jonc

I just questioning what the reaction would be from those I highlighted should British troops kill British Muslims/citizens, what affect it will have on the people who live in this country and how certain sections of our society will react. More division and animosity or more cohesion?

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

An eye for an eye.

JTaylor

Old Testament.

An0n0m0us

That depends if they support ISIS or see ISIS for the extremist group they are and not representing Islam in any form.

As a white British bloke would I give a **** if I saw the SAS take down another white British bloke who was holding a school bus full of kids hostage? Of course I wouldn't, i'd be glad he got what he deserved. So why does it work differently if terrorists are of a certain faith/ethnic background? All that matters is that they are terrorists.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Tomato - Tomatoe. It's still misguided unproven claptrap spouted out by supposed scholars who could not back up fact, so made up fiction.

Old Testamen, New Testament it's a work of fiction.

JTaylor

Ok, I can live with that, but I'm surprised that you would want to get involved with the discussion given your antipathy. Incidentally, and so that you can make informed judgements in the future, Christ says this in the New Testament:

Matthew 5:38-48 New International Version (NIV)

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Paben

iTrader: (5)

But where does all this submissive behaviour end? In enlightenment for the oppressor or in the total domination of the oppressed? History would indicate the latter. How would one have applied these principles to, say, the Germans in 1939? Where would we have been had we turned the other cheek in the Battle of Britain? Or if the Americans had done the same after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour? Totally stuffed is the answer. So at what point does Christianity cry 'Enough is enough!' and take aggressive action? And is there a single example of the cheek turner prevailing? Perhaps I'm missing something.

JTaylor

Yes, good post.

Have a look at post 88 on this thread:

https://www.scoobynet.com/1008031-ga...l#post11473306

A couple of quick fire points:

A) Google Augustine's Just War and B) Tolstoy's Christian Pacifism for both sides of the debate.

Just War - think Crusades, Christian Pacifism - think Martin Luther King.

jonc

OK if it's just the fact that they are terrorist, why go after ISIS (other than getting all the media coverage), why not go after Boko Haram who largely go about what they do unchallenged? Only recently they killed over 50 children and also kidnapped hundreds of children who've never been seen or heard of again. Why not send our troops over to Nigeria and irradicate them first and let the air strikes and the Syrian Army and Kurdish fighters deal with ISIS for now? Surely there is a more urgent need here.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

You're a committed Christian whereas I have no faith left at all.
But I'm not really questioning the philosophy behind Christianity, only the outcome of its rigid application in threatening situations, to the individual or nation. As a former soldier I know that had I turned the other cheek on a number of occasions I would be dead, or is that ok too or even the objective? What's the endgame here? Do you surrender your life without resistance in the hope that heaven awaits, die with a smile on your face? Isn't that borderline suicide? That's suspiciously close to the multitude of virgins the Islamist suicide bombers are promised.

When the ghosts come to visit, as they sometimes do these days, perhaps I should console myself that I probably did them a favour?

JTaylor

Another good post, you've obviously given this some thought.

I think if one's a Christian and also a proponent of 'Just War' (Augustine), he will cite Romans 13:4:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...A4&version=NIV

and be able to fight for the state knowing there's a Biblical mandate. If one espouses a literal interpretation of Matthew 5:38-48 (turn the other cheek) as Tolstoy did, they simply wouldn't join the forces. I've struggled with my position on this over the last couple of years, but I'm tending towards a pragmatic approach. I think there have been numerous points in history where passive resistance has proved to be exactly the right course and equally events where passivity would have allowed evil to prevail.

Your likening of Christian passivity in the face of evil to Islamic suicide bombers is an interesting one. Both the Christian and the Muslim have the potential to have their martyrdom rewarded with a place in paradise. Of course the former submits to evil, whereas the latter is the epitome of evil! Perhaps this juxtaposition serves to crystallise the distinctions between the two faiths.

I'm sorry "the ghosts come to visit", it must be tough. I'll pray for you.

An0n0m0us

Because Nigeria has a fuctioning army who is battling Boko Haram as do the neighbouring countries, espesially Cameroon who seems to be better at defeating Boko Haram than Nigeria does. The last ingress into Cameroon reportedly ended with all Boko Haram militants killed by the Cameroon army.

Also British troops (a special forces unit) have already been deployed to Nigeria shortly after the school girls were kidnapped along with US forces and drones for surveillance. Boko Haram is being monitored a lot more than is being publicised but Nigeria want it to look they are doing it on there own.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

So if the rulers (read Government) say 'Go and kill the enemy' then you can do so with a clear conscience, as God himself has established their governance? That seems a convenient way of ignoring the basic tenet 'turn the other cheek' because it then means the military can do anything to achieve an objective. This permits a massive flexibility that I find difficult to square with Christian ideals.

If you mean it, and I suspect you do, thank you for the prayers.

jonc

Nigerian army may be functioning, but they are not effective. Latest news are that Boko Haram have spread into neighbouring countries. Also there are recent reports where they have razed a town killing 2000 people. They have been around for decades and killing thousands. But going back to IS, Syria also have a functioning army and so does Iraq with 100 British servicemen already there training them. ISIS are also heavily monitored but drones and air attacks are also successfully helping Kurdish fighters in driving back ISIS too.

JTaylor

Well here is where the fusion of one's politics and religion come in to play. The Christian right will take Romans 13 to indicate adherence to the will of the state (and with good cause as the passage is particularly explicit). This works where the state is fair and just (if that's possible), but falls where the opposite is true (30s Germany). The Christian left would support a socialist state, but would simply tolerate a right wing state or perhaps passively resist. The Christian anarchists support neither position believing violence to be (as you point out) in contravention of Christian ethics, but still submit to the state in line with Romans 13.

I remain pragmatic. My politics are centrist, I would fight in a war if, having examined my conscience, I felt it was just and the lesser of two evils. If I felt it was unjust I would conscientiously object. My ideal is a Christian anarchist society where the individual is ruled by his or her own conscience as guided by Christ - but I suspect this is some way off!

An0n0m0us

And those neighbouring countries are repelling Boko Haram back into Nigeria so one has to ask just what Nigeria are playing at being Africa's richest nation. Cameroon didn't have any issue is dealing with them when they came over the border (from all reports on that attack). British and US forces are in Nigeria gathering their own intelligence on Boko Haram. Of course like Iraq Nigeria is a vital oil producing country and one that has to be kept in good relations with the West. Whilst Boko Haram are far over in the North East of the country in deep jungle the US probably isn't worrying too much. If they start attacking the West coast and the oil facilities then you can be sure there will be an increased interest from the West.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

So Christianity is wide open to any interpretation that the individual cares to place on it. It accommodates the warrior or the pacifist, and everything in between? Are you sure that's not just an interpretation of convenience? The interpretation the powerful employ when they send the plebs off to die on their behalf? The Glorious Dead, who die defending the wealthy who themselves risk nothing? I thought Jesus was very specific regarding violence and retaliation, which was why so many early Christians went to their deaths without so much as a whimper. I suspect they might feel rather let down now.

JTaylor

Christianity in its purest form is embodied in the teachings of The Sermon on the Mount. It's impeccable. Christian anarchists like Tolstoy go so far as to criticise Pauline Christianity and certainly that of Constantine for corrupting those teachings. So, your criticism of accommodationism is fair. There's no doubt that the faith has been hijacked throughout the ages by those who crave earthly power and wealth, but I believe that they'll be judged and dealt with harshly in the fullness of time. I think the martyrs you speak of will go to glory!

As an aside, imagine if America and the west had turned the other cheek after 9/11...

Paben

iTrader: (5)

It would have required a lot of cheek turning. Go right back to 1988 when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus that it apparently mistook for an F14 Tomcat, in Iranian Airspace over Iranian territorial waters. Nearly 300 civilians died but the Americans refused to apologise for their mistake. So a few months later the Boeing 747 blew up over Lockerbie, tit for tat, and the whole grisly sequence that led to 9/11 can probably be traced back to those two incidents. There was little chance of any cheek turning once the twin towers came down. I was in an Arab country when it happened and there was dancing in the streets and US flags were burned. No turning cheeks or turning back after that.

JTaylor

It's never too late for a state to repent.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

That's quite an extrapolation to suggest 9/11 can be linked to those earlier incidents. Some suggest that 9/11 was a retaliation for the Sabra and Shatilla massacre.

JTaylor

I've not heard that before, Maz. Do you have any supporting articles?

Paben

iTrader: (5)

There are many theories put forward regarding the causes of 9/11, some more credible than others. But it's easy to look only to governments for the answers, whereas the perpetrators of terrorist acts are individuals or disparate groups with no discernable connections to nation states. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for 9/11, citing US support of Israel and its presence in many Islamic states. But it was Bin Laden who held the flawed notion that the US, once firmly opposed, would withdraw. But 9/11 was an act Al Qaeda very quickly came to rue as the US response was to destroy the Taliban and turn Al Qaeda on its head. As was predicted, though, the invasion of Iraq would lead to the apearance of a 100 Bin Ladens.

So while he met a predictable end Bin Laden has left behind quite a legacy, with no chance of any cheek turning.

hodgy0_2

the Sabra and Shatila massacre was an horrific act of mass murder, committed by Christians, whilst the Israeli army stood guard outside the camps



men, women and little children :-(

Maz

iTrader: (34)

http://www.thehypertexts.com/Nakba%2...%20Lebanon.htm

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Some years ago I watched a shockingly brutal and deeply disturbing account of what happened in those camps. This was on the BBC, there were incidents of children being scalped and slaughter perpetrated with inhumane mercilessness.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra...atila_massacre

JTaylor

Shameful. I see the perpetrators were Maronite 'Christians' and as such are born in to Eastern Catholicism. I read also that the Maronites were motivated by their allegiance to the Phalange; what is it about Catholicism that lends itself to the far-right? I suspect it's the top-down autocracy, dogma, legalism, religiosity and ritual that was and is anathema to Jesus of Nazareth. Thank God for the Reformation!

JTaylor

Thanks for that.

An0n0m0us

At least 4 of them have been made to pay for murdering innocent civilians:

http://news.sky.com/story/1464288/ex...-iraq-killings

hodgy0_2

yes, I saw that

some form of justice for those families I suppose