M&G Lays Some Serious Smack Down on Why Me

[_RayAgostini]

Will predicted my apostasy for roughly 4 or 5 years. He was a determined fella.

Did he get it right?

[_RayAgostini]

I guess my view of what the Gospel teaches is that we should consider all men our friends. Perhaps it is a too simplistic view, but it does seem to be the way the M&G treats all people regardless.

I think that's a very charitable view, but it's not realistic. Jesus said that a man's enemies will be "those of his own household", and that because of his teachings, siblings and parents will turn on each other. That's the "divisive" aspects of the Gospels we conveniently ignore.

Further reading: F.F Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus.

All I can gather from this is that Jesus was not a marijuana-smoking "love and peace" "hippie" who tolerated anything.

[_mercyngrace]

I think that's a very charitable view, but it's not realistic. Jesus said that a man's enemies will be "those of his own household", and that because of his teachings, siblings and parents will turn on each other. That's the "divisive" aspects of the Gospels we conveniently ignore.

Jesus would know this personally, being wounded in the house of His friends and crucified in the place of Bar-abbas at the request of His own kin. However, even when His household turned against Him, He cried out Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.

I think we are called to be friends to all men. The question, "Lord who is my neighbor?" could easily be rewritten to read "Who is my friend?" without altering the significance of the parable that followed it.

Acknowledging that some will be our enemies, by their own choice, doesn't mean that we have to live and die by the sword they carry.

On the contrary, it may just mean that in allowing our sides to be pierced, for their sakes, they come to know the depth of our love and they lay down their weapons in favor of reconciliation.

I think this is a principle that holds true, irrespective of religion. It's hard to hate someone who takes a whipping for or from you without fighting back.

Consider the impact of non-violent civil resistance.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resista ... 0231156820

Even when Peter defended Christ with the sword, the Lord's response was to heal Malcheus, the offender, His enemy.

I agree with you that Jesus was not a hippie peacenik. I believe the accounts we have of His words and deeds show He was deliberate and determined in the exercise of His compassion, mercy, and even in His halting the temple ceremonies to clear out the Gentile court. I also believe each of those acts were evidence of His use of non-violent civil resistance against a religious culture that had lost its way.

All that said, I'm still adding the book you suggested to my summer reading list. Who knows? I might change my mind.

[_RayAgostini]

I think we are called to be friends to all men. The question, "Lord who is my neighbor?" could easily be rewritten to read "Who is my friend?" without altering the significance of the parable that followed it.

Acknowledging that some will be our enemies, by their own choice, doesn't mean that we have to live and die by the sword they carry.

On the contrary, it may just mean that in allowing our sides to be pierced, for their sakes, they come to know the depth of our love and they lay down their weapons in favor of reconciliation.

Do you have any thoughts on Joan of Arc? Do you feel that the English domination of France would have ceased by the French extending love to the English?

Do you feel that this statement is "un-Christian"?:

“Of the love or hatred God has for the English, I know nothing, but I do know that they will all be thrown out of France, except those who die there.” - Joan of Arc

[_Chap]

I think we are called to be friends to all men. The question, "Lord who is my neighbor?" could easily be rewritten to read "Who is my friend?" without altering the significance of the parable that followed it.

Acknowledging that some will be our enemies, by their own choice, doesn't mean that we have to live and die by the sword they carry.

On the contrary, it may just mean that in allowing our sides to be pierced, for their sakes, they come to know the depth of our love and they lay down their weapons in favor of reconciliation.

Do you have any thoughts on Joan of Arc? Do you feel that the English domination of France would have ceased by the French extending love to the English?

Ahem. The English were conquered by a French duke in 1066, and thereafter the ruling class preferred French as their communication medium for centuries. The 'English' kings who claimed (and long held) territory on the continent during the middle ages were cousins and often brothers-in-law of the 'French' nobles they were fighting. Some French people I know feel that the final cultural rupture between the governing clans of the island and the continent came as a consequence of the loss of lands at the time of the wars in which Joan played a part. You are projecting national identities too far back into the past to make complete sense. But that happens all the time ...

I don't think, by the way, that you are going to succeed in getting M&G to join the NRA and support 'stand your ground' with a few neat posts like this. I think she does what she feels called to do, and would no doubt refrain from judging you if you were to feel called to go out there and gun down the bad guys. She answers for herself, and would I suspect accord you the same privilege, if I understand her correctly.

[_RayAgostini]

Ahem. The English were conquered by a French duke in 1066, and thereafter the ruling class preferred French as their communication medium for centuries. The 'English' kings who claimed (and long held) territory on the continent during the middle ages were cousins and often brothers-in-law of the 'French' nobles they were fighting. Some French people I know feel that the final cultural rupture between the governing clans of the island and the continent came as a consequence of the loss of lands at the time of the wars in which Joan played a part. You are projecting national identities too far back into the past to make complete sense. But that happens all the time ...

I don't need a summary run down of the incestuous conflicts and battles in European history I already know about. But thanks, anyway.

I don't think, by the way, that you are going to succeed in getting M&G to join the NRA and support 'stand your ground' with a few neat posts like this. I think she does what she feels called to do, and would no doubt refrain from judging you if you were to feel called to go out there and gun down the bad guys. She answers for herself, and would I suspect accord you the same privilege, if I understand her correctly.

Are you normally a pompous ass? Or is it something that occurs sporadically?

Now just butt out, and let MnG answer my questions. I don't need your intellectual show pony "historical complexities" (which I already know about) to answer simple questions I asked MnG.

Want me to simplify it? If someone punched your wife in the face, would you say, "peace, brother"?

[_Chap]

...

I don't think, by the way, that you are going to succeed in getting M&G to join the NRA and support 'stand your ground' with a few neat posts like this. I think she does what she feels called to do, and would no doubt refrain from judging you if you were to feel called to go out there and gun down the bad guys. She answers for herself, and would I suspect accord you the same privilege, if I understand her correctly.

Are you normally a pompous ass? Or is it something that occurs sporadically?

Now just butt out, and let MnG answer my questions. I don't need your intellectual show pony "historical complexities" (which I already know about) to answer simple questions I asked MnG.

Want me to simplify it? If someone punched your wife in the face, would you say, "peace, brother"?

I think what we have here is an example of 'false hair on the chest' syndrome, all too common on message boards where people can be as aggressive as they like in a totally risk-free environment: if experience of how that plays out on this board is any guide, at some point in the exchange Ray will tell me (or even M&G) to 'grow a pair'.

Ray thinks ethical questions related to the use of violence in defense of oneself or others are simple. That in itself means there is not much to be gained by talking to him. But you know what? I expect M&G to give him a really nice, kind, and thoughtful answer.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray thinks ethical questions related to the use of violence in defense of oneself or others are simple. That in itself means there is not much to be gained by talking to him. But you know what? I expect M&G to give him a really nice, kind, and thoughtful answer.

Get MnG to work three or four night shifts as a cab driver, even though females never work these shifts (guess why?). Then let's see how far "love" goes. While one or two in a hundred "may" respond to "love", you're going to be eating cow dung for meals if you let them over-run you by "showing love". They're not going to pay, if you come across as a "softie". Guaranteed!

So I have to confess I'm cynical about "loving everyone" equally. I love honourable people who work hard and pay their way, and will even give you a "love offering" (tip) to show their appreciation for the hard work you do to get them home safely at all hours of the morning. Then there's the lazy, dole bludger scum-thievery who call themselves "human beings", who would rob their own mother for money or drugs. I think it was Joseph Smith who said that there's three kinds of poor - the Lord's poor, the devil's poor, and poor devils.

I'll reach out to the "poor devils" when they show the nearest sign of wanting to get off their rotten, lazy butts and contribute something to society, even in the smallest ways. Until then my attitude is - you don't work, then you don't eat.

Not very traditionally "Christian", I suppose. The emphasis on "grace", has to be tempered with the reality of "works", and that doesn't mean there's no forgiveness, or no love; it just means that one has to take the first, even baby step, to earn such trust.

Heavenly Father to drowning son: "I love you, son, but I can't think of any real impact you've made in your personal life, much less to the world, so drown, bitch!"

lol. I'm only joking, but maybe you get the drift. Sauls may become Pauls, but there's no honour or worth in remaining a Saul, and there's no forgiveness unless one at least first recognises the error of their ways, and takes the first "baby-step" to genuine change. That is where the "law of mercy" immediately takes effect, and it is, in my opinion, for these whom Christ gave his life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Good night, people.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't quite understand why Joan of Arc is pertinent here. Obviously people use violence to defend themselves. Sometimes that works out. Is this interest in Joan of Arc based on the idea that she was allegedly motivated by divine revelation to do what she did?

We would have to accept that in order to use her for this purpose, right?

What if one doesn't?

[_mercyngrace]

Do you have any thoughts on Joan of Arc? Do you feel that the English domination of France would have ceased by the French extending love to the English?

Do you feel that this statement is "un-Christian"?:

“Of the love or hatred God has for the English, I know nothing, but I do know that they will all be thrown out of France, except those who die there.” - Joan of Arc

I don't think she was un-Christian, no. I do think that generally, war is less effective at winning hearts and minds. So I guess it depends on your aim.

In terms of individual relationships, when I'm "under attack", I have to decide if I'm looking to end the conflict or to end the animosity. In most cases, because I do genuinely care about other people, I care more about the relationship than about scoring points in an argument.

And anyway, what good does it do to score points with someone who has already stopped listening to you?