Putin says "God created us all equal"

[steve7150]

I agree with dwilkins opinion on non-involvement. I don't think the magnitude of an atrocity would change my mind. The only means any ruler has at his disposal to implement his will (e.g. overthrowing Assad) is expropriation of his own citizens through threats of violence against them if they refuse to yield. My opinion would be that it is wrong to compel a person to support a war effort through any means (e.g. financial support via taxation or conscription). If, however, some person wishes to travel to Syria and purchase weapons, all at his own personal expense, I would not see it as my role to prevent him from doing so.

What would your answer be to these questions?

User avatar
thrombomodulin

Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am






I agree with Doug also as i think if we believe we should intervene for moral reasons then the first strike s/b North Korea where the citizens often are delibertely starved among the many atrocities.

I think God values us equally.

[thrombomodulin]

if we believe we should intervene for moral reasons then the first strike s/b North Korea where the citizens often are deliberately starved among the many atrocities.

Do you think military interventions for humanitarian reasons are righteous actions? Should "we" strike North Korea?

[steve7150]

Do you think military interventions for humanitarian reasons are righteous actions? Should "we" strike North Korea?
User avatar
thrombomodulin Posts: 219Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am




Striking North Korea would not be in our "self interest" but it would be in the interest of the average North Korean many of whom are Christians in hiding. What does it mean to love your neighbor? What is definition of biblical love? When we intervene in faraway lands are we responsible for what comes in the aftermath? I think intervening in North Korea would commit us to intervening in other similar situations around the world with a untenable outcome.

[thrombomodulin]

Striking North Korea would not be in our "self interest" but it would be in the interest of the average North Korean many of whom are Christians in hiding. What does it mean to love your neighbour? What is definition of biblical love?

So you affirm it is a righteous action for foreigners to use violent means to overthrow the North Korean government. Would it be a righteous or wicked act for an ordinary North Korean citizen to rebel against his own government by organizing or participating in an insurrection? Why or why not?

[steve7150]

So you affirm it is a righteous action for foreigners to use violent means to overthrow the North Korean government. Would it be a righteous or wicked act for an ordinary North Korean citizen to rebel against his own government by organizing or participating in an insurrection? Why or why not?

User avatar
thrombomodulin

Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am







I think it would be righteous for North Koreans to overthrow a government starving it's own people. Additionally often if they jail an individual for something they also jail all his decendents. Jesus command about turning the other cheek i think were about personal interactions between people, not people and governments. What kind of "love" just watches neighbors starve to death?

Of course this type of action leads to other problems like where do you draw the line? For myself this issue gets back to my original question about defining what "love" is?

Take the case of the Good Samaritan, if the robbers came back to kill their victim should the Good Samaritan defend him with force if necessary?

[thrombomodulin]

Steve7150,

Well said. Indeed, where to draw the line is a significant problem. The interpretation of Jesus commands, which you have described, asserts a distinction between personal interactions and government interactions. It has been my assumption that the robbers of the Good Samaritan were not employed by the government. If indeed this is so, and it is righteous to violently oppose the robbers, then it would seem to require that exceptions to the turn the cheek command need to be significantly expanded. For one could consider the loving thing to do is, perhaps always, resisting the man who is doing evil.

Nonetheless, if turning the other cheek doesn't apply to government officals and their agents, then for myself it leads back to the question of my first post on this thread - how do we know a ruler when we see one? What ultimately is it that distinguishes a ruler collecting taxes, from a gang of thieves plundering Samaritans?

Peter

P.S. Since all government actions consist of nothing beyond the particular actions of various identifable individuals, it seems possible to defend the proposition that all actions are "personal". This would undermine the ability to make such a distinction in the turn the cheek command.