Zephyrus

I suppose one could argue on a far-fetched train of thought that one can "strive for peace with all men" by going to war.

Because, as we all know, WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Yeah, it's possible to come up with a rationalization for it, but you can only stretch the meanings and interpretation of words so much before they become so twisted that they are their opposites. I'm sure someone could argue Stalin was fighting for Christian principles of peace when he committed wide scale democide.

Oh yes, one last thing: Would Jesus bomb Iraq?

Rev Prez

Your burden is to demonstrate an indisputable contradiction between the ethics espoused in the epistles and those in the Gospel. Go for it.

Huh?

Looks like a No True Scotsman right now. Of course, you can easily resolve that by showing an undeniable contradiction between the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

Rev Prez

Rev Prez

Yes, which aptly describes most major American military adventures.

Appealing to Orwell doesn't rescue your flawed argument.

It's plausible.

Rev Prez

erimir

Well, I suppose one could object that Jesus, being dead, can't even consider the question of whether to bomb Iraq. Or that in his time, he couldn't bomb Iraq because they didn't have bombs... Or that Jesus was never in charge of the US Army. But those would be frivolous objections, wouldn't they?

I think the question can be more clearly worded as:

"Are the US's actions in Iraq consistent with the teachings of Jesus as given in the NT?"

This question is being asked BECAUSE the one asking the question (me or xandrewx) think that Jesus is usually depicted as peaceful, and so obviously, going to war would seem inconsistent. It may not actually be inconsistent, so thus the question, giving you a chance to explain how it is consistent.

Note that the premise of the question isn't that Jesus is peaceful, but that the notion that he is peaceful is the impetus for ASKING the question.

Well, as zephyrus pointed out, Jesus did say some very pro-peace things. These COULD be interpreted as pacifistic, but at the least, they seem to suggest that diplomatic solutions should be exhausted before war is used. And I don't feel that they were in this case.

Since I'm too lazy to do the research for this (which should be common knowledge), I'll point you to Zephyrus's post and to the fact that it is not actually a premise of the question. It is an opinion that I hold which is why I am curious and am thus asking the question. Just like if I ask if you like George W. Bush on the belief that you are a Republican, it doesn't invalidate the question if I can't prove that you are in fact a Republican. Therefore this is irrelevant and so there is no need for me to prove it.

You are being abrasive and nitpicky. You may not appreciate that I point that out, but the tone of the discussion is relevant to the discussion, whereas if I called you a stinky poo-poo head, or say, pointed to your like of pornography, it would be irrelevant.

Otherwise a person could make frivolous claims all day and then say I'm making an ad hominem when I point out that he's trying to distract from the main issue, or something similar.

I have different views on Jesus. Since I don't personally believe he even existed, I simply can recognize different positions on Jesus held by different types of Christians. I think that many Christians consider him to be a peaceful figure. I realize that other Christians have a different view of him.

The important thing is that I am referring to how Christians portray him, not how the Bible does.

Only because you refuse to answer the question in a meaningful way. You could explain why the premise is wrong and then give your opinion on Jesus regarding war. That would advance the discussion. Or you could realize that there is no special premise, and just answer whether you think the war in Iraq is consistent with Jesus's teachings.

Another flip-flop answer. You could at least explain why you think it is plausible. I don't think the OP is looking for yes/no/maybe answers.

Now that we've cleared up the fact that this is not, in actuality, a loaded question with a premise to be disputed, you can answer it knowing that you aren't being tricked.

Because even if I am mistaken in thinking that Christians depict Jesus as peaceful, you can still answer the question.

Now: Would Jesus bomb Iraq?

Rev Prez

I object to the premise that Jesus was a pacifist.

I've seen no evidence that they are inconsistent.

As I said, I do not accept that premise.

The burden is on you to show an inconsistency with Jesus' teaching. The OP argues Jesus is a pacifist and as such there is an inconsistency. I do not except the premise that Jesus is a pacifist.

So the premise is not a premise because it's a premise?

Or we could avoid jumping to conclusions all together.

Then feel free to defend an alternative route.

You're just a collection of characters on a screen. There's no emotion invested in this exchange at all. Don't interpret curtness for the sake of economy to be abrasiveness. You can try substantiating the nitpicking charge any time you like.

Except there is no pornography, and I'm not a poo-poo head. Resorting to personal attacks will not rescue your failing arguments.

My motivations are not at issue in the OP, therefore the relevant attacks are ad hominem.

Prove it.

Then prove Christians generally portray Scripture as you say they do.

I did. It's plausible in absence of inconsistency between Jesus' teachings and regime change advocacy.

You can explain why the premise is right. It's not my burden to the validity of an assumption I do not hold.

Then we're at an impasse.

You claim there is a premise, and then you claim there is no premise, then you claim there is a premise again, and so on and so forth. Which is it?

The absence of an inconsistency renders it plausible.

You get the answer the question is structured to receive.

We haven't cleared that up.

It's plausible.

Rev Prez

erimir

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Not really. I have not claimed that there is actually an inconsistency. Just that it seems that there may be an inconsistency, based on the fact that many Christians view Jesus as a figure of peace.

The OP also does not claim that there is in actuality any contradiction between Jesus's teachings and war. It claims that many Christians consider Jesus's teachings to be teachings of peace, and thus is pointing out that many Christians are hypocritical about this issue. He did not say that he personally thought that Jesus taught peace, etc.

I suppose this part here: "Nope, because it reveals a contradication of many evangelicals: the Bible's teachings and the belief that everything the government does is right." could be construed to mean that he personally believes that the Bible must be interpreted such that Jesus's teachings would oppose the war in Iraq, but I think more accurately it is referring to the Evangelicals' beliefs about the Bible's teachings.

And since you like to be very nitpicky, I'll say that the OP at no point referred to Jesus as a pacifist in any form. He suggested that the Iraq War is inconsistent with Bible teachings, but there are plenty of ways for that to be true that don't involve Jesus being a pacifist.

You excel at irrelevance.

Alright, so you're probably annoyed by my Rev Prez-like dismissals at this point, right?

So I'll explain it to you so that you can understand why it is irrelevant.

Suppose I asked a Korean if he eats dog meat. Now, this would reveal that I held an offensive and erroneous belief concerning Koreans. However, this does not mean that the question has "Most Koreans eat dog meat" as a premise. The question is simply the question "Do you eat dog meat?"

This is different from a loaded question. If I asked you "Have you stopped jerking off to sueprez2.jpg yet?", you have a legitimate reason to object. If you answer yes, it confirms that you were jerking off to it, if you answer no, it also confirms that you were.

If the Korean answers that he eats dog meat, it has no bearing to his acceptance of the "premise". If he answers no, it also has no bearing on the supposed "premise".

Likewise, if you answer the question "Would Jesus bomb Iraq?" you are not being tricked into agreeing with the "premise" that Jesus is a pacifist.

The fact that I think Jesus is typically portrayed as peaceful has no bearing whatsoever on the VALIDITY of the question.

Do you understand now, or will I have to explain again?

No. It's a reason FOR asking the question. Not a premise inherent in the question. I could believe that Jesus was a warmonger and would nuke Iraq, and still ask the question. And it would still be just as valid a question. Also, of course, you can see my above response.

How, pray tell, is assuming that "striving for peace with all men" does not involve going to war on false pretenses, jumping to conclusions? It is a logical conclusion.

You can disagree with that by disagreeing that Jesus would disapprove of wars based on false pretenses, or you can argue that the war is not based on false pretenses. But that is not the same as claiming I'm jumping to conclusions and then not explaining why.

You can answer the question by explaining how war in general is consistent with Jesus's teachings and then explaining how the Iraq war is consistent with the cases that Jesus's teachings would approve of. Of course, that would mean we got a meaningful response out of you, so you probably want to avoid doing that.

An alternate route to what?

Whoa, you're getting a little deep here. You mean, that, like, you're not actually seeing me in person? Because I wasn't aware.

I don't. I interpret it as unsupported assertions.

You are nitpicking because you continue to insist that I prove that Christians portray Jesus as peaceful. That's almost as bad as asking me to "prove" that African natives have dark skin. Well, yes, I could do that, but asking me to do it reveals that you're just being nitpicky because we all know that African natives have dark skin (with a few exceptions, e.g. albinos), just like we all know that Jesus is often portrayed as a figure of peace. However, I see no need to prove any such thing since it is irrelevant.

Prove it. I don't accept the premise that you have no porno.

Prove it. I don't accept the premise that your head is not made of poo.

If you read the section in question, you would realize that I specifically was saying that such tactics would be invalid.

I don't need to because it is irrelevant to the question. Whether or not I am correct in thinking that they portray Jesus that way, the question is still valid.

Oh my, I teased out a little more from you! You mentioned nothing about regime change before. All you said was "it's plausible". Now, you could explain how his regime change advocacy would have anything to do with Iraq and why you think there's an absence of inconsistency, but that would be asking too much.

It's not my burden to prove the validity of an assumption that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Whether it is true or not has no bearing on whether Jesus would bomb Iraq. If you would like to discuss how Christians portray Jesus, you can start a new thread.

If by "impasse" you mean "I continue to demand you prove things that no reasonable person needs proof of and which are completely irrelevant to the discussion before I will spend even three consecutive sentences on answering the OP's question" then yes, we are.

It's not a premise inherent to the question, as I explained. There is no "premise" to the question. There is a "premise" perhaps, for me ASKING the question. But the question can stand alone. The real answer is, however, that this entire discussion of the "premise" of the question is a sidetrack, because it is entirely irrelevant. The question is valid regardless of whether the "premise" is true or not.

Which is essentially stating the same thing. You have not explained why there is no inconsistency, therefore you have not explained why it is plausible.

"Why is the sky blue?" "Because of our atmosphere." That doesn't really answer the question, does it?

I asked you to explain, and I got essentially nothing. But since I see your style is to be hypertechnical to the point of making distinctions that aren't there, I shouldn't be surprised. Just like you shouldn't be surprised when I ask you to prove that your head isn't made of poo-poo in response.

Then obviously you are unaware of what a loaded question is. Look it up, it's not my responsibility to explain every little term for you. It'll be in the list of fallacies hosted on this site. Or you can just look up logical fallacies on Google.

Why?
Let's just say I said "Why?" to the next ten of your responses so that you don't say "because there is no inconsistency" and then "Because nothing Jesus says is inconsistent with the war in Iraq" when I ask you to explain that.

Rev Prez

Since most of your post has little to do with the discussion or retreads previous points I've knocked down, I'll keep this concise.

Very relevant. I also do not accept the premise that Christians generally depict Jesus as a pacifist.

Because the premise has yet to be validated.

Rev Prez

Cynical-Chick

Rev,

Where in the Bible does Christ advocate waging unjustified, preemptive wars on sovereign nations? Where in your Bible does it say that "Thou shalt torture and maim thine enemies"? Did Christ tell you "Hate thy neighbor"?

DaMan121

Oh come on, now you are being intellectually dishonest. If the OP said ALL Christians believed this, then fine, disagree, but if your saying the prevelant opinion that Jesus was a peacefull man is wrong, sheesh, I dont see the point in going any further.

Spanky

Rev, you obviously revel in your supposed intelligence. The OP asked a simple question and you turned it around and asked him a question. Typical right wing stuff I might add.
No where did Jesus condone war and he was a pacafist. When he was in the garden he told Peter to put away his sword and not to fight. He resisted fighting back. Or how about in acts when they stoned Stephen (I don't remember his name)? Did he fight back in self defense? No, he looked up and asked god to forgive them.
Anyways, I marvel at your and other peoples abilities to avoid the questions. . .thus, cognative dissonance is a good label.