----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is?
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. > > Certainly not economically. His personal concerns are unknown to me, > but I'm certain that he may be reacting to his perception of how "his > people," however he might categorize them, are treated. I'm not sure it > matters. I suspect that we could find economically oppressed people > among those whom are led by him. > > In any event, I don't think we are called to figure out the > self-justifications of a terrorist, so I'm not sure where you were going > with this...? I'm trying to figure out your arguement. The question is whether we'll stop terrorism by simply being as just as we can > > But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East > > better will change things all that much. > > Are we not called to treat people with justice and mercy -- love -- > simply because they are people, rather than to achieve some outcome? But, becasue they are people, are we not called to act to help them, not just treat them decently when we happen to bump into them. If our actions do not actually help them, > Aren't we called to do small things with great love (Mother Theresa's > words), rather than trying to focus on the big picture of West v. Middle > East? Sometimes, but not all the time. I think Bonehoffer was a saint, for example. His actions as well as his writings speak to his committment to Christ. > Is it Christian to measure our morality on outcomes? Yes. > Where is the faith in that? The faith of James. James 2:18-17,24 "How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good axct claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ' I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plentyu,' without giving them theser bare necessities of life, then what good is that.....You see now thit ist is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified." >In my experience, faith (and peace, joy, happiness) has meant > doing the next right thing without being attached to the outcome, Yes > trusting that the big picture is already covered. But that is only true in the very broadest sense...as sense where the Holocaust can occur because a bigger picture has been covered. It depends on the balance one wishes to strike. I'm trying to find your viewpoint on where that is, but you seem to be dodging direct questions. If the questions are not relevant, why not? That hight help me.' For example, do you agree with the Bonehoffer on Christian duty in the face of evil? Or do you think he was self-righteous. > > So, we are called to simply pray in response to evil. Was it wrong to stop > > the genocide in the Balkins? Would it be wrong to stop it in the Sudan? > > Are Christians required to be passive, worrying only about their own sins? > > Was this sarcasm? I don't recall that you're ever sarcastic, One rare occasion, with someone who's arguements I have lost respect for, I have been. Maybe a few times in the last 5 years. I respect your point of view, so I've never been sarcastic in my replies. >but I'm > unsure if you're really serious, since I didn't say I hear a call to > prayer alone. Actually, I was wondering why you quoted: <quote> Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. <end quote> with respect to this discussion. You also said the big picture was taken care of. If it is, then we only need to focus on our immediate surroundings; social injustice is none of our business. But I don't think you believe that, > > So, what I hear from this is that we should let evil happen in the world, > > and wait for divine intervention to stop it? It would be wrong to work > > against those that do evil. > > Only if you take Psalm 37 out of context. OK, but then what is the context when deciding whether to act? > You described some things about Lutheranism, but left out "just war" > theology. Which goes back to Augustine...who I know Luther liked. > "Without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to > repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace" (Martin Luther). OK, but is it OK to wage war to stop injustice instead of just repelling it from one's own home? I'll agree that great care is needed to be sure that this isn't just self-justification, but there are times when it is clearly true. Going to the Sudan again, my daughter Neli's best friend Naomi is from a family caught up in the violence there What would you say to Neli when she says we are called on to stop this genocide? Obviously, the popular thing to do, by world standards, is to publically say "oh my" and let it continue. But what is the moral thing to do? I'd say that we are called upon to stop it, if we can. The UN General Assembly has given its tacit blessing to the genocide; so that's not a reasonable path to stop it. So, what is the moral action, when the world has given the genocide a green light? > Obedience to authority was a strong theme in Nazi Germany, which many > argue was encouraged by Lutheran tradition. Lutherans have no corner on > truth. What is the first casualty of war? The battle plan? :-) Seriously, while it is worthwhile to have a healthy skepticism about one's own motives, being too scrupulous about it can lead to total inaction. I've tried to ask very specific questions, to help me understand your viewpoint, but the answers I get seem to be on a tangent to the question. The truth was proclaimed loudly in the Bremen Confession. It was ignored by most. It was a call to an active, not a passive response to evil. As imperfect as we are, I think we are called to act, even before we have addressed all of our own sins. So, lets get back to Iraq. I was opposed to going in, even though I knew that if we didn't tens of thousands would die every year and tens of thousands would be tortured every year. The suffering of those people weighed on my conscience, even though I didn't think going in was the right choice. The reason is that I thought going in would cause, in the long run, more suffering. Clearly, its not just about numbers. You cannot hand one innocent over to be tortured simply because you have calculated a net benefit to society. But, you can stop genocide knowing that some innocent people will die because you have done that. Finding this balance is a difficult task of discernment. My strongest point is that we need to actively find the balance. We need to acknowledge that our actions/inactions have both good and bad consequences. The results of our actions do matter. Finally, I hope you can help me in this dialog, Nick. I'm honestly not sure where you are coming from. If it sounds like I'm accusing you of holding positions you don't; I'm not. I'm just taking stabs in the dark, trying to see if I can find where you do stand. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
