Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
In that case we should take military action against the Vatican, they are a prime example of corrupt and oppressive regime.
That is an internal matter for the people of Afghanistan and not my call to make. But according to your example, the next time I feel my freedoms being curtailed by the Christian Right then I have a legitimate cause to physically attack them?
As I said before, Christians are just as bad at imposing their views and restricting freedom. But because you choose to believe one piece of scripture over another you can`t see anything wrong with that.
|
I think I detect within this rather sour and sarcastic post that you might just about be almost agreeing with me.
In a discussion forum, you don't have to make a call, you just express an opinion. I get the impression that you don't like the Taleban regime but to say so would undermine your position.
Now, regarding your comments on Christianity, let me briefly set out my 'agenda' again just so we're clear and just so you don't feel the need to keep diverting the debate onto (what you perceive to be) my beliefs. I've said this more than once in this thread already, so here goes nothing:
I'm a Christian. My understanding of the Bible means I am a pacifist. Jesus' message was for his followers to be peacemakers as he was. My understanding of the Bible also leads me to believe that legitimate, secular government, even when it sets itself against God's purposes, is to be tolerated and not rebelled against unless its demands put an obligation on me that is contrary to my faith, in which case I can disobey, but peacefully. Ultimately all authority comes from God and he will ultimately call everyone to account for what they do with what they are given.
This is why I feel able to debate this point with you even though I could never have sanctioned the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan myself. In fact, were I to try to actually
do anything about those countries, I would have joined the many Christians who were there either legally, bringing medical aid, or illegally. And believe me, there were plenty of them - peaceful, but still illegal.
As for your comments about the Vatican, I do not regard much of what comes out of there as particularly 'Christian' and nor do a lot of Christians.
As for the Christian Right, as I said, our freedom is defined and constrained by laws designed to allow personal freedom while protecting the freedom of third parties. Domestic laws just about everywhere in the world would forbid you from phyisically attacking someone just because you disagree with them, but 'international law' (insofar as it actually exists) does ultimately allow for armed conflict. If you really want to beat up a Christian, I suggest you go to one of the many countries in the world where we are persecuted for our beliefs. The secret police in Tunisia or China, or even Pakistan, would welcome you with open arms.
Look, I don't like armed conflict, you don't like it either, but what I have been trying to say is that this is the way the world
is, and those that want change need to understand that and then work within those parameters if anything is going to change. What I think you are doing - and what many of the protesters on the streets of London today are doing - is saying, this is how the world
should be, and then getting angry when they see people acting differently. A little more pragmatism and a willingness to engage with people where they are instead of where they think they should be would be useful.
And as for 'imposing views' and 'restricting freedom' ... anybody who ever did such a thing in the name of Christ is a liar and is not following the teachings of Jesus. I would never do that, and I can safely say that other Christians on this forum like Russ and Bexy would never do that. So now you know.