Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Mystical Realms . . .

Expand Messages
  • John D Rateliff
    ... I m afraid I ve never read Lewis s essay ( Why I Am Not a Pacifist ), though I m now going to search out a copy so I can read his argument for myself. I ve
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
      > Do you really think _that_ is either CSL's or Aquinas's claim? (I.e.,
      > that "Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about"?) Or could
      > it perhaps be that CSL and Aquinas don't think that what is right and
      > admirable when chosen as a personal response to personal threat, is
      > either right or admirable when it comes to defending _others_ from
      > threats? (Which, you know, is pretty much the _purpose_ of
      > government.) In other words, do you think Jesus enjoins us not to
      > defend others? If so, do you think that Jesus meant that governments
      > should not defend their citizens?

      I'm afraid I've never read Lewis's essay ("Why I Am Not a Pacifist'),
      though I'm now going to search out a copy so I can read his argument
      for myself. I've also not read Aquinas, and don't know where within
      his voluminous works he discusses this topic, nor the details of how
      he reaches his conclusion.
      With that caveat, it's right and admirable to defend others from
      harm (especially by offering yourself in place of another). I am
      dubious that this is 'the purpose of government' (i.e., that
      governments arose from such benign and altruistic motives). The
      example of Peter, who is rebuked for meeting violence with violence
      in order to protect an innocent man from torture and death, seems
      pretty emphatic that, so far as the gospel is concerned, there is no
      'good violence'. Obviously, the majority of Christians have disagreed
      with this interpretation, so Lewis is firmly in the majority here.

      --JDR
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... I didn t say that governments arose for this purpose (though many did, at least in part). I said this _is_ (pretty much) the purpose of government:
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:44 AM, John D Rateliff wrote:
        > I am dubious that this is 'the purpose of government' (i.e., that
        > governments arose from such benign and altruistic motives).
        >

        I didn't say that governments "arose" for this purpose (though many
        did, at least in part). I said this _is_ (pretty much) the purpose of
        government: present tense, and in the specific context of this
        discussion concerning CSL and Aquinas. It has certainly been the
        primary purpose of esp. democratic governments. Tolkien also saw it as
        a primary purpose of (legitimate) monarchies.

        > The example of Peter, who is rebuked for meeting violence with
        > violence in order to protect an innocent man from torture and death,
        >

        Is that all Jesus was? Is that all Peter was doing here? Peter was
        earlier, and more forcefully, rebuked for simply urging Jesus not to
        see through his mission of dying for our sins. ("Get thee behind me,
        Satan!") Isn't that what Peter was doing here, too?

        > seems pretty emphatic that, so far as the gospel is concerned, there
        > is no 'good violence'.
        >

        Have you read Revelations? In light of which, it is well to remember
        that Jesus also said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a
        sword". Now, one can argue that Jesus was not speaking of a literal
        sword (I would make the same argument) but no matter how you interpret
        it, it is clear that Jesus's message was not simply one of "peace".

        Carl
      • John D Rateliff
        Hi Carl Afraid I ll have to wait to respond until I have a chance to find and read CSL s piece, or else we ll drift entirely off-topic. --JDR
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Carl
          Afraid I'll have to wait to respond until I have a chance to find and
          read CSL's piece, or else we'll drift entirely off-topic.
          --JDR


          On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:52 AM, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
          > I didn't say that governments "arose" for this purpose (though many
          > did, at least in part). I said this _is_ (pretty much) the purpose of
          > government: present tense, and in the specific context of this
          > discussion concerning CSL and Aquinas. It has certainly been the
          > primary purpose of esp. democratic governments. Tolkien also saw it as
          > a primary purpose of (legitimate) monarchies.

          > Is that all Jesus was? Is that all Peter was doing here? Peter was
          > earlier, and more forcefully, rebuked for simply urging Jesus not to
          > see through his mission of dying for our sins. ("Get thee behind me,
          > Satan!") Isn't that what Peter was doing here, too?

          > Have you read Revelations? In light of which, it is well to remember
          > that Jesus also said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a
          > sword". Now, one can argue that Jesus was not speaking of a literal
          > sword (I would make the same argument) but no matter how you interpret
          > it, it is clear that Jesus's message was not simply one of "peace".
        • Lynn Maudlin
          I think you re falling into the other extreme, John-- Yes, Jesus told Peter that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword - but He also told them But
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I think you're falling into the other extreme, John-- Yes, Jesus told
            Peter that 'he who lives by the sword will die by the sword' - but He
            also told them "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along,
            likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and
            buy one." (Luke 22:36)

            The 'turn the other cheek' instruction is personal and not corporate
            (it doesn't apply to nations or armies or police) and it does *not*
            mean 'allow the person to kill you, if they so desire' - it's
            specifically allowing a slapped cheek to slapped again. And I think
            there's some real truth to the following anecdote:

            A successful Irish boxer was converted and became a preacher. He
            happened to be in a new town setting up his evangelistic tent when a
            couple of tough thugs noticed what he was doing. Knowing nothing of
            his background, they made a few insulting remarks. The Irishman merely
            turned and looked at them. Pressing his luck, one of the bullies took
            a swing and struck a glancing blow on one side of the ex-boxer's face.
            He shook it off and said nothing as he turned the other cheek. The
            fellow took another glancing blow on the other side. At that point the
            preacher swiftly took off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and
            announced, "The Lord gave me not further instructions."

            And considering that Jesus Himself is pictured in violent and military
            terms frequently throughout scripture (both Hebrew and NT), I just
            don't think it's a 'one-size-fits-all' equation, you know?

            -- Lynn --

            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
            >
            > On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:39 AM, jef.murray wrote:
            > > Turning the other cheek is OK in theory, but if evil is real, and
            > > if we want to spare the "least of these" some of the vast suffering
            > > available for the dispensing, aren't we obliged to kick up a fuss?
            > >
            > > C. S. Lewis thought so. In his essay `Why I am not a Pacifist," he
            > > methodically lays out the moral need to resist evil. Thomas
            > > Aquinas, likewise, helped to define what a "just war" was. And if a
            > > saint says we should defend the innocent, who am I to argue?
            >
            > Um, do I really need to point out that the whole 'turn the other
            > cheek' thing was a direct instruction from Jesus Christ himself? And
            > that when Peter tried to meet force with force, Christ told him to
            > knock it off in no uncertain terms? CSL and Aquinas may win some over
            > by claiming that Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about
            > (this seems to be Gov. Huckabee's position re. the death sentence),
            > but I'm not buying it.
            >
            > --John R.
            > Christian, therefore Pacifist
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • kittycrowe@aol.com
            Lynn - What a great story!? I love the final comeback line! Thank you! -Kitty ;-) ... From: Lynn Maudlin To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 11, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Lynn -

              What a great story!? I love the final "comeback" line!


              Thank you!



              -Kitty ;-)


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...>
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 1:24 am
              Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Mystical Realms . . .

              The 'turn the other cheek' instruction is personal and not corporate
              (it doesn't apply to nations or armies or police) and it does *not*
              mean 'allow the person to kill you, if they so desire' - it's
              specifically allowing a slapped cheek to slapped again. And I think
              there's some real truth to the following anecdote:

              ???? A successful Irish boxer was converted and became a preacher. He
              happened to be in a new town setting up his evangelistic tent when a
              couple of tough thugs noticed what he was doing. Knowing nothing of
              his background, they made a few insulting remarks. The Irishman merely
              turned and looked at them. Pressing his luck, one of the bullies took
              a swing and struck a glancing blow on one side of the ex-boxer's face.
              He shook it off and said nothing as he turned the other cheek. The
              fellow took another glancing blow on the other side. At that point the
              preacher swiftly took off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and
              announced, "The Lord gave me not further instructions."?

              ? -- Lynn --


              ________________________________________________________________________
              More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Lynn Maudlin
              Thanks, Kitty {grin} Jason, I d love to respond and discuss but She Who Must Be Obeyed has spoken and it behooves us to remember the guidelines of the list.
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 12, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks, Kitty {grin} Jason, I'd love to respond and discuss but She
                Who Must Be Obeyed has spoken and it behooves us to remember the
                guidelines of the list.

                Although, if we look at it as the *Christian Myth*, we would fall
                under the Society's genres of Myth and Fantasy rubric... {double grin}.

                -- Lynn --

                --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, kittycrowe@... wrote:
                >
                >
                > Lynn -
                >
                > What a great story!? I love the final "comeback" line!
                >
                >
                > Thank you!
                >
                >
                >
                > -Kitty ;-)
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...>
                > To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 1:24 am
                > Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Mystical Realms . . .
                >
                > The 'turn the other cheek' instruction is personal and not corporate
                > (it doesn't apply to nations or armies or police) and it does *not*
                > mean 'allow the person to kill you, if they so desire' - it's
                > specifically allowing a slapped cheek to slapped again. And I think
                > there's some real truth to the following anecdote:
                >
                > ???? A successful Irish boxer was converted and became a preacher. He
                > happened to be in a new town setting up his evangelistic tent when a
                > couple of tough thugs noticed what he was doing. Knowing nothing of
                > his background, they made a few insulting remarks. The Irishman merely
                > turned and looked at them. Pressing his luck, one of the bullies took
                > a swing and struck a glancing blow on one side of the ex-boxer's face.
                > He shook it off and said nothing as he turned the other cheek. The
                > fellow took another glancing blow on the other side. At that point the
                > preacher swiftly took off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and
                > announced, "The Lord gave me not further instructions."?
                >
                > ? -- Lynn --
                >
                >
                > ________________________________________________________________________
                > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
                http://webmail.aol.com
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.