into account how it would have been heard.
Feel free to guess otherwise, just keep in mind that it's a guess.
Marshall...
It's not so much how the people took Jesus' words, it's what Jesus meant by the words.
And is it the case that you believe you know what Jesus meant by these words?
You KNOW for certain that Jesus and his disciples - who lived daily under the threat of the oppression of Rome and her collaborators, who knew WELL the injustices for the poor in the court system, who knew well the injustice in being forced to labor for the occupying forces - did not mean to take all those things into account when he so clearly (to me, anyway) is alluding to them?
How, praytell, have you come by your special knowledge? Or are you just saying, along with me, that that is HOW IT SEEMS TO YOU at your best guess?
I fear sometimes we modernize the scriptures and sanitize it, taking away its life and vitality and deeper meanings. "This makes sense to us today," sometimes we say, "therefore, that is what it must mean."
Context matters greatly, seems to me.
Context matters greatly, seems to me.
Indeed. I just think Wink is ignoring one very important context; what Jesus was illustrating at that moment.
And that IS the question:
Was Jesus merely (grandly) indicating the virtues of humility?
Could be. Maybe.
Or, was Jesus demonstrating the value of a subversive, humble non-violent resistance to oppressive systems and circumstances, which seems in fitting with a bunch of Jesus' teachings?
Could be. Maybe. Seems quite reasonable to me.
"the outcome is so diametrically opposite to the examples that surround it behind and before."
Actually it isn't.
The examples are all examples of non-violent opposition.
If someone asks for your coat and you give your cloak also, you are embarrassing that person because nudity in that time and place was an embarrassment to the person who *saw* it, not the person who was naked (cf. The story of drunk Noah after the flood.)
It was (and we have evidence of this) illegal for a Roman soldier to demand that someone living in Israel carry their belongings for more than a mile. This was economic as you can't just have soldiers telling folks who were little more than economic slaves to drop their work and carry stuff all the time. So, if a soldier was found to have demanded someone do more than the law said, it was the soldier who would have been punished.
This is classic nonviolent opposition: using injustice to expose itself as unjust. All the examples point to the same thing.
And again, all of these rely on simple (not complex) understandings of the culture of the time.
And given that our modern notions of nonviolent opposition (see for example, Thoreau, Gandhi, King, etc.) stemmed exactly from the Sermon on the Mount, it is silly to suggest that the conclusion preceded the evidence. Silly and historically inaccurate. Unless you believe they were all lying when they specifically point to the Sermon as inspiration. But proving that would be difficult.
BTW, I'm simply basing this on the completely orthodox and traditionally Reformed notion that there are not hidden meanings or Dispensations in Scripture. It must mean for us the same as it meant for people of the time. (For example, there are no prophesies about atom bombs in the Bible as no one in the first century would have understood what an atom bomb is.)
Since none of you are, as far as I can tell, either Reformed or Calvinists, then you probably interpret Scripture differently, which is your problem, not mine. But it doesn't mean you're right and it doesn't mean that the logic of this interpretation doesn't fit.
I would be more convinced if Jesus has said that if a Roman asks you, or if an oppressor strikes you. Instead, he left it wide open; if someone asks this or does this. Now you can argue that, to a first century Jew this could only mean a Roman. But it seems more in line with Jesus' notion that we should be humble towards everyone to interpret this, not narrowly referring to those who oppress you, but widely referring to your fellow man, whatever he asks of you, and whether he hates you or loves you. Someone. Anyone.
Anyone can be angry with, and fight against, an oppressor. That takes no real spirituality. But it's God working in us that can allow us to be humble before both friend and enemy, and serve all; not just those with whom we get along.
Yes, I see the virtue in pointing out social injustice. But I believe Jesus was, based on what he said, far, far more concerned about our soul than with fighting the man.
1) The context for the cloak/coat is a court, and Jesus repeatedly states that disputes among believers should be settled out of court. It doesn't specifically say anything about Romans because the Romans weren't the only people who could bring unjust suits in court.
2) The context for going the extra mile didn't need to specify the Romans because the concept of restricted forced labor, or angareia was well known throughout the Roman empire. Josephus mentions it. It is also mentioned in the Gospels when Simon is conscripted to carry Jesus' cross.
All of these are examples that support the thesis sentence that we should not confront evil with evil. There is a difference between being humble and debasing oneself, which would itself be sinful.
"But I believe Jesus was, based on what he said, far, far more concerned about our soul than with fighting the man."
All of these examples, including the final admonition to give to anyone who asks are about justice -- justice to each other and justice to oneself. Justice to the oppressor as well as justice to the poor.
First, if you note the context of this particular section of the sermon, it is an exposition about the Mosaic law, which is about how one acts. Second, justice is indeed about the soul and human dignity as carriers of the imago Dei. After all, the answer to Micah's question about what God requires of us is to *do justice*, love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. In other words, these interpretations are all about justice, mercy, and humility, and precisely fit with the rest of Scripture, as all good Scriptural interpretation is supposed to do.
On the other hand, there are, in my view, no other Scriptural precedents that support the notion that these verses are admonishing us to be doormats for Jesus. That interpretation does not fit with the whole of Scripture.
BTW, I also don't find much Scriptural support for the sort of soul/body dualism you're suggesting in anything Jesus had to say. There's some of that in Paul, of course, but not in Jesus.
After all, we Christians believe in "the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting" not just living souls up in heaven after death. Or rather, we Reformed Christians do.
Youth Pastor Roger made these verses sound anything but humble, Alan. Stand up to them and make them treat you like an equal? Humble? Refusing to return a backpack is acting in humility?
Contrast that with the creator of the universe, who "humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross". He was more than their equal, and He didn't make them do anything, and yet forgave them for debasing him.
Do justice, yes! Walk humbly, yes! Make everyone treat you like an equal…well, I just don't see Jesus ever doing that in a way (if a all) that matches what y'all are suggesting He meant, so I'd suggest He didn't mean that.
Not sure where I'm exhibiting a soul/body dualism. Yes, I believe we'll be resurrected with glorified bodies in heaven, but we'll get to heaven based on the whether we've accepted Christ. That's more a spiritual condition -- a soul issue -- than a question of the condition of the body. That's all I'm saying.
Hey, Alan, it isn't just Calvinists who read the Scriptures the way you are indicating. We Arminian Wesleyans understand the Bible the same way - no hidden meanings, etc.
Part of what I think the others are missing here is that Wink is providing the context in which "what Jesus meant" by these sayings becomes more congruous with how we hear them. Do any of us give serious thought to the contexts in which we make certain statements? To the cues and various short-hands we include in things we say, figuring our readers/hearers will not need them spelled out? Of course not. Neither did folks in first century Galilee and Judaea. Unpacking all that is necessary, though, not only to understand them in their original settings, but also for us.
Funny enough, their common-sense meanings align with the contextualized understandings pretty well.
Doug wrote, "Youth Pastor Roger made these verses sound anything but humble, Alan. Stand up to them and make them treat you like an equal? Humble? Refusing to return a backpack is acting in humility? "
You're using an overly broad definition of the term humble. There's humility before God, ie understanding there is a God and we ain't him. Humility is the inverse of pride, it isn't the act of debasing oneself as you suggest. Nor is it the act of being a slave against one's will or letting unjust people walk all over you. There's nothing prideful about standing up for oneself and one's basic human rights as ordained by God.
I would say that the Declaration of Independence, for example, is neither prideful nor boastful and is humble in recognizing the rights claimed therein stem from the Creator. Your definition would set our founders out to be nothing but boastful prideful arrogant men.
Being humble isn't thinking everyone else is better than you. That's neurosis. Being humble is about being modest, not about self-abasement.
There is also a difference between making the conscious *choice* to be a servant to others and being *forced* into servitude. Jesus acted as a servant and called people to make that free choice. He did not call people to forced servitude. These verses are not about making a choice, but about what to do when you're being forced by injustice. That's clear from the context.
Frankly, you're really all over the map with your definitions of humility and service, when the differences between what Jesus was talking about and what the Romans (for example) were enforcing couldn't be more clear.
That Jesus chose to go to the cross (he could have done otherwise, and you can't really believe that the Romans could have forced the Son of God against his will) is the best example I can think of. It was humble to make the sacrifice, it would not have been so if it had been forced.
You wrote, "Not sure where I'm exhibiting a soul/body dualism."
Well, here is an example: "That's more a spiritual condition -- a soul issue -- than a question of the condition of the body."
" just don't see Jesus ever doing that in a way (if a all) that matches what y'all are suggesting He meant"
Um.... The cross. Coming to earth not as a king but as a baby. Living as a peasant. All of these were choices that turn the tables on injustice in the world. They weren't forced actions like a Roman soldier forcing a Jew to carry their luggage.
Again, being forced to be a servant is not being humble.
Or to put that all more simply, there's a difference between humility and humiliation. I believe the interpretation I've laid out has Jesus talking about humility. Your interpretation seems to be that we should be ready to be humiliated against our will.
"Hey, Alan, it isn't just Calvinists who read the Scriptures the way you are indicating."
No, I know that. But who knows what the rest of these folks call themselves. Besides you and Dan they don't seem to subscribe to any understanding of Scriptural interpretation from any orthodox Christian tradition I know of.
I think Alan and Geoffrey have had some excellent thoughts rightly representing my position. Doug, I certainly am not disagreeing in the least with the notion of keeping it humble. I just also happen to think that meekness and humility are signs of strength, not weakness.
Consider Paul's comment in Romans 12, which is his take, it would seem, on Jesus' own Sermon on the Mount...
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
So there you have Paul, going along, preaching all this hippy dippy love yer neighbor stuff, sharing your goods, loving your persecutors, living in harmony, kum ba yah, etc, etc and then...
if your enemy is hungry feed him, be kind to him...
and then, WHAM!
you will heap burning coals on his head.
What?? How does that fit in with humbling loving even your persecutors? With living in harmony... and pouring burning coals on their head??
What I think Jesus and Paul understood that this very humility and meekness and non-violent resistance has a power to overcome. Yes, to overcome evil WITH GOOD, just as Paul concluded.
Do you think Paul was being less than humble when he acknowledged the truism that showing kindness to an oppressor undoes the oppressor by using his own oppression against his conscience?
The purpose of "making him treat you like an equal" is not prideful self-preservation, self-aggrandizement (although a bit of that can go a long, healthy way in an oppressed people), but humble, YET powerful opposition to evil for the sake of ALL oppressed and, indeed, the sake of the oppressor.
I think Paul's treatise is a great support for Wink's position which, once again, I find reasonable in the context of the Bible and its times.
Alan:
Doug wrote, "Youth Pastor Roger made these verses sound anything but humble, Alan. Stand up to them and make them treat you like an equal? Humble? Refusing to return a backpack is acting in humility? "
You're using an overly broad definition of the term humble. There's humility before God, ie understanding there is a God and we ain't him. Humility is the inverse of pride, it isn't the act of debasing oneself as you suggest. Nor is it the act of being a slave against one's will or letting unjust people walk all over you. There's nothing prideful about standing up for oneself and one's basic human rights as ordained by God.
Except that Jesus never did that. Again, back to the crucifixion, all sorts of basic human rights of His were trampled, to say nothing of His rights as God. If you interpret what He said based on what He did, I don't see someone standing up for his human rights. If He had, we'd all be lost.
Now, this is not to say that you're sinful standing up for your rights against an oppressive government. But Jesus never took that route. And even as you have suggested, if Jesus did indeed work against the Roman government, it was by pointing out injustice by subjecting Himself to it in humility; using injustice to expose itself. (Again, I'm not entirely convinced that was His intent, but let's go with it for the moment.) The crucifixion was not the kind of defiance Wink or Roger interpret. He didn't insist on more punishment (i.e. walk another mile) or thwart any attempt to be punished (i.e. which I think is Wink's interpretation of cheek-turning) to expose injustice. He just did it. By doing that, you could say that He let their own deeds do the judging, especially when compared to His response to those deeds. It's in that light, and with that example, that I believe these verses should be seen in.
Dan, this speaks to your example from Paul. Yes, Jesus heaped burning coals on the heads of all who participated. Absolutely. But not literally; figuratively. Do not curse them. Is possibly getting them in trouble for making you carry the pack 2 miles cursing them? I'd say it is. You are literally bringing down judgment on them because of what you do, not because of what they required. You will accomplish this, not by open defiance or your own actions to get them in trouble, but by being kind to them. Wink proposed at least some form of open defiance. Paul and Jesus say to bless them and overcome evil with good. And as such, I see Wink's proposal as entirely contrary to Paul's treatise.
Alan, you are absolutely correct that being forced to be a servant is not being humble. Humility, though, is brought out in how you act once you are in that state; once you choose what to do in that state. Choose to repay good for evil. Choose to offer the other cheek. Choose that extra mile. Choose to give and lend to those who ask. (Also from that same set of verses.) Jesus did not choose to stand up for His rights. Indeed, it was humble to make the sacrifice. And He did it without being defiant. His words should be interpreted in light of His deeds.
"Jesus did not choose to stand up for His rights. Indeed, it was humble to make the sacrifice. And He did it without being defiant. His words should be interpreted in light of His deeds."
Clearly we disagree and I don't think you're actually understanding what I've been writing, but whatever. We're clearly not going to get anywhere in this forum.
I do appreciate the respectful dialogue, however.
Indeed I agree with Doug. Jesus whole point was love, purely and simply. He is not concerning Himself with matters of state.
There is a common practice in Scripture of saying something twice or similarly, with going an extra step, hyperbole in this case, to stress the point being made. He's talking about loving one's enemies (who the enemies are isn't relevant). Offering the other cheek is the second part, the hyperbolic part to stress the point. He doesn't mean to let someone beat your ass. He means that though you were just hit, love him anyway. It's a similar form as was putting out your own eye if it leads you to sin.
The same with the cloak and tunic thing. If he takes your coat, let him take your tunic (or give him your tunic, depending on which Bible your reading). It's an exaggeration to illustrate the level of love one should show an enemy. Frankly, if some thief took your outwear, I doubt he'd have a problem with you being naked if you gave him your underwear. He's a thief, for pete's sake.
Throughout all of this Jesus is speaking of the only form of love with which the Bible and God's teachings concern itself---agape love. If you're looking to shame your opponent into better behavior, how is that an example of agape? Even the concern for pointing out injustice is a concern for the self. The concern is entirely with the victim and how he is to respond to the harm done to him. He is to love. It doesn't much concern itself with any response whatsoever by the enemy.
On the crucifixion, Doug, I would agree with your take had there been no resurrection. Isolated from it, yes, I agree, your interpretation seems to make sense. One cannot speak of the crucifixion, however, without also speaking of the resurrection, which took it and all it symbolized and turned it around 180 degrees.
The humiliation of Son of God has become, as Karl Barth rightly said again and again, the exaltation of the Son of Man. When we take up our crosses, it is always in the light of the resurrection being the promise held out for us. Death's sting, separation from God, has been wiped away because Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man, was rejected on the cross, left to die, yet rose again, taking in to the Godhead itself the reality of death and rendering it powerless.
Jesus' humility, his silence as it were in the face of his coming judgment and execution, was not about foreknowledge of what was to come. It was the working out of his own ethic, practicing humility and resistance. After all, the game was being played by rules set by others, and there was literally no answer Jesus could give in his own defense. It was a social and political and cultural game, and those in power held all the cards. What would Jesus gain from resistance? By refusing to play along, even in the midst of being completely and utterly alone and powerless, he stripped the facade of legitimacy from the entire process.
And he did it with humility.
I meant to add, that the idea that Jesus was keeping in mind cultural notions regarding the use of the left hand or being naked in public has not logical connection to reality. This is not the way Jesus teaching has ever worked before to my memory. By this I am again referring to what would actually happen in a confrontation. Someone excited enough to hit you wouldn't be likely to worry about which hand he uses (and likely would use both if necessary). If he truly wanted to hurt, it would make more sense that he would go out of his way to use the left hand to add insult to the injury. So the fact that some Bibles speak of Jesus referring to the right cheek is something that is not significant to the point He was trying to impart. I can't see that it would make sense to even the ancient Jews, or that it would be a distracting thing to their hearing the message.
Think of some obvious lessons like covering a lamp with a basket. Forgetting the light of God for a moment, who would have a lamp lit only to cover it up? Doesn't make sense. Building on a solid foundation is another example. There's a real world application, or an appreciation for reality in all his metaphors, parables and hyperbolic turns. Therefor, those cultural considerations CAN'T be associated to the verses. They just don't ring true.
They just don't ring true TO YOU.
Fine. Rings true to me.
hose cultural considerations CAN'T be associated to the verses.
This, it seems to me, is the root problem of more fundamentalim-istic thinking: "IF I think this makes sense, then THAT MUST BE THE ONLY WAY THAT MAKES SENSE and anyone who says differently is obviously an infidel who rejoices in lying and twisting truth."
T'ain't necessarily so. Any one of us is not the Final Arbiter of all that's good and right and holy.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
You wish to have that hunch for yourself? Fine. Go for it. But in un-provable matters, grace and wisdom dictates more modesty than proclaiming your solution as the one True Solution.
Art: "I meant to add, that the idea that Jesus was keeping in mind cultural notions regarding the use of the left hand or being naked in public has not logical connection to reality." Obviously, because Jesus was not a part of a culture that had certain rules, taboos, mores. Instead, he was . . . wait, he was fully human, which means he was part of a culture that had certain rules, taboos, mores, and codes of conduct that were unspoken, not a part of conscious thought, yet a part of all he said and did!
If I may re-enter the fray:
This, it seems to me, is the root problem of more fundamentalim-istic thinking: "IF I think this makes sense, then THAT MUST BE THE ONLY WAY THAT MAKES SENSE and anyone who says differently is obviously an infidel who rejoices in lying and twisting truth."
If we're going to make accusations about people's standard of proof, I would like to point out something. Some folks seem to have a rather interesting standard of disproof.
As I noted, though, I don't think we can "prove" that Jesus did or did not intend his Sermon in the sense that Wink has interpreted it. I happen to think that it strikes as VERY believable and unbelievably powerful.
This in spite of the fact that I have given instances, including His crucifixion, where Jesus had the opportunity to do the very thing you think He's saying, and yet he didn't.
Dan notes that saying "Take up your cross and follow me" is resistance. Maybe, but not in the specifically active way that Wink says. Powerful, sure. But it doesn't give us any clue as to whether walking the extra mile was supposed to be solely humble or to be some sort of sideways method of getting an oppressor in trouble. It doesn't speak to whether turning the other cheek was to show open defiance or simply show humility. During the crucifixion, Jesus did nothing active against His oppressors, nothing actively defiant.
Dan says that the crucifixion itself was resisting evil. Maybe, but not in the specifically active way Wink says. Jesus own actions do not support the idea that He was all for active resistance of the oppressors.
Alan says, yes, people did and still do have this taboo about the left hand. Fine. That still doesn't speak to why Jesus never did what you claim He said to do when He had the chance.
Dan asks:
No, I don't need that low a standard of proof for this issue. I see what Jesus did when he had the chance to openly defy Roman oppression, and note that He didn't do that. Thus, any explanation of His words that imply He thought we should do such a thing I see as patently flawed.
Dan asks:
How, praytell, have you come by your special knowledge? Or are you just saying, along with me, that that is HOW IT SEEMS TO YOU at your best guess?
No, I don't need that low a standard of proof for this issue. I see what Jesus did when he had the chance to openly defy Roman oppression, and note that He didn't do that. Thus, any explanation of His words that imply He thought we should do such a thing I see as patently flawed.
Alan says that many famous people who resisted oppression nonviolently were inspired by the Sermon on the Mount. Great. Doesn't speak at all to what Jesus meant.
Alan notes that Micah and others tell us to "do justice". Great. Jesus could still have meant mere humility and not open defiance, so these examples don't speak to what Jesus meant.
Alan notes that Jesus came as a baby and lived as a peasant, and that somehow this illustrates Wink's "open defiance" humility. Yes, He made humble choices in His life. This does not mean that his words about going the extra mile are meant to be open defiance.
Dan says meekness and humility are signs of strength and not weakness. I fully agree. But how do you characterize open defiance? Meek? If so, why was Jesus never meek enough to show such defiance when He had plenty of chances?
Dan notes that Paul talked about heaping burning coals on an enemy when you are kind to him. Is open defiance kind? Is getting your enemy in trouble kind? You equate figurative language with concrete actions that Jesus Himself never took. That's not a basis for Biblical interpretation.
Geoffrey agrees with my continued referring to the crucifixion in this regard, but suggests that the resurrection turned it all around. So the resurrection was open defiance against Roman oppressors? Geoff says of Jesus' reaction to the treatment He got during the crucifixion, "It was the working out of his own ethic, practicing humility and resistance." Perhaps, but not practicing it like Wink's or Roger's "open defiance" interpretation of these words from the Sermon.
Every one of the examples you have given show a Jesus who is not openly defiant of political oppressors. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, every chance He had to openly defy the Romans, He specifically did not do what you say His words told us to do. He didn't do it when He could have. And none of you find that the least bit strange, and instead concoct scenarios where pacifistic humility can be thought of as open defiance.
Dan says, "I'm just saying this makes sense to me." And this is where I find you standard of disproof rather excessive. Never mind that Jesus did not do what you say He told us to do when He had the chances, it still makes sense to you. This sounds to me like, never mind any other evidence, never mind if Jesus never actually did it when the opportunity presented itself, if someone can put together an explanation that's convinces me and fits The Narrative(tm), hey, it's all good.
If you have a specific example of Jesus actively doing something defiant against his Roman oppressors, I'm willing to hear it. I am not saying that I have the one and only interpretation of these words from the Sermon on the Mount. What I am saying is that Jesus own actions, over and over again, when He was in the position to put into practice what you say He said, He specifically did not do so. That, to me, is very good proof that He meant something else.
Geoffrey,
Regarding your last comment at 12:42PM, you've missed my point. In your defense this time, I must say that I didn't make my point clearly. (Until just yesterday, I've been using an inferior computer that is very slow and thus frustrating to use. I find that I sometimes didn't state things as I had planned, as I often had to wait to continue a thought while the computer hesitated and then finally posted what I had typed. This time I didn't catch it before posting. Your response brought it to light.) When I said, "...the idea that Jesus was keeping in mind cultural notions regarding the use of the left hand or being naked in public has not logical connection to reality.", I should have added that what had no connection to reality was the logical manner in which people act. My example of someone being angry enough to strike you caring about which hand he used is what isn't realistic. I don't care what the culture says about left hands. Someone pissed off enough to hit another person simply wouldn't think about which hand he uses to do so, except that he might use the left hand purposely because of the cultural attitudes and the implication of doing so. Nor would someone willing to take your cloak, care about you being naked if you then let him take your tunic. I can't off the top of my head think of any other teaching of Christ that had such a lack of logic attached to it.
Regarding why Jesus wouldn't defend Himself during the crucifixion story, the notion of His silence in some manner showing defiance is not in the least bit supportable considering all that He Himself had said about why He came. His primary purpose for existing as a man was to be the perfect sacrifice by which we will all be forgiven our sins and spared the wrath of God. He HAD to suffer and die and to defend Himself in any way would have been to act toward preventing that, and He had already abdicated THAT option to the Father when He asked that the cup be taken from Him but by God's Will, not Jesus'.
Dan,
"This, it seems to me, is the root problem of more fundamentalim-istic thinking: "IF I think this makes sense, then THAT MUST BE THE ONLY WAY THAT MAKES SENSE and anyone who says differently is obviously an infidel who rejoices in lying and twisting truth."
Whether or not I'm a fundie has nothing to do with it. It takes more than simply thinking differently. It takes thinking intelligently and Wink's comments are not examples of that.
"I could hit you on the right cheek if I used a left hook, but that would be impossible in Semitic society because the left hand was used only for unclean tasks."
First of all, by merely saying it would be impossible, Wink is demanding that only his explanation can be true. But as I've said, if one is pissed, the likelihood that the pissed off guy would care about which hand he used is almost non-existent. (This doesn't even take into account the possibility of left-handed people existing in that time period.)
"Now the back of the hand is not a blow intended to injure. It is a symbolic blow. It is intended to put you back where you belong."
And what better way to do that than to strike someone with the left hand? But of course, this assumes that Jesus was referring to only being struck with a "symbolic blow". What evidence is there that He meant it in that manner? None from Scripture. Wink is applying cultural aspects to the verses that the verses themselves don't suggest for the purpose of making conclusions he prefers.
Marshall...
Whether or not I'm a fundie has nothing to do with it. It takes more than simply thinking differently. It takes thinking intelligently and Wink's comments are not examples of that.
OF COURSE you think that. ALL the more fundamentalist-type thinkers think that. They think the Others are "obviously" not thinking intelligently, or spiritually or Godly or biblically and thus, it's their way or the highway.
YOU DO NOT THINK Wink's explanation is plausible or reasonable. WE disagree. And I'm okay with that.
If Wink were giving his thoughts on this topic and said, "...and anyone who thinks otherwise is just stoopid and heretics," then I'd disagree with HIM for his fundamentalist-ish thinking. These are not "provable" matters. We're all giving our best hunches on what they might likely mean.
For any fallible person to say on such matters, "They can't reasonably think that because it is absolutely not possible and I can know this" is to fail to understand the meaning of "fallible."
I should probably clarify that by "fundamentalist-thinking" I'm speaking more of the more recent sort of "fundamentalism" that is more of the "my way or hell" sort. The type that can be found in Islamic extremists and some Christian types, as well as in some extremist liberal types. The type that says not merely, "I disagree with you," but "...and if you disagree with me, you disagree with God, you have demonic/twisted/perverted reasoning and are doomed."
The anabaptist movement was started as a "fundamentalist" movement - a get back to the basics sort of notion. I understand and fully support that sort of "fundamentalism" wherever it may be found.
I'm speaking of the more harshly judgmental sort of fundamentalism here.
For clarity's sake.
Doug writes: "Doesn't speak at all to what Jesus meant."
Again, says you. We disagree and you may not believe that my evidence warrants my (and many others') conclusions. But you seem to be claiming that no evidence was presented at all, which is not the case.
But again, attempting to lay out a detailed case in a blog comment is a waste of time. Read Wink's book Engaging the Powers and get back to me.
"So the resurrection was open defiance against Roman oppressors?"
Not just that, but Paul makes clear that the resurrection was open defiance against sin and death.
"Not just that, but Paul makes clear that the resurrection was open defiance against sin and death."
It was ONLY that. There's no Scriptural support to suggest otherwise. Despite what any archeology or scholarly understanding of the culture of the times says about the use of the left hand, or the Israeli attitude toward their Roman rulers, it is a stretch to apply such things to the teachings of Christ without some connection made within the text itself. It is a subjective projection onto the text.
Wink makes no such connection but merely says it exists and the example of his thinking is quite faulty for the reasons I've listed. But instead of countering my reasons, you guys (Dan in this case) like to just write it off to hunches and opinions that we're taking a "my way or the highway" approach. That would almost be a good argument if I didn't supply a list of reasons for rejecting the Wink example. It's not "my way or nothing". It's that Wink's way has massive holes and you ignore them because it supports your biases. I'm open, as always, to solid arguments countering mine. Instead, you just blow off our arguments as "your hunch". Who's being "fundamental" if not you?
Doug...
Jesus could still have meant mere humility and not open defiance, so these examples don't speak to what Jesus meant.
"Open defiance" is your term, not mine, not Wink's.
"Subversive love," "working for justice for the oppressed," "non-violent direct action," these are what I would call Jesus' approach.
Alan:
"So the resurrection was open defiance against Roman oppressors?"
Not just that, but Paul makes clear that the resurrection was open defiance against sin and death.
But that doesn't say anything about open, active, physical defiance against political oppressors, which is what Wink is claiming was Jesus' intent. This is a non sequitur.
Dan:
Jesus could still have meant mere humility and not open defiance, so these examples don't speak to what Jesus meant.
"Open defiance" is your term, not mine, not Wink's.
Specifically doing something that will get a man in trouble (Wink's interpretation of the extra mile) is open, active, physical defiance. It is not hidden, passive nor solely spiritual. My term is descriptive enough to note that Jesus, when He had the chance, did not do this.
" open, active, physical defiance against political oppressors,"
I believe Jesus was raised....in the body. Seems pretty open, active and physical, and nothing could be more defiant against political or any other kind of oppression including political oppression. Perhaps you simply do not place the same importance on the resurrection that I do.
Again, you're arguing about something you know nothing about: Wink (and others') arguments. Go read the book, then make your arguments. Right now you're just talking nonsense.
Alan:
I believe Jesus was raised....in the body. Seems pretty open, active and physical, and nothing could be more defiant against political or any other kind of oppression including political oppression.
And how did it force any Roman to treat Him as an equal or get any Roman in trouble? Which oppressor did He give any trouble to, as specifically as if He's carried a backpack farther than He should have?
The interpretation you are supporting talks about individuals dealing with individuals. Jesus, when He had the chance, never did this. The Resurrection's affect on the Roman empire was indirect; not via Jesus Himself, but via the religion His followers took with them. You are taking an indirect action and using it to justify the interpretation of taking a direct action, a direct action that Jesus never took.
Perhaps you simply do not place the same importance on the resurrection that I do.
If we can discuss without condescension, I'll respond accordingly.
Again, go read the book, then make your arguments. Right now you're just talking nonsense.
Why, for instance, you're fetishizing the Roman oppressor when I've already shot down that point is makes no sense. (Again, as I said before and you never read, the lawsuit example has nothing necessarily to do with Romans at all.) But, because you don't really know the entire argument, you're focusing on particular unimportant details because you have nothing else to disagree about. When called on this, you continue to focus on unimportant details and ignore the overarching argument, which then forces you to make strange statements I highly doubt you actually mean.
If you're *actually* interested, you'll read the book and get back to us. If you're only interested in argument, you'll continue with the pointless nonsense that is obviously going no where. Your call.
You're the one complaining about evidence and I've told you where to go to find it. So...do you actually care about evidence, or are you just typing for the heck of it? I guess we'll see with your next comment, eh?
Alan:
Why, for instance, you're fetishizing the Roman oppressor when I've already shot down that point is makes no sense. (Again, as I said before and you never read, the lawsuit example has nothing necessarily to do with Romans at all.)
The point about Roman oppressors makes no sense, and yet that's what Wink hangs his two examples presenter here on. I point out that Jesus never did any such thing when the opportunity presented itself, so you argue that my using that very standard makes no sense. I daresay that, given this, I see your level of disproof is quite insurmountable. If you will simply dismiss me when I try to use Wink's own examples as applied to Jesus, I have little reason to believe that, if I read Wink cover to cover and argued against it, you'd be at all inclined to listen to any other points I've made.
I've concentrated on Wink's interpretation with regards to political oppressors specifically, because Jesus was in contact with Romans in many contexts. Just based on these two examples by Wink, I don't see actions by Jesus matching what Wink thinks the words meant. No need to go further.
Just like my argument, saying look at what Jesus did compared with what you think He said, I'd say look at what you do compared with the openness to reason you claim. Given that, why continue this exercise in futility, simply in more detail? If we can't even compare apples to apples in this little thing, I have no reason to believe you'll do so in larger things.
As I said, I'm not going to bother engaging with your pretend "points", but I will say this...
You wrote, "Wink hangs his two examples presenter here on"
You don't know what evidence he uses since you haven't read his book. Stop pretending you have, it is disingenuous. You may have now convinced yourself that your effort at skimming a few blog comments is equivalent to reading Wink's arguments presented in 444 pages. But you will not convince me. Maybe you can find a wiki article with a length more to your liking.
You wrote, "I've concentrated on Wink's interpretation ..."
No you haven't. You haven't read Wink's interpretation. You have read brief blog comments about summaries of Wink's argument. You think that's the same thing as Wink's interpretation. Well, Doug, the Cliff's Notes versions are not the same as the book itself, regardless of what you apparently learned somewhere down the line.
Doug wrote, "Wink thinks the words meant..."
You don't know what Wink thinks because you are afraid, apparently, to let him speak for himself. Be clear: I don't suggest you read the book to convince you of anything. Instead, I suggested you read the book so that you could at least make a cogent argument against it. It isn't even that long of a book, though I'm sorry to say that it does not have pictures.
You wrote, "If you will simply dismiss me when I try to use Wink's own examples..."
On this one point, you are correct. I do dismiss your pathetic attempt at forming an argument when you are not interested in actually informing yourself about what you think you're arguing about. In that, I am guilty as charged. You would also be correct in assuming that I don't find such intellectual laziness to be a virtue, nor worth engaging your points.
I will keep this in mind next time you comment either 1) asking for evidence or 2) presenting some link for someone else to read, as it is obvious you have no desire to actually inform yourself about anything. And I hope the next time you give some link and suggest someone reads it to support a point, they laugh in your face.
I do sincerely apologize for thinking you might be interested in substance, depth, and/or accuracy. I obviously mistook you for someone who wanted to do more than just perform the Monty Python equivalent of an argument. I've learned my lesson.
Take care.
Doug,
I think it's clear that a snippet of Wink's book can be used to make a point, but we have to read the whole damned thing to dispute the point. But I have to agree with you on one thing: if the lame example excerpted for us here is any indication, spending time reading the book is not likely to be very convincing. I intend to give it a read. I expect to find better than this example, though my expectations are low. The example is an incredibly weak argument for the reasons I've already mentioned.
Wow. Just read the link Dan supplied at the end of the Wink piece. It's worse than I thought. He, like others, attributes supposed non-violent revolutions as proof that violence can be avoided. Of course there's no insight as to the nature of any of those, whether or not the participants were bent on dominating the other side at all costs, etc. This is important in determining a premise. He makes horribly inane assertions regarding OUR behaviors in war, as if we are guaranteed to become those we fight. What a poor excuse for a scholar! We've engaged in ethnic cleansing? When?
And he childishly asserts that just war means no civilian deaths, and that apparently should any civilians die during wartime, it cannot be said to be a just war. "Just war" proponents have a goofy idea of justice and why either side might regard their efforts as just. It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight. It's the reasons one fights that determines whether or not it is just. He also runs on the naive assumption that peace is always desired by either side, that negotiated settlement is always desired by either side, and that no war involves a malevolent force with a despotic wackjob at the helm.
Anyway, the piece itself does little to bring more light, though it does indicate the whole book will be painful for it's inanity. We'll see. But again, what Jesus is speaking about is not concerning the perpetrator but rather how we respond to the perp's actions against us.
"Jesus is teaching these people how to take the initiative away from their oppressors and within the situation of that old order, find a new way of being."
Not at all. Jesus is teaching these people (and really, not all of them are poor and/or oppressed by "the man"--His followers were of all types) to love, nothing more, in the face of evil, not for the sake of their own dignity or for how they will be viewed by others, but for the glory of God, to demonstrate agape love which has no concern for the self.
BTW, what's the name of the book?
Marshall...
It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight. It's the reasons one fights that determines whether or not it is just.
And you have demonstrated a poor understanding of both the Just War Theorists and the Just Peace Theorists in one short set of comments.
There are three books:
The one we've been referencing is Engaging The Powers:
http://www.amazon.com/Engaging-Powers-Discernment-Resistance-Domination/dp/080062646X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c
Which is actually the second in a series.
The first, Naming the Powers:
http://www.amazon.com/Naming-Powers-Language-Power-Testament/dp/080061786X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1294758032&sr=8-5
And the third:
http://www.amazon.com/Powers-That-Be-Theology-Millennium/dp/0385487525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294758032&sr=8-1
One can read any of them stand-alone.
Dan wrote, "And you have demonstrated a poor understanding of both the Just War Theorists..."
You're being kind. If someone believes who dies in a war isn't one key part of determining the justness of that war, that person is simply a monster. Such a person, who only cares about the purpose of war would believe that making the world safe for democracy (a worthy aim) by committing genocide, is a just war.
After all, Herod was only securing his power and the stability of the state when he murdered the innocents, so who cares if a few children died?
Art: "We've engaged in ethnic cleansing? When?"
I find it difficult to believe you typed that with any sincerity whatsoever.
Here, Art, are three examples of Americans conducting ethnic cleansing. If these don't satisfy you, I can provide more.
The Trail of Tears.
Wounded Knee.
My Lai.
I can concede the Trail of Tears incident as an example of ethnic cleansing as defined by Wikipedia, which is a widely accepted one. The other two are better described as massive cluster f**ks by military chuckleheads. Basically isolated incidents that don't reflect the general sentiment of the gov't at the time. (Mostly this refers to My Lai) Most of the desires to remove Indians to reservations can also be described as such by definition, but there were original arrangements made initially in good faith that were later ignored. There are mixed opinions as to whether or not there was the intention of ignoring them at the time of a given treaty's signing.
But this is really not much different than defenders of islam who refer to the Crusades to make their point. If you have something more recent than the 1800's, that would be helpful.
It's not that I fail to understand Just War Theory. More accurate is that yokels like you guys don't understand that this country pretty much functions under the common idea of the theory in the first place. Yet, the theory itself is wide open to subjective interpretations on things like how much crap one country has to take before taking military action, what is a proportional response and reasonable chances for success.
Alan says,
"You're being kind."
No Dan is not, and Alan less so as he proceeds with the following nonsense:
"If someone believes who dies in a war isn't one key part of determining the justness of that war, that person is simply a monster."
To suggest without cause that I would support ignoring who dies is hardly the gracious behavior our host demands of his visitors, or so he says. Of course who dies is a concern. And if they are my people, then war against those who took the lives of my people is just. War against anyone who supports them is just.
"Such a person, who only cares about the purpose of war would believe that making the world safe for democracy (a worthy aim) by committing genocide, is a just war."
That you haven't pulled a hammy leaping to such a ridiculous and illogical conclusion is incredible. That you would ever dare condescend to me and not be embarrassed to make such a stupid comment is more so.
My comment regarding what constitutes a just war was based on comments by Wink that imply, in a manner all too common by lefties, that a war is unjust BECAUSE people died.
That people will die in war is not to be ignored and thought irrelevant to the action. But allowing the emotion involved with human death to craft self-endangering policies and theories regarding the decision to war and how to go about it is foolish. Emotion brings a nations leaders to consider war. But it has to stop there and then morph into cold, emotionless deliberation. This is even more true once the decision to war is made. I'm glad I'm not in that position, but I expect that from the leaders of my country and its military.
I do not even want our enemies to suffer war. I certainly do not want their civilian population to suffer war. I absolutely do not want the people and military personnel of my country to suffer war. But once war is begun, the pecking order is simple: Our civilians, our soldiers, the enemy's civilian population, the enemy soldiers and leaders. I'd prefer to weep for the lives of the enemy and their civilians any day of the week over weeping for the lives of our people and soldiers.
As I believe that our leaders are not prone to engage in war lightly, judging the reason for entering into a given war as just will most always be a subjective debate. So too will be the means by which a war is waged and ended.
Sorry for the tangent, but Alan, who not only seems to support the concept of total depravity but seeks to present himself as a blatant example, takes pains to take cheap shots.
But I can get us back to the subject. If I was a perfect example of the lessons Christ intended to impart in His Sermon on the Mount, I would not have responded at all, but would have turned the other cheek for His sake in an attempt to practice agape love. And if Alan was in any way moved, it would only have been a collateral effect, not something intended, in keeping with the meaning of agape love.
The My Lai massacre was not a "clusterf**k", but in fact the natural extension of American military policy in South Vietnam since the strategy of peasant removal to "strategic hamlets", which began in 1961-1962. While created as a way of denying the Viet Cong their natural base within the peasant population, in effect the program was an (unwitting, I'll grant) combination of Stalin's attacks on the Kulaks and a variation on British and German concentration camps. It also radicalized the peasant population, giving to the VC a huge boost, as it was, in essence, the fulfillment of communist propaganda, rather than its refutation.
Rather than remove the populace to concentration camps, then, My Lai (which was not an isolated incident; it only received attention because the participants were horrified at what happened and went public) sought an end to the bureaucratizatio of war-fighting. Kill 'em all. Of a piece with other military strategies, particularly during the Nixon Administration, that raised the violence-quotient and body count (remember, when Lyndon Johnson left office, the death-toll for American service personnel was under 20,000, counting back to the late-Eisenhower years; in the next five years, that number would more than double to over 56,000) with not even a marginal improvement of the overall strategic and political situation. To call this merely the result of murky military command procedures, or some other way of dismissing it, is to betray ignorance of the totality of events in our conflict in Vietnam.
At the end of the day, particularly under President Richard Nixon, our wars in South Vietnam and North Vietnam (two very different conflicts, a point Noam Chomsky in particular has made over and over again) were wars of attrition directed at the indigenous populations. With two million dead Vietnamese, all the various programs from the strategic hamlets to the CIA's use of the Hmong tribes to exacerbate ethnic tensions to the carpet bombing of North Vietnam, in particular the dikes and damns in the north, the destruction of with was deliberate and led to massive famine and starvation in North Vietnam - yeah, I'd call it all ethnic cleansing, and it happened a whole lot later than the 1800's.
You may not like the description I have offered here, Art, but I'm not interested in whether you like it or not. This is, sad to say, the reality that the US was little different fro our worst caricatures of "the enemy". We forget this reality to our peril.
MA babbles, "To suggest without cause that I would support ignoring who dies..."
Though he previously drooled, "It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight."
Your words, moron.
QED.
"...and it happened a whole lot later than the 1800's."
Oh Geoffrey. You know it doesn't matter when My Lai happened. There is a 2 week statute of limitations on human death and suffering. Anything that happened longer ago than that doesn't matter because MA believes that the importance of human lives has an expiration date.
What would you expect from someone who thinks that calling something a clusterf*ck is a reasonable excuse for massive civilian casualties in war? Oh well, at least it wasn't genocide, so it's OK.
Alan,
Were you born this stupid or do you have to work at it? Let's review:
"MA babbles, "To suggest without cause that I would support ignoring who dies..."
Though he previously drooled, "It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight.""
How does the second quote support the inane conclusion of the first? They are entirely separate issues, even if you are incapable of distinguishing this fact. There is death in all wars, or is that news to you? Thus, who dies or how many die isn't what determines the justness of the war in question. If I'm wrong, then no war is ever just and that's even more stupid to say than what you have thus far.
Of course, and this might be too deep for your shallow find-fault-first mode of debate, to regard "war" as just or otherwise is goofy in the first place. What is just or not is the motivation for starting or entering a war.
"...MA believes that the importance of human lives has an expiration date."
More stupidity based on nothing I've said. I'm simply dealing in the here and now in making my points, not suggesting that our country, or the human race, has been flawless throughout history. To reach back hundreds of years indicates the premise being presented is weak. Which it is.
"What would you expect from someone who thinks that calling something a clusterf*ck is a reasonable excuse for massive civilian casualties in war?"
I didn't present it as an excuse for anything, you pathetic twit. I presented it as a more accurate review of the events. There was no official policy of total annihilation of villages by our gov't. How does one defend a population against communist aggression by wiping out the population itself?
You're an incredibly sad individual. I feel sorry for you.
Fellas. Behave.
Geoffrey,
No, I don't like your version of events. With Chomsky as a source, it can't be trustworthy. I prefer sources without agendas. I don't trust that you use any like that. You are indeed the Frack to Alans Frick.
"Fellas. Behave."
Been tryin'.
Art, as I say, I don't really care whether you like it or not. Good luck finding a source "without an agenda". All sources have an agenda. The issue is not the interpretation of the facts, either. One can peruse The Pentagon Papers and find the same conclusions as those presented by more radical critics of the war; on these points, at the very least, they were in agreement. Rather, the history of distortion, in particular by post-Vietnam right-wing apologists for the war (usually those who would never have made the sacrifice to actually go there and fight), elides over uncomfortable facts, ugly realities, and the vast written record that falsifies much of their efforts.
This is, in a way, relevant to the topic. Humility, part and parcel of the Sermon on the Mount, includes the humility in accepting the reality that we are complicit, through our associations and the continuity of history, in all sorts of crimes. We need to be clear enough that they are, what they are, and what steps we can and should take to avoid them in the future. It does no one any good to pretend they didn't exist, or that if we just found some source that made us comfortable with our illusions we could find an argument to counter the reality.
As if it makes me happy to talk about American troops, American soldiers, young American men drafted against their will, committing war crimes.
"How does the second quote support the inane conclusion of the first?"
LOL. They were both your quotes! You can't even get that through your skull? Wow.
My point was clear. But I'll repeat it for you since you're not bright enough to get it the first time: I agree the second quote doesn't support the "inane" conclusion of the first. I also agree that your first conclusion is "inane". But *you wrote both of them*! LOL
And then, after calling the conclusion of the first quote "inane", you go on to defend it.
"Thus, who dies or how many die isn't what determines the justness of the war in question"
Yes it does. It is one of a number of aspects that determines whether a particular war fits the "Just War" standard. One of the precepts of just war theory is that one tries to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. To do otherwise is not just. Also, there needs to be proportionality. To do otherwise is unjust.
Furthermore, agreements such as the Geneva convention stipulate that hospitals and the wounded should not be targeted.
All of these (and more) stipulate precisely how/when/where/why to place limits on who is targeted in a war. A war in which killing is indiscriminate, in which the military targets civilians, in which the killing and destruction is not proportional is not just.
Since you can't keep track of what you write, I'll repeat it: "Thus, who dies or how many die isn't what determines the justness of the war in question"
So if we were to wage a war in which we targeted only civilians, particularly farmers, in an effort to starve out our enemy's military, assuming the cause was just, according to you, that would be a "just war." That's what YOU have said. Yes, that is "inane", but you defend it anyway.
That's your monstrous opinion. It does not, however, fall anywhere near the actual definition of "just war" as the term has traditionally been used.
Alan,
Continue your ungracious ad hominem attacks all you like. It doesn't help your case. Nor does creating a Dan-like comparison that in no way reflects the meaning of my words. Targeting civilians? Yeah, I said that. Lie much?
But let's go over this again:
The numbers of dead do not determine the justness of a given war. They do not. How can you even dare put a number on it? And what number would that be that the world has agreed is that which determines whether or not the war was just? What amount of dead, Alan? Let's have a number.
For me, I would prefer no dead, zero dead, everyone walking and talking with all their limbs attached and their psyche intact. That's what I'd prefer. But here's a little newsflash for ya. People die in war. There's a million reasons why any given number die in any given war. That's true even if BOTH sides seek to limit civilian and military casualties. If a war is to be fought, people are going to die.
"A war in which killing is indiscriminate, in which the military targets civilians, in which the killing and destruction is not proportional is not just."
All of which is irrelevant to the premise of using numbers of dead to determine the justness of a war. A war in which the killing is specific, only military personnel when it can't be avoided, & totally proportional leaning toward greater risk to ourselves can still result in tens of thousands killed. Now what, bright eyes? How many dead keeps it in the range of "just"?
"One of the precepts of just war theory is that one tries to limit civilian casualties as much as possible."
No. Really? That's "just war" theory or the way we seek to wage war anyway? But here's yet another news flash: we cannot guarantee the lives of civilians because we cannot guarantee the morality of our enemies. Civilians are likely to die in any given war. There can be great numbers of them, none of which were targeted by us. What number of civilian casualties determines the justness of a given war? What's the number? I'd prefer none die. I'd wager that every soldier shipping out feels the same way.
Just war theory isn't about any given war anyway. It's about the participants of the war and how they go about waging war. This is obvious to the both of us. But it seems you want to impose intention based on the outcomes of wars determined by the numbers of deaths. Can't do it.
But just so you can pretend I'm evil, I'll tell you the extreme of my position. It is just to do whatever it takes to protect my people, even if it turns out that I need to wipe out their people. I would not sacrifice my civilians just to spare theirs if all other options were exhausted. Notice: there would be no other way to avoid it in order to spare my people. Could a war get to that point? Who knows. But that still falls within the parameters of "just".
Geoffrey,
"Rather, the history of distortion..."
is rather subjective, it seems. Apparently, it is the right-wing who distorts history and the lefties are the Christ-like honest arbiters of American military history. I've got it now. Thanks.
In a pig's eye.
Art, I am talking historians. It isn't historians who have made all sorts of hay making up all sorts of stuff about Vietnam, our treatment of the native populations, slaves, women, and so on. It is historians, regardless of their personal ideology. Politicians have vested interests in making American history squeaky clean.
On September 11, 2001, former Defense Secretary and NATO commander Alexander Haig said that America "lost its innocence" that day. It was a marvelously humorous moment in the midst of tragedy; whatever else one can say about the events that horrible day, that was really quite stupid.
Honesty in addressing the realities of our history is not a political thing, or ideological. It is, in fact, a sign of maturity as citizens. How can we be good Americans if we refuse to acknowledge that our country has been less than noble, indeed downright vicious?
You're being subjective in your depiction of what constitutes real history. THAT is what I dispute, that you insist the historians upon which you rely are totally objective in their reportage. You'd be more honest if you were to say that "some" historians present evidence that they say indicates evil intent on the part of our leaders. I insist that there's no proof that My Lai was typical or proof of anything more than an isolated incident. If you wish to posit it wasn't the only incident of its kind, that's more honest to say as well, or at least more reasonable. If you'd rather stand with John Kerry and indict the entire military and their conduct throughout the entirety of the Viet Nam conflict, well, I wouldn't be surprised.
We are so far off topic here, it is really quite ridiculous. I honestly cannot respond to your last comment, Art, because it is meaningless. "Being subjective"? Do you mean I am relying only on sources that agree with my preconceptions? Well, since I read The Pentagon Papers, Neal Sheehan's works, and the History of Vietnam that came out in the early 1980's, three disparate works from three very different sources, and came to the conclusion - which I had not formed because, being 19 at the time I read them I had none - that Vietnam was a horrid mistake, executed very, very badly, involving the US in war crimes and crimes against humanity based on the evidence, your claim is wrong.
As for "standing with John Kerry", as he volunteered for that war, and came home to work for ending it, I suppose I do. Do I "indict" the American military? In some way, sure. More than the military, it was civilian commanders and policy makers, from the Truman Administration through the Nixon Administration, that are far more culpable. They created the background, the whole set of ideas and notions, wrong from start to finish, rooted in ignorance of Vietnamese history and culture as well as ridiculously reductive in its approach to the potential threat from a communist Vietnam, that set the stage for Kennedy and Nixon to send American money, material, and military personnel on that ultimately frustrating, ridiculous, stupid, criminal war.
This isn't just some random conclusion I reached because I'm some America-hating liberal. Journalists, policy-makers, senior military commanders, historians, politicians - at the time and since - have understood that entire episode as error piled upon tragedy upon stupidity upon crime. I "side" with people who were there and came away horrified by their experience. I "side" with people who know more of the facts, know more of the reality, than I ever will, and have reached those conclusions independently of me.
In other words, it isn't "subjective" and it isn't "my conclusion" or "my view" that you seem to be taking to task. I am agreeing with those who have studied and lived this entire episode; based on their conclusions, and the vast preponderance of the evidence they present to support their conclusions, I agree with them. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I am willing to take a look at it, but it has to be understood that my fallback position isn't about indicting the military or hating the US or anything as silly or shallow or false as that. My fallback position is this - folks who know far more than you or I ever will have reached the conclusions I repeated here. I trust them. Not because they're liberal, but because they present a wealth of evidence. Just one example - the Tonkin Gulf incident that presented a prima facie case for the Johnson Administration to present to Congress for an authorization to send 100,00 troops in the early spring of 1965 was presented as a fait accompli by war planners in the Pentagon as much as a year before. In other words, it never happened. I didn't make this up. It's right there in The Pentagon Papers.
It would take a bit of time to review such things to respond to such things. However, I still don't see, even war crimes that may have been committed by our people, as proof of "ethnic cleansing" in Vietnam. It doesn't make sense to make such an accusation (which is what brought all this up) to say that we were bent on eradicating the very people we were helping. For what possible reason would we do this? To put it more directly, the term does not apply to even My Lai, much less our involvement in Vietnam. THAT was my initial point. Sorry if I wasn't more clear when I should know by now how important it is for me to be so.
"But it seems you want to impose intention based on the outcomes of wars determined by the numbers of deaths. "
No, I don't.
It isn't like Just War theory is new. It's been around since Augustine and then Aquinas. Read them and get back to me as I haven't said anything different from what they (and those who followed them) have said.
But given that, as I have clearly showed, you can't go 3 sentences without contradicting yourself and then you don't even know when you've done it in spite of the evidence in your own words, I don't give you any chance of understanding what I have said.
On ethnic cleansing in Vietnam: During the Tet Offensive of 1968, in Ben Tre, the capital of the province of the same name, Peter Arnett quoted an American army major as saying, "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' "
That bit of absurdity is ethnic cleansing.
Again, I don't make this stuff up, Art. Whether you want to believe it or not isn't really here nor there to me. What does bother me is the way you continue to act as if the things I'm saying here are unique to me, or some warp, twisted notion of what's real and what isn't.
Really, Alan. Then I would imagine you have some ready link or quote that shows someone saying that the judgment of a given ward was based on the final numbers of dead. I'll be standing by to review that.
I've been very consistent in what I've been saying all along. To clarify it for your scientific mind, to say that the numbers of dead do not determine the justness of a given war does not mean I ignore or have no feeling regarding those who die. That's complete stupidity on your part to so eagerly jump to such an inane conclusion. When you think you can prove I've contradicted myself, let me know.
Geoffrey,
I'd be more interested in the rest of the interview than a snippet that you can pretend indicates "ethnic cleansing". Wike presented this definition:
"Ethnic cleansing "is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)".
The major's quote does not indicate ethnic cleansing by THIS definition. Further, if we were to force another ethnic group, in fact, let's go ethnic AND religious, and say that we were removing by force an Arab muslim population from a geographical area (because they didn't want to leave) because they were in danger of nuclear attack, would that be ethnic cleansing? Seems to me, simply removing a people, even by violent force, is not enough to make the charge. Seems to me that there must be some malevolent intent on the part of the "cleansers". Otherwise, the term can only carry a benign meaning, which it usually doesn't.
As to whether or not you "make this stuff up", I've not leveled that charge. My concern is you ability to understand what you read, your ability to fathom the underlying meaning. That's not something I'd consider your strong suit. Thus, to the extent that I'm able to expend time and effort in doing so, I'll need to read what you read to make a determination as to whether you've actually properly understood.
"Then I would imagine you have some ready link or quote that shows someone saying that the judgment of a given ward was based on the final numbers of dead."
No, since that isn't what I said, nor what they said. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Anyway, as I have already said, if you want more information on Just War theory you can start with Augustine and move to Aquinas, and go from there.
"When you think you can prove I've contradicted myself, let me know."
Already did, awww, poor MA, did your 4 little neurons forget that already? Here's a review...
MA babbles, "To suggest without cause that I would support ignoring who dies..."
Though he previously drooled, "It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight."
QED.
Still waiting for you to show how this statement:
"It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight."
means that I
"...support ignoring who dies..."
The first quote is about how one determines the justness of war...
Oh, what's the point? You don't care about anything other than demonizing those who don't accept your corrupt lifestyle, so anything else they say is also indicted. Me and four little neurons haven't forgotten anything. The five of us are still waiting for substantive commentary from you, such as an answer to the question above. We wait in vain.
LOL. You don't even understand basic time and what comes before or after. I have clearly overestimated your mental skills.
"demonizing those who don't accept your corrupt lifestyle"
I've not mentioned anything about my corrupt lifestyle, your corrupt lifestyle, or anyone else's corrupt lifestyle (...and speaking of demonization.)
It is you who obsess about my "corrupt" "lifestyle". It is you who cannot have a conversation without discussing it. It is just more of your prurient fantasies and Church Lady obsessions that you cannot have a conversation wholly unrelated to the topic of sexual orientation without the desperate need to bring it up anyway.
(Not to mention your continued arrogant egotism which makes you believe I'd care about your view of my "corrupt" "lifestyle". In all honesty, one thing I have learned from you MA, is that if you're against it, it's probably just fine with God. I think most people could live quite well by observing what you say and doing exactly the opposite.)
Seriously, there are probably other websites you can go to to obsess about gay men. Though, no doubt, you already know that.
Don't flatter yourself, sparky. What other possible reason could you have for giving me crap as you do? I hold positions of which you do not agree. Thus, you assume license to act like you do. But hey, I understand. You can't defend your statement that I support ignoring who dies, so you're scrambling. Don't bother. I'm beyond bored with you.
"I'm beyond bored with you."
We all should be so lucky, eh Dan?
"But hey, I understand. You can't defend your statement that I support ignoring who dies"
Asked and answered. Several times now. That you can't admit you were wrong is your problem, not mine.
Where have you answered it? "QED" means nothing if you haven't actually answered the question. Feel free to copy and paste, but I hold no hope that you'll produce anything substantial. It's an idiotic and unsupportable accusation that is not based on ANYTHING that I've said. C'mon. You posture yourself as a bright boy. This should be an easy task.
"I hold no hope that you'll produce anything substantial."
Indeed. I've copy-and-pasted your remarks several times now. That you find your own remarks insubstantial show that you may have at least one still-functioning neuron in that lump on top of your shoulders.
eg: MA drooled, "It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight."
My response was, "If someone believes who dies in a war isn't one key part of determining the justness of that war, that person is simply a monster."
I'm right. You're wrong. Period. Yes, it is one of several factors that determines whether or not a war is just according to traditional Just War theory.
It won't satisfy you, of course to quote your own words of course. You're not even clever enough to remember what I actually said originally, nor what you said originally for that matter. You've now lied about what I actually said about 20 times now. First saying my response to your claim had something to do with numbers, then saying some other BS.
Try to keep up, moron.
You're right, that was easy. But showing you to be a moron is easy when you do the work for me.
Alan, please, attack his ideas as foolish or silly or ignorant all you wish, but no more "moron" sort of name-calling. It diminishes your otherwise fine, rational points and I just don't want to see that here.
Just point out the lameness of an argument and let it go at that.
Okay?
Thanks for the token gesture, Dan. Now you can say you hold all to your rules. Good for you.
Alan, you poor boy,
"eg: MA drooled, "It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight."
My response was, "If someone believes who dies in a war isn't one key part of determining the justness of that war, that person is simply a monster.""
That wasn't what was at issue. You claim my statement above, you know, the one I "drooled" indicated that I support ignoring who dies. THAT'S what I had hoped you'd explain. Now you're changing the subject.
Still, it isn't a "key" part of determining what is just, because one cannot dictate the numbers of dead. One can only do one's best to keep the number low or to kill as many as possible. And if we're only dealing in the lives of enemy combatants, the number of those either side must kill is whatever number compels one side or the other to quit the fight. How many civilians die along the way are also beyond our ability to definitively predict or prevent. So how do "numbers of dead" become a key factor in determining justness when one has absolutely no control over it?
"Now you're changing the subject."
No. I'm not. You've been arguing about BS for the last several dozen comments because you don't read, can't understand, and don't follow simple discussions. And I know you can't keep up because you immediately respond with this crap:
"Still, it isn't a "key" part of determining what is just, because one cannot dictate the numbers of dead"
in which, yet again, you idiotically change the subject back to "numbers" or some such BS that you're obsessed about now, which I never, ever mentioned or discussed. (TIP: If you do a word search of this page, as I just did, you can prove to yourself that I never said, nor argued, nor did I contend that you argued, that numbers of dead mattered. That is your fantasy, not mine.)
Who dies in a war, (ie. specifically targeting civilians instead of armies, etc.) is for the 100th time absolutely part of Just War theory. That's what I've said, that's what I've argued. Look. It. Up. You. Lazy. M-r-n.
Seriously, MA, in all honesty, how difficult is it to follow any of this? Are you really that incapable of following a simple conversation when someone provides direct quotes of your words? Do the scroll bars on your browser not work so you can remind yourself of what has been said?
Of course, we know that what has been said not even really matter to you.
Now please, go back to ranting about numbers of dead or whatever BS you're making up now.
BTW, I am not your "boy" no matter how much you fantasize about it, geezer. Stop hitting on me. That you're a creepy old perv is not something you need to advertise. We already know.
"BTW, I am not your "boy" no matter how much you fantasize about it, geezer. Stop hitting on me."
Again you flatter yourself (I guess you must feel someone has to). I never called you "my boy". If I did, I'll need to break my own fingers. I can't imagine you being "my" anything (certainly not my intellectual better). I believe I said, "Alan, you poor boy". You're too childish to justify "you poor man". Feel free to call my any foul name if it makes you feel better. You seem to need it.
As to the discussion, I'm well aware of its path. It went something like this:
I said (referring to Wink),
"And he childishly asserts that just war means no civilian deaths, and that apparently should any civilians die during wartime, it cannot be said to be a just war. "Just war" proponents have a goofy idea of justice and why either side might regard their efforts as just. It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight. It's the reasons one fights that determines whether or not it is just."
To which you responded with this arrogantly stupid remark,
"If someone believes who dies in a war isn't one key part of determining the justness of that war, that person is simply a monster. Such a person, who only cares about the purpose of war would believe that making the world safe for democracy (a worthy aim) by committing genocide, is a just war."
After I clarified my position, you rudely followed with,
"MA babbles, "To suggest without cause that I would support ignoring who dies..."
Though he previously drooled, "It isn't who dies in a war that determines the justness of the fight.""
So I reprinted the full comment of mine as it reads here,
"To suggest without cause that I would support ignoring who dies is hardly the gracious behavior our host demands of his visitors, or so he says. Of course who dies is a concern. And if they are my people, then war against those who took the lives of my people is just."
But I see the problem (I mean with your confusion of this discussion, not with you specifically, as that would take us on another tangent and be quite lengthy). You have taken to assuming I'm relating "Just War Theory". I'm not. I'm speaking of what determines whether or not a war is just. "Just War Theory" is largely crap as it relies on too many irrelevancies in how it determines whether or not a war is just. And no, poor boy, that people die is not irrelevant. Counting how many people die and who they are is irrelevant.
If war breaks out near your neighborhood and in the midst of you doing whatever it is you do, a rocket blows you up, that would indeed be unfortunate and tragic (assuming whatever it is you do is civilian stuff---perverse or not). It would be even more tragic if the rocket was one of ours ("ours" being "the good guys"). But your death, as tragic as it would be does not have anything to do with whether or not the war itself is just (war itself cannot be judged as just or unjust). We can only judge the reason why we are fighting in the first place. It is the reason that counts and damage and casualties are unfortunate consequences of our decision to engage. If the consequences of NOT fighting are presumed or judged to be worse than the consequences of fighting, then the cause is just and so is the war. (This is a generality. Don't let it get your panties in a bunch.) And just to be clear, this comes after all other options short of war are exhausted.
""Just War Theory" is largely crap"
Ah, I see. I was confused because I thought you were arguing ethics. I should have known that nothing moral or ethical would come from you.
My mistake is always assuming better of people than they usually deserve. You continually prove just how wrong that is.
I should have realized you spout nothing but amoral situational ethics. The ends justify the means. I'm sure you've penciled that notion somewhere in the margin of your Bible, since nothing like it appears anywhere therein.
(Oh, and your summary of the conversation missed the 50 or so comments where you went off on all sorts of BS tangents about numbers and blah, blah, blah. More revisionism. But the ends justify the means, eh?)
BTW, good to see that at least you've gone from hitting on me to fantasizing about my death. From you, that's a step in the right direction, in my opinion.
"Ah, I see. I was confused because I thought you were arguing ethics. I should have known that nothing moral or ethical would come from you."
I was arguing ethics, but ethics and morality are something with which you are not properly in tune, so I understand your confusion. That's why I try so hard to clarify for your sorry ass.
"I should have known that nothing moral or ethical would come from you."
Why? Nothing BUT morals and ethics (aside from some snark) comes out of me. I get them from this book called "the Bible". Give it a read sometime.
"My mistake is always assuming better of people than they usually deserve."
I'm sorry. I don't recall you ever doing that in my case. I may have missed it amongst all those assumptions by you of evil on my part. That'll throw me every time.
"I should have realized you spout nothing but amoral situational ethics."
All ethics are situational. And mine are all based on sound morality. I get them from this book called "the Bible". Give it a read sometime.
"The ends justify the means. I'm sure you've penciled that notion somewhere in the margin of your Bible, since nothing like it appears anywhere therein."
Right next to 1 Sam 16:7. Actually, this verse suggests that our intentions are what is important. So the reality is not the ends, but the beginnings, or the cause the provoked one to engage in the fight. The ends are simply the ends and we strive to prevent their being too tragic. You assume bad intentions, supported by your bringing up the targeting of civilians. Yet, one cannot assume that targeting of civilians might not regretfully be necessary if the alternative means the deaths of our own civilians. Those like yourself whose only wish is to demonize their opponents would pretend such statements exist in a vacuum, never asking how such a thing could be considered a morally correct choice. You refuse to consider that such may be the right choice in a given situation. You only insist on posturing yourselves as holier than thou (especially when "thou" is one like me) as if you'd even have the spine to objectively deal with such a situation on any level, much less make the hard choices.
No. You just take the easy way out and say, "Civilians died, so it's immoral and unjust." Never mind how many die as a result of your inaction.
"(Oh, and your summary of the conversation missed the 50 or so comments where you went off on all sorts of BS tangents about numbers and blah, blah, blah. More revisionism. But the ends justify the means, eh?)"
Liar. I went nowhere that your smarmy and nonsensical statements didn't bid me follow. I defend myself against your constant idiocy and then you blame me for changing the subject?
"BTW, good to see that at least you've gone from hitting on me to fantasizing about my death."
You're one stupid boy. IF I was to "hit on" you, it would only be in the most literal sense in the context of a mutually agreed upon contest. I doubt I would need to hit you to repel a real attempt by you to attack me. And if you were honest, or intelligent, or perhaps a bit of both, you would obviously know that using you in my example was not to envision you dead, but to demonstrate that even with regard to the death of a low class bottom feeder like yourself, your death would still be tragic, but not indicative of whether or not the war which resulted in that death was just or not.
Now, in another thread, you accused me of trying to claim victories in these blog discussions. But it seems pretty obvious that it is you who is trying to "best" me. Don't waste yourself but instead practice a bit of that grace of which Dan demands so often.
Yay! 100 comments!!
Post a Comment