Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice

[apothanein kerdos]

Celtic, you keep making posts in here and have blown off my post. Please, I would like a response to it. The "I have no time" excuse is running thin when you've been making long, drawn out posts to other people on this topic.

First, I am not using "Scare Quotes" (sounds like something from the Wizard of OZ), I'm using quotes to separate Christians who promote war and deride Christians who see things from the side of Peacemaking. The attack on Pacifists, of any sort, began on this thread, I'm merely objecting to it.

A square quote is a literary term.

It refers to anytime you put quotation marks around a term when describing a person, to show the person doesn't really live up to the term used. Such as, if I were to say Theodor Roosevelt was a "pacifist" because he never went to war as president...it's to show that he really isn't a pacifist, but people call him one regardless.

Likewise, by saying that "so called 'Christians' that are for the war" is insinuating that these people aren't really Christians.

As to Govermental pacifism, yes you are right, the Bible doesn't address Governmental pacifism (or warmongering) in the New Testament. That's because Christians are called to be separate and apart from the world and the NT isn't concerning itself with Governmental/worldly activities, except to tell Christians to obey the Government fully except where it forces us to disobey the Laws of God.

The Bible tells us to be ethically separate from the world in personal matters. It does not ask for ontological separation...which is what it seems you are calling for with Christian pacifism. Likewise, the Bible was addressing how Christians should act under an autocracy and does not deal with Christian responsibility in a Democratic-Republic where, in a certain way, we are part of the government. What do we, as Christians, do in this situation? War is sometimes necessary (I again point to the fact there was no negotiation with Hitler), and as Americans we have the ability to sway the government on going to war. As Christians we should pray for peace...but we must realize this is a fallen world.

We can say "trust God" but this is inconsistent with the rest of our lives. We put on our seat belts, we lock the doors to our house, we get jobs to pay for our bills, etc. In other words, to bring about a result we put a lot of effort into it instead of "trusting God." Why then do we do the same with war?

Trusting God is not supposed to be a lazy activity, but instead is an activity that requires us to put effort into it, and sometimes our lives. War is unfortunately one of these things.

As to your comments about that quote from Tony Campolo, no you did NOT give me 3 or 4 reasons why his quote was wrong, you gave me reasons why you object to his quote based on his personal views, not scriptural or contextual ones. You cited nothing to prove where he was wrong scripturally or contextually. I

This is because you chose to ignore what I said. Let me break my comment down for you:

As for using Tony Campolo...the man teaches that homosexuality is okay, is a follower of Barth, and says the Bible merely contains the Word of God and isn't the Word of God. You really think I should trust His quotation and exegesis of scripture?

I was pointing to three examples where Tony is way off in his interpretation about Jesus. All he said was that Christians don't want to hear certain things. He's right, I don't want to hear it from him. I have known children that interpret scripture better than he does. He is a sociologist, not a theologian or a philosopher, and is subsequently highly unqualified in telling Christians what scripture really means.

[nebula]

I must admit that often I tend to be blunt and too direct to the point, and it is agreed that my wording may have been less than appropriate, the intent was to address the comments being made against the European stance AND to remind people that Europe has every right to choose her own path, and it is hypocritical of Americans to suggest otherwise. I also intended to bring to task the eagerness of many to find a military solution over diplomacy and peace efforts. My inclusion of the quotes was intended to show that many historical figures do NOT support the views that were being expressed up to that point. Granted the one from T. Roosevelt crept in there from the way I have those quotes stored, still it kinda has relevance all the same. It addresses the point that dissenting or differing opinions are an Individuals Rights and suggesting that all people must share the same views is morally treasonable.

There is something you said in another post that I would like to address. You claimed that (loose quote) "if a muslim tried to rape me I would surely resist". Now I understand the intent, but the wording suggests that it would be ok with you if a Christian or any other non muslim raped you!!! I know that isn't your intent, but it shows how wordings can be misconstrued and the thought processes can be corrupted by the political elements one believes. Further, is it alright for a Christian to rape a Muslim? That has happened thousands of times, especially during the Crusades. Are OUR evils any less than their evils? does war actually solve the differences or the problems, or does it heighten them? The Crusades are a fine example of how the hatreds escalated because of war, and there are many more examples to prove that point from other moments of history. What is gained in war is usually more than offset by what is lost to war.

Celtic, with all due respect, what I see written here is a version of "blame shifting."

Again, it seems the two sides in this debate are arguing different things. There is a difference between being persecuted for our faith and defending your homeland from the attack of a foreign invader. Or would you let a suicide bomber go ahead with his mission, if you were given the chance to stop him, for the sake of peace?

[CallMeBernard]

Changing the focus of a topic is a deflection and is not an honest discussion.

All I read is "Oh yeah? America is worse".

Noone is honestly discussing Europe.

It's like noone can discuss the head side of a coin without going after the tails side first.

I think you'll find that my post on the top of page 7 was about the British side of things and the European perspective.

I have never said, or suggested, that 'America is worse'. I have merely pointed out the differences between the two standpoints.

I will admit to pointing some hypocrisy on the part of those who have said that Europeans are cowards- for example in Sierra Leone, it was British troops helping the democratic goverment, without an American in sight. This suggests, perhaps, that there are times when Europeans fight without the US being around and that perhaps we aren't as cowardly as all that.

The declaration that Europeans are cowards and appeasers is not correct; the European version that the US is a bunch of warmongers out for profit is also incorrect.

The truth, as ever, lies somewhere inbetween.

[CallMeBernard]

What sources do you read then? How about this one... This liberal media is even more bias in that it does not acknowledge that it the muslims who they do not want to offend, but simply refer to certain races or religions, even tho everybody knows it is talking about muslims. Talk about skewing the news

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/e...icle1600686.ece

From The TimesApril 2, 2007

Schools drop Holocaust lessons to avoid offence

Alexandra Frean

Teachers are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons because they do not want to cause offence to children from certain races or religions, a report claims.

A lack of factual knowledge among some teachers, particularly in primary schools, is also leading to

[nebula]

There seems to be a lot of divergence going on from the OP. So how about we go back to the OP and deal with it at face value?

To begin, I would like to repost the background info. and see whether or not we agree on this premise - the history - before we run around each other over the present.

***********

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and

France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they

noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then

East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades,

inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the

ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

***********

Agree or disagree?

[apothanein kerdos]

Vision is 20/20 with hindsight. Bringing up the Holocaust and similar events is moot.

Let's just cut through the **** and get to the real issue, shall we? This isn't about the appeasement of some malignant force. No, this is about being able to discriminate against an entire religion based solely on the reaction of fanatics. Or rather, very thinly veiled discrimination.

I'm sick and tired of reading the comments of people vilifying Muslims. There was a time when similar comments were made about black people. And about Jews. And about every other race and religion.

Bring me some hard evidence that each and every Muslim is a threat to civilised society and then I'll listen to your arguments.

I give you the Qu'ran, and the Hadith.

If anyone who is a Muslims says, "I follow these books," then they pose a major threat to society. Islam IS evil. These "radicals" are not "radical" at all...unless by "radical" you mean "traditional" or "actually follows their religion."

[apothanein kerdos]

To reiterate: "Bring me some hard evidence that each and every Muslim is a threat to civilised society and then I'll listen to your arguments."

You know, something a little more substantial than such ignorant, discriminatory "arguments".

To reiterate:

I give you the Qu'ran, and the Hadith.

If anyone who is a Muslims says, "I follow these books," then they pose a major threat to society. Islam IS evil. These "radicals" are not "radical" at all...unless by "radical" you mean "traditional" or "actually follows their religion."

Anyone that doesn't follow these books isn't really a Muslim.

Prove how you have actually studied the issue and then I'll listen to your arguments. You know, something a little more substantial than such ignorant, uneducated "arguments."

[apothanein kerdos]

Qur'an

9:5

[apothanein kerdos]

Hey, you know, I could take quotes from the Bible completely out of context, too, and paint all Christians as drooling maniacs.

That's the best defense you have to offer? Seriously?

These are passages I had a problem with, so I took them to someone that was a Muslims. He speaks fluent Arabic (it is his first language), and he gave me the interpretation the Iman gave him when he was younger, and how the passages have been historically interpreted. Historically, up until the 18th century, they always gave a justification for war so long as one was spreading Islam. Do you realize how often modern Muslims have to allegorize these passages? Fact is, you haven't studied it. Go study the issue then get back to me.

I won't say I have.

Because you haven't. It's painfully obvious from your arguments.

Look, I enjoy a good debate, so long as the person is educated on the issue. I've studied this issue, you haven't. Go study, then come back. Until then, your arguments are meaningless to me. You're trying to defend something you haven't even studied. What's the sense in that?

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm not too proud to admit when I'm in the wrong. Nor when I've been brash, and insulting.

Still, I would like to know how this justifies painting every follower of Islam with the same brush.

Did you miss what I said? True followers of Islam follow these passages devoutly. Muslims that strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in public markets aren't radical, they are devout and merely following their religious texts. Muslims that gun down innocent civilians aren't radical, they are devout.

A "radical" Muslim is one that allows a woman or a cripple to partake in Jihad. These radical clerics teach that if a woman dies in Jihad, then her immediate offspring shall be forgiven of all sins, thus ensuring heaven for them. This is a VERY modern invention and is in direct contradiction with what is ascribed for Jihad in the Hadith.

I digress. Devout Muslims have no problem with killing anyone who refuses to accept Islam or fall under Sharia Law (the Hadith). This is about 66% of Muslims worldwide (leaving out America, which is an anomaly, considering only 1 in 6 are devout). The reason we don't see more terrorist attacks is that the Jihad commands that Muslims allow time for people to fall under Sharia law, it gives them time to either convert or submit to Islamic law. This is also why Osama Bin Laden was criticized by many Middle Eastern critics - he didn't give the US enough time to submit to Islamic law.

Does this mean that everyone who calls himself a Muslim is a threat? Absolutely not. I have eaten dinner with Muslims, I have taught Muslim children, and was actually respected by Muslims in my hometown. I never fear that any of them will kill me because I refuse to bow down to Allah. However, I never worry about that because they either:

A) Don't believe all of the Qur'an or Hadith

or

B) Ignore such passages and/or allegorize them

Yet, they even agree with me (to a certain extent). They believe that if someone takes a literal teaching of these books, it will lead to terrorism and other horrendous acts. These are Muslims who say this mate.

Don't expect me to ever admit I'm wrong on this issue, because I'm not.