How did Christ handle rejection?

Originally posted by Devil King
How many times have you turned the other cheek?

More than I retaliate, actually.

Originally posted by Devil King
Ghandi was not christian and he was a pacifist.

He was a huge fan of "Baby Jesus". Wanna take a stab of where he got his pacifism from?

Originally posted by inimalist
so your argument is that any group of people who have a majority of Christians in the population will not use violence in response to violence?

Originally posted by Devil King
Christian governments invade nations and sack villages and torture people on the rack. Governments and political ideologies rarely take their cues from religions.

The term "Christian government" is an oxymoron. Most, if not all, Christian-majority nations have secular governments. So Christianity doesn't come into play when they make executive decisions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And the Christian soldiers didn't have trouble slaughtering them with far superior technology.

American and Christian are not linked. There's a million threads about that very topic.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sure. But not basing it on a god allows me the freedom not to have a certainty of religion. In fact, I don't think I have more rights than anyone else. Or less for that matter. Even if people in those parts of the world where they don't enjoy the same rights I assign myself, I think they're entitled to all the same rights I have.

As far as I can tell religions tend to think the same thing. You just disagree with what those rights are.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
American and Christian are not linked. There's a million threads about that very topic.

There are a lot of Christians in the US. It stands to reason some of them were in the military and thus in Vietnam and thus killing people there.

Many soldiers in Vietnam (like my dad) were forced to go. He contested his being drafted, citing being a conscientious objector on the grounds of religion. The draft board laughed in his face and made his poor Mexican ass go anyways. So he was forced to kill to survive, despite never wanting to be there in the first place (Christianity).

Bottom line: many had no choice.

In such a case as Quiero's father, where there was no consent of the will in fighting an unjust war (re: invasion), he cannot be held culpable for the people he killed as a part of the war effort. Sin involves full consent of the will, and in such case as being drafted, and if he only killed as necessary to survive and complete his mission, there is no maligned sin at play here.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The term "Christian government" is an oxymoron. Most, if not all, Christian-majority nations have secular governments. So Christianity doesn't come into play when they make executive decisions.

I mentioned groups, not states

though I would challenge the argument anyways, it is totally irrelevant to what I was saying.

Are you saying a group of Christians is less likely to respond with violence to aggressions than other groups?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
More than I retaliate, actually.

He was a huge fan of "Baby Jesus". Wanna take a stab of where he got his pacifism from?

The term "Christian government" is an oxymoron. Most, if not all, Christian-majority nations have secular governments. So Christianity doesn't come into play when they make executive decisions.

American and Christian are not linked. There's a million threads about that very topic.

i think most people turn the other cheek more than they retaliate, christian or not.

I'm a fan of Jesus. I think he said some great things, or at least had some great things attributed to him. But Ghandi was no christian. If I recall correctly, he drew inspiration from any number of sources. In fact there is a famous quote of his that says a man must never stop changing his beliefs if he wasn't to be a truly knowledgable person. I'm paraphrasing, but you get my point I hope.

Sure it sounds like an oxymoron, until you listen to the rhetoric that their leaders have to spout to get elected. And I believe that Mr. Bush has said multiple times that he turns to Jesus for insight into his descisions. This is nothing new in America. And it's been worse than ever since the 50's.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As far as I can tell religions tend to think the same thing. You just disagree with what those rights are.

I disagree with where those rights come from. As I have already said in this thread, the conclusions of what those rights are vary little. But I have also said that I believe all people deserve the same rights; that we all have them even if we were born in a nation that denies them or to a religion that espouses a different set.

Originally posted by Devil King
I disagree with where those rights come from. As I have already said in this thread, the conclusions of what those rights are vary little. But I have also said that I believe all people deserve the same rights; that we all have them even if we were born in a nation that denies them or to a religion that espouses a different set.

Why would you say in the same paragraph that the rights vary very little but that they are apparently significant enough to matter? Besides, religions tend to hold that everyone has and should have the same rights and that should have them no matter where they live. I still fail to see how your decision to pull those rights out of thin air is diffrent in any relevant way from saying that they come from God especially since you seem to hold that they're essentially the same.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
In such a case as Quiero's father, where there was no consent of the will in fighting an unjust war (re: invasion), he cannot be held culpable for the people he killed as a part of the war effort. Sin involves full consent of the will, and in such case as being drafted, and if he only killed as necessary to survive and complete his mission, there is no maligned sin at play here.

👆

Originally posted by inimalist

Are you saying a group of Christians is less likely to respond with violence to aggressions than other groups?

Not always, but that's the philosophy.

Bad example: Crusaders. Good example: Martin Luther King's congregation. The latter observed it.

Originally posted by Devil King

Sure it sounds like an oxymoron, until you listen to the rhetoric that their leaders have to spout to get elected. And I believe that Mr. Bush has said multiple times that he turns to Jesus for insight into his descisions. This is nothing new in America. And it's been worse than ever since the 50's.

W attributes many good fortunes in his life to Jesus, such as kicking the bottle. But none of that matters. He can't have congress enact any laws on religous grounds.

Originally posted by Devil King
I disagree with where those rights come from. As I have already said in this thread, the conclusions of what those rights are vary little. But I have also said that I believe all people deserve the same rights; that we all have them even if we were born in a nation that denies them or to a religion that espouses a different set.

Based on what? Because you say so?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Not always, but that's the philosophy.

Bad example: Crusaders. Good example: Martin Luther King's congregation. The latter observed it.

I'd agree with you, I don't deny the moral strength people get from religion

though, I'd personally say that religion is not the most important factor in this instance. I think that is the general trend in all groups. I think its more human nature, though I can't argue that a specific idea of "turn the other cheek" might influence people, it doesn't require religion for people to practice it. For instance, I didn't swing back on the guy who broke my nose.

Originally posted by inimalist
For instance, I didn't swing back on the guy who broke my nose.

Maybe you're just a pussy. srug

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Maybe you're just a pussy. srug

religion is still not the most important factor 😉

Originally posted by inimalist
religion is still not the most important factor 😉

😛

theres a difference between being a pussy and a pacifist.... right?

Originally posted by inimalist
theres a difference between being a pussy and a pacifist.... right?

Yeah, a pacifist makes an active choice not to react.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, a pacifist makes an active choice not to react.

lol, safe

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, I haven't hurt myself trying to justify why murder is wrong, so you are actually incorrect that doing so would require some herculean effort on my part.

No, my argument hasn't shifted at all. The Mayflower Compact is not a document that governs the United States of America, nor does it frame the intent of the founders of this nation. The Mayflower Compact was certainly a founding document, just not of this nation. I would also not hold out the tribal rules of the Native Americans as being a valid example of what this nation considers to be it's founding principles. I am not arguing the religious choices made by many founders of this country or even that many of the were christians. But they also never wrote that bias into law. In fact, the only times religion is mentioned it is done so ambiguously and addresses how it is not to interfere with the goverment of the country.

I would be pleased as peaches for you to point out where in any of the founding documents there is a reference to christianity as being the motivation for the founding of this country.

I'm not sure the record of christian societies are unblemished. But you are blaming their behavior on their religious choices, just as you are saying we are right because of our religious choices.

And in this you are illustrating exactly what is so silly about your position. My morals aren't disposable just because I didn't get them from a fairytale. My morals are just as entrenched as your are. I'm not going to say killing is wrong today and then wake up tomorrow and think it's okay.

And just like the morals imposed by the church and those that disagreed were on the outside of the majority which was imposed on also through threats.

I say if it doesn't hurt anyone then what is the problem with it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would you say in the same paragraph that the rights vary very little but that they are apparently significant enough to matter? Besides, religions tend to hold that everyone has and should have the same rights and that should have them no matter where they live. I still fail to see how your decision to pull those rights out of thin air is diffrent in any relevant way from saying that they come from God especially since you seem to hold that they're essentially the same.

Because I see the difference in attributing those rights to a god that dictates how easily we can enjoy them and that there is no force in the heavens that can take them away. They're ours as long as we live in this world and they aren't conditional based on a stry we've made up to explain them. Only forces in this world can effect them, and even those forces don't dictate their existence, only their absence. As for pulling them out of thin air, I don't see how the idea that god gave them to us as anything different.