Chicle-Treat

Okay, I think this is a proper forum to ask this question. If not, please move it.

So, anyway, I got into a conversation with another street preacher. His whole gist this time was proclaiming America was blessed by God with the H-bomb because we are a Christian-founded nation. I couldn't help but think dark thoughts. So anyway, the conversation deteriorated into 9-11 and how it was right Bush righteously went after Iraq and Afghanistan. He left before I could ask questions, so I figured, I'll ask them here.

Supposedly there is a Biblical basis for this guy's thoughts. On the other hand, on campus there is a Quaker group that shows a Biblical basis that war is wrong. I've always thought that in the Christian philosophy, one should "turn the other cheek", and that if someone attacks and kills you or a family member, you're supposed to forgive because your reward is in heaven.

So, terrorists have attacked. What is the Biblical basis for attacking back? What is the Biblical basis to turn the other cheek?

I'd be interesting in seeing the contrasts [*cough*contradictions*cough*] in the preaching of Jesus on this matter vs. Paul. Or even an Old testament vs. New testament contrast on how to deal with the terrorist attack.

As a Christian-founded nation, I'd like to see this...

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Weltall

I'll leave it to the experts here to deal with the scripture contrasts, but I just have to ask... did he really call the H-bomb a blessing? That's just sick. Oh, and although I'm sure others will do better that I can, the whole Christian Nation thing has been pretty thoughoughly debunked. There's no mention of religion in either the constitution or the DoI, and the 'god' spoken of there isn't the theistic model. There's a thread in the EoG forum right now where that's being discussed.

Chicle-Treat

Yes, this gentleman truly believed the H-Bomb was a blessing from god, as it obviously stopped WWII. That's his rationale. But didn't a non-Christian help bring about the bomb? That's another story.

As for the foundation of America as a Christian nation, I don't believe it. I had to do a long report on the Treaty of Tripoli, so I 'm convinced that we truly aren't a "Christian Nation". I likely should have said "If we truly were a Christian nation, then what would be the proper response to the terrorist attacks be?"

I hope that helps.

Doctor X

The problem is that since "the Bible" is a collection one can find a passage to "justify" just about anything.

Given YHWH's demands to squish entire people from existence, George the Younger would only receive criticism for leaving Afghaniis and Iraqiis alive.

A pacifist will try to squeeze out the "love your neighbor" passages to outlaw war.

Fortunately and unfortunately, we live in the real world. Fortunately, because George did not respond "knee-jerk" as some loud people wanted and unfortunately because people cause actions such as 9-11 that require a response.

What does "the Bible" say about a Hussein? Is there a passage that says we should tolerate a mass murderer who invades other countries, uses weapons of mass destruction on other countries and his own people? Is there a passage that says we should squish every Hussein in the world?

Proponents and opponents will mine the texts to find "justification" whether it exists there or not.

--J.D.

Weltall

(smacks self), I forgot to mention the Tripoli treaty. Oh well, looks like you already knew.

markfiend

Slight niggle. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission bombs based on Uranium and Neptunium (IIRC). The H-bomb i.e. Hydrogen fusion bomb was first tested in 1952 (1st November, Eniwetok atoll).

CJD

As religion and politics are often a deadly mix, I will attempt to be biblically specific and politically general.

Nonetheless, any given text can have a meaning that is more plausible than another—except maybe the "writings" of Dadaists.

If one simple principle was followed, there would be less problems with the fact that people "justify" just about anything through Scripture. That principle is this: interpret the obscure through the not-so obscure. From a literary perspective, this is common-sense. The real problem is that we have too many a-literate (not illiterate!) individuals giving interpretations.

So, then, just a few thoughts on the OP:

1. The NT writers did not foresee "Christendom," where "Christians" would be in political power one day. Thus, there is little to glean from the text regarding this issue. Different sects have approached this problem differently throughout history. I suggest Niebhur's Christ and Culture for a good topical discussion.

2. Saint Paul simply taught that there will always be a tension between the gospel and politics—that the two are not bedfellows, yet they are not completely anti-thetical either. Follow your magistrates insofar as they do not force you to disobey God's commands, Paul writes. Live in your current situation to the fullest. The main use of a government is to thwart widespread wickedness. This does not suggest that any one government is righteous; as human constructions they are ultimately depraved. Paul saw them as things God providentially governs to this end.

3. Undoubtedly, Jesus sounds more like a pacifist. But Paul didn't sound like a war-mongerer or anything. The whole "turn the other cheek" bit can be classified as more obscure than other texts that deal with 'how to live' in this world. Let's look at it more closely, Matthew 5:39:

"But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek."

The Greek idiom, "slap on the right cheek" has little to do with physical violence; rather, it has to do with verbal assaults. In other words, "a slap on the right cheek" was a bad insult. I'll let the reader pull from this what he or she may, though it should be obvious that Jesus wasn't restricting self-defense from physical violence.

This is the literary-socio-grammatical account of this passage. Those who deviate from this have the burden of proof to show otherwise.

I largely am a pacifist for liberal or pragmatic reasons, not theological reasons. Thus, Quakers or Anabaptists, in my opinion, are over-reaching. Theologically, in rare cases war is "permissible." The same goes for capital punishment. I am no fan of it, believe me. From a practical point of view, it is abused in this country, and therefore should probably be stayed until the rich are equally subject to the law as the poor are, but the principle is not faulty, while our current practice of that principle is, & co.

In sum, this might "justify" going after terrorist cells in the mountains of Afghanistan, but it hardly justifies "pre-emptive" warring.

By the way, the main problem with your street preacher is that he would've started WWIII by now (which the Busheses have been doing but sloowwly).

Regards,

CJD

Chicle-Treat

Just thought I'd drop a line and thank everyone for contributing.

I do find it interesting that many different groups of those professing faith in Christianity have different views on how 9-11 should be dealt with. Now it seems the Bible really has no basis to deal with 9-11, so people are more reacting out of emotion?

Scary world. But once again, thank you, everyone.

Doctor X

Indeed:

and they will search the Bible, Quran, and Dianetics in order to find objective support for their emotions.

--J.D.

DamagedGoods

The Hiroshima bomb was a gun-type enriched uranium device, and the Nagasaki bomb was an implosion plutonium device, I think.
Oddly enough, it never occurred to me to ask a Christian why turning the other cheek doesn't apply to 9/11. As others have said, there's support for almost anything you want to believe in the bible, provided you're choosy about how you pick your scriptures. I think the response is almost entirely emotional, and emotional fundy Americans are getting on my nerves.

I was a right-wing fundie for a while (~15 yrs), so I'll take a stab at why the "bring 'em on" mentality seems to be a bedfellow of religious thought. I think a lot of religious folks - especially here in the southern US - look at 9/11 as a Christian-vs-Muslim thing. There's a lot of books and chain emails and ideas floating around in southern fundiedom about how the Muslims are planning to take over the world, and they're worried that someone will come and make them pray to Allah. You can hear overtones of this sort of thought in right-wing discourse and the President's speeches, although they don't seem to like saying it plainly.

As with a lot of things in fundamentalist religion, it's all about fear. "Be afraid of the Muslims, they may seem like nice neighbors but they believe in a different God; don't let them fool you." "Be afraid of the Muslims, they want to use the UN to take away your bibles."

I have heard some really scary things from people I used to go to church with. One guy - now a Navy officer - thought that the US should have conquered the world when we had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, and filled the world with "christian" nations. I really don't know why American christianity seems to be thrilled by our ability to kick the ass of less technologically advanced countries. Maybe that's just what normally happens to the dominant religious belief in whichever country happens to be at the top of the heap for a generation or two.