Miss USA says to love the terrorists..

[aikido7]

But you are talking about specific practical responses to specific instances of aggression. Ideology can't address that, because ideology is based on an assumption of universal goals and principals.

The goal is not to respond to violence with violence. The principal is that violence begets more violence, which is why the goal is to avoid it. Unfortunately, this tells us nothing about what to do in a specific instance.

Nonviolence works.

I have seen it happen in its "hidden history" which we are almost never exposed to.

And I see it working now around the world and--more importantly--in my own life and in the ministry of Jesus.

There are almost an infinite number of ways to respond to conflict besides giving in passively and fighting back aggressively. I cannot always say what those nonviolent responses will be, but I definitely know what they are not:

They are not giving in and they are not fighting back.

 

[PureX]

Nonviolence works.

I have seen it happen in its "hidden history" which we are almost never exposed to.

And I see it working now around the world and--more importantly--in my own life and in the ministry of Jesus.

There are almost an infinite number of ways to respond to conflict besides giving in passively and fighting back aggressively. I cannot always say what those nonviolent responses will be, but I definitely know what they are not:

They are not giving in and they are not fighting back.

"Giving in" is a relative term, here. Is running away giving in? Is shouting and calling attention to the abuse giving in? Is forgiving the trespasser giving in?

"Giving in" wasn't my point. My point was that non-violent responses to the threat of violence doesn't always work. Sometimes, often, even, we will be met with violence in the specific instance, anyway. And this is why it's very difficult for most people to accept the ideal of non-violence in the face of aggression and abuse.

The truth is that it doesn't work all the time, in every instance, for every person. I think it does work, collectively, even when it doesn't work specifically. But that requires more faith and sacrifice than most people are willing to give. Yet this is what Jesus taught, like it or not. And even when we can't live up to it, we shouldn't be denying it so as to excuse ourselves for our violent responses. Which is commonplace among religious Christians, and epidemic among conservative Christians.

 

[rainee]

This Charming Manc, aikido7, Purex,

This is a difficult problem to address if we pile everything into one mountain instead of looking at the differences you are all bringing up...

The KKK goes out at midnight looking for who they will string up.

Purex is as white as a sheet already so he doesn't need to hide - which is non violent, nor does he need to be prepared to fight off any attacks - which would be a violent response.

But Aikido7 is ethnic looking. What is Aikido7 to do? Be nonviolent is the stated answer if I'm reading the posts correctly. And I'm still not sure what TCM would do in the face of this.

Well I'm white. And unlike some who did in the past gather and hide their black employees out away on nights the KKK was supposed to ride - unlike those people I am across the sea from where a group like the KKK is trying to take over entire areas of people. They doing horrific terrible CRIMES

They are not my personal enemy. And they are not a government.

Yet one group wants to glorify them with religion and another wants
to justify them with political rhetoric?


And y'all want to leave them alone because you are Christians and you should love and turn the other cheek?

This is not your cheek, do you not love their victims?

They are Criminals, are they not worthy of death?

 

[PureX]

They are Criminals, are they not worthy of death?

Criminality is a human judgment. But human judgments are not divine judgment. So that every time we judge and condemn a fellow human for their beliefs and behaviors, they and theirs don't accept it. And they will in turn judge and condemn us for our judgment and condemnation of them. Thus violence begets more violence. Judgment begets more judgment. And condemnation begets more condemnation.

We condemn the klansmen for violent racism and they condemn us for being traitors to our own race. We seek to punish them for their violent acts and they retaliate with violence against us. On and on it goes, throughout human history.

Then Jesus came along and told us and showed us another way. The way of non-judgment, and non-violence. The way of seeing all of us as being guilty, and all of us needing forgiveness. And he promised that if we would accept this challenge, that in the end love and peace would prevail. But to get there, we may have to give up our very lives. Just as he did.

Now, we can choose to believe Jesus or not. That's up to each of us. But what we shouldn't do is refuse his challenge and then pretend he didn't pose it. Just so we can call ourselves Christians while behaving just like everyone else: responding to violence with violence, hate with hate, and responding to sin with more sin.

 

[The Barbarian]

Purex nailed it. Jesus showed us the way out of the cycle of violence. Only a few of us, like St. Francis, Ghandi, MLK, and others actually have managed to emulate His message.

Most of us can only aspire to it. Or turn our backs on what He said, entirely.

 

[Desert Reign]

Now, we can choose to believe Jesus or not. That's up to each of us. But what we shouldn't do is refuse his challenge and then pretend he didn't pose it. Just so we can call ourselves Christians while behaving just like everyone else: responding to violence with violence, hate with hate, and responding to sin with more sin.

Here, I think you are confusing terms. I think Rainee had it better.

Taking revenge is being violent. Killing innocent people just because they come from the same village, or gang or country or religion or whatever, because their gang, village, religion, etc. did it to you, is being violent.
But defending yourself against violent people or taking preemptive actions against threats is not being violent, nor is it sinning, nor is it being hateful. Here, you are imposing false guilt and this is what it takes to justify your suicidal ethical philosophy.

 

[The Barbarian]

Defending yourself is not a sin. It's just that there's a better way. And no, I'm not good enough to do that, much of the time.

Few of us are that Christlike.

We have a right to live, and if we have to resort to the sword to live, we aren't sinning.

But the cycle of violence goes on thereby.

 

[bybee]

Defending yourself is not a sin. It's just that there's a better way. And no, I'm not good enough to do that, much of the time.

Few of us are that Christlike.

We have a right to live, and if we have to resort to the sword to live, we aren't sinning.

But the cycle of violence goes on thereby.

So! the options are: Be non-violent and die, or, defend yourself and live? If one does not initiate the violence one has not initiated a cycle.

 

[Desert Reign]

Defending yourself is not a sin.

And presumably you would accept also that defending yourself is not hatred and not violence?

And does this mean that you are distancing yourself from what Purex stated, in response to which you only a short while ago said 'Purex nailed it'? This seems a very quick change of mind on your part. Is that all it takes?

It's just that there's a better way. And no, I'm not good enough to do that, much of the time.

Few of us are that Christlike.

Are you making a general point here? It sounds rather that you cannot make a general point because there is no justification for it. But you still want to wash your dirty linen and flagellate yourself. It sounds like you are saying that other people should be better but so long as you admit that you aren't then you don't have to be. A bit like people who park in prohibited places and think that by putting on their warning lights it gives them a valid excuse?

We have a right to live, and if we have to resort to the sword to live, we aren't sinning.

But the cycle of violence goes on thereby.

But if you agree that self-defence is not being violent then the cycle of violence has indeed stopped. How can you say in the same post that self defence is not sin and then say that it is still violence???

Pardon me, I don't really know you. It is nothing personal. I am just completely confused at how you can say this. It really makes me think that you are just plain lying. And that you want to outwardly agree with me that self-defence is not sin, is not violence and is not hatred, as I said in my earlier post for the simple reason that what I just said is self evident and irrefutable and you would look like a really evil person if you tried to refute it. But because you don't actually believe it and prefer (for whatever reason) to maintain your position that inaction is somehow better or more holy than self-defence, you then go on to reassert your same position in different words, talking about a cycle of violence. Forgive me, I just don't get it. Anyone else and I would have said that they were out and out deceivers. But I am sure you could offer a better explanation. Please?

 

[PureX]

Defending yourself is not a sin. It's just that there's a better way. And no, I'm not good enough to do that, much of the time.

Few of us are that Christlike.

We have a right to live, and if we have to resort to the sword to live, we aren't sinning.

But the cycle of violence goes on thereby.

The sin isn't the defense, it's in the judgment and condemnation and malice that goes with it. It's the misrepresentation of Christ, and our willingness and desire to play God, ourselves. How many of us can just defend ourselves without also giving into these other motivations?

 

[THall]

Purex nailed it. Jesus showed us the way out of the cycle of violence. Only a few of us, like St. Francis, Ghandi, MLK, and others actually have managed to emulate His message.

Most of us can only aspire to it. Or turn our backs on what He said, entirely.

MLK was a promiscuous, plagiarist punk.

How ironic that you would mention his name
in the same sentence as the others. Your lack
of education is showing.

 

[Levolor]

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-beauty/news/miss-usa-sparks-twitter-storm-with-message-to-terrorists-2015261#channel=f1a59375fa3a44f&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usmagazine.com


Miss USA speaks of love, etc, toward terrorists

Yeh, sure, we should love them. We should try to convert them b4 we just bomb the crud out of them.

Maybe we should drop billy Graham like religioius tracts down on them... and say Convert or die!

yeh, i know, we don't believe in forcing our religion on anyone, but they believe in forcing their lack of religion on us... their Neanderthal-ness...

not all is fair in love and war, but a lot of stuff is

And when they get taken to Gitmo, they should NOT be given a Koran!!

PLEASE

They should be allowed to have only ONE thing for reading material: the Bible..

People who read the bible change for the better

those who never do, never do...

and if they want to go back to Jihad after reading the bible...

we have no choice but to kill them..or be killed... but then, that is sometimes the case regardless..




+++

Rather than provide reading material, which could be ignored. I think it would be better to have the bible read out loud to them.

Also, have sermons piped in. Oh! and spiritual music, too!

 

[Town Heretic]

MLK was a promiscuous, plagiarist punk.

What is it with you and attacking the dead?

King risked and ultimately gave his life advancing a just cause by non violent civil disobedience. Whatever his flaws that's a remarkable personal conviction coupled with an equal measure of courage in the service of an absolute good.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

 

[republicanchick]

Rather than provide reading material, which could be ignored. I think it would be better to have the bible read out loud to them.

Also, have sermons piped in. Oh! and spiritual music, too!

They'd go berzerk

at least at first... Then when the truth began to set in...


Also, we should have priests come in to exorcize them..



++

 

[republicanchick]

What is it with you and attacking the dead?

King risked and ultimately gave his life advancing a just cause by non violent civil disobedience. Whatever his flaws that's a remarkable personal conviction coupled with an equal measure of courage in the service of an absolute good.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

you libs always makes saints out of people who are not saints... except according to your own canonization criteria, so called.

if someone has perverted sex, s/he is a prime candidate for sainthood to you libs..

whereas those who are faithful to their spouses (Rubio, Reagan... etc), you vilify.

+++

 

[Desert Reign]

you libs always makes saints out of people who are not saints... except according to your own canonization criteria, so called.

if someone has perverted sex, s/he is a prime candidate for sainthood to you libs..

whereas those who are faithful to their spouses (Rubio, Reagan... etc), you vilify.

+++

I think you are being harsh on him. We are none of us perfect but some of us don't let that get in the way of progress.

 

[republicanchick]

I think you are being harsh on him. We are none of us perfect but some of us don't let that get in the way of progress.

but you don't say I am wrong

ok

 

[aikido7]

you libs always makes saints out of people who are not saints... except according to your own canonization criteria, so called.

if someone has perverted sex, s/he is a prime candidate for sainthood to you libs..

whereas those who are faithful to their spouses (Rubio, Reagan... etc), you vilify.

+++

Jesus taught us to love our enemies.

He either said it or he didn't.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[republicanchick]

God will deal with the terrorists. It is not the job of Christians to fight the world's battles.

yeh, just like God intervened to saave the JOrdanian?

PLEASE!

God has instructed US to care for one another.

"Love others as you love yourself"

you wouldn't let yourself or your family get killed, so don't let others get murdered either

 

[aikido7]

yeh, just like God intervened to saave the JOrdanian?

PLEASE!

God has instructed US to care for one another.

"Love others as you love yourself"

you wouldn't let yourself or your family get killed, so don't let others get murdered either

Jesus' Parable of the Good Samaritan was much more than simply "How to be a good neighbor."

The Samaritans were unclean. Their temple was not in Jeruslem but on Mount Gerizim. They were seen as the illegitimate heirs to Israel.

To imagine a Samaritan as "good" made about as much sense to Jesus' listeners as "Love your enemies."

To preserve the original bite of the original parable, it might have been something like the Parable of the Homo Terrorist with AIDs or the Parable of the Sweatly Black Lesbian.

God's love can come from unexpected places.