Thanks for your response, Bennett. I went back to do some reading where he talks of man's knowledge of good and evil as setting mankind apart from God. I disagree. He writes, "Man at his origin knows only one thing: God It is only in the unity of his knowledge of God that he knows of other men, of things, and of himself. He knows all things only in God, and in God all things. The knowledge of good and evil shows that he is no longer at one with this origin."
Anyway I like this reading of his about "action."
Action
Do and dare what is right, not swayed by the whim of the moment.
Bravely take hold of the real, not dallying now with what might be.
Not in the flight of ideas but only in the action of freedom.
Make up your mind and come out into the tempest of living.
God's command is enough and your faith in him to sustain you.
Then at last freedom will welcome your spirit amid great rejoicing.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
hanged for his opposition to Hitler.
Originally posted by richhoeyI very much agree with you. I'm glad I did not delete it. Glad for two reasons. 1st I am from free speech. 2nd The debate going on is very calm and different point of views are being expressed very well.
Sorry, have to ask the question here. Why was there ever the possibility that this thread might be deleted? War is a matter which can raise temperatures, sure, but as far as I can see this debate has been conducted sensibly and with due respect to opposing opinions. Surely moderating should be restricted to matters of insult, obcenity and bad language?
My first reaction was that this would get into a mud slinging contest. I see I made the right choice. Many fine people here can debate a very hot topic sensibly. I am proud to sit here and read the post even though I have little to contribute to them.
3rd, I would of had to justify to my peers (other moderators) why I had deleted it.
John
Originally posted by vaknsoyes, in a war there is always some-one innocent that suffers:'(
Bennett,
Im quoting you from a previous post "there is still a moral imiperative not to inflict suffering on the innocent, and that is an imperative we will violate in a war with Iraq. "
I cant think of any war that the innocent have not suffered.
John
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk, thanks for your response. I have a question. When Bronhoeffer says "He knows of all things only in God", I take him to mean that all of our knowledge flows directly from our union with God; that without this union, any claims to knowledge are merely pretense and without justification. But then he claims that to the extent we have knowledge of good and evil, we are no longer part of this union. I take this to mean that if we make claims to knowedge of good and evil, it's evidence that we've alienated ourself from God. Thus, it seems that to the extent we believe we have some knowedge of good and evil, we're no longer in an epistemic position to know anything. So if we think our moral claims are justified, we're actually unjustified in all of our knolwedge claims. Now there are two ways of understanding this that I can see. It could be that whatever it is that makes an action right is just something that cannot be understood by man, though moral action can be undertaken by man if man follows God's command (though we wouldn't know that our action was moral, merely that it was required by God). On this reading, God alone knows what is right and wrong, and although we can never glimpse this knowledge, we can nevertheless act in accord with it by following God's command. Or it could mean that there really isn't anything at all that makes an action right or wrong apart from God's willing, there is merely that which God requires, allows, or prohibits. And this brings us (suprise) right back to Plato. In his dialogue Eutyphro, Socrates is grilling some poor guy about virtue, and asks whether that which is good is so because the gods command it, or whether the gods command particular things because they are, in themselves, good. How do you think Bronhoeffer would respond to this question? How would you?
[b]Thanks for your response, Bennett. I went back to do some reading where he talks of man's knowledge of good and evil as setting mankind apart from God. I disagree. He writes, "Man at his origin knows only one thing: God It is only in the unity of his knowledge of God that he knows of other men, of things, and of himself. He knows all things only in ...[text shortened]... ll things. The knowledge of good and evil shows that he is no longer at one with this origin."
Respectufully,
Bennett
I stayed up late last night rereading some of his stuff and it difficult to understand that very paradox you describe. He comes to this place based on "the fall" in Genesis. One thing that I have believed that is heresy to many Christians is that we were better off after the fall simply because it was a graduation from an extreme level of dependency. The relationship with God is one where one has to struggle in thought and emotion and often in actions. To me this is more conguent with life as I experience it. What I'm saying is that life is often an effort and painful. The relationship with God requires a struggle, but also an openness to goodness (eyes to see and ears to hear). Anyway, I hope this makes some sense. Thanks, Bennett. Kirk
I started this, but have been no greater part than a spark is to a fireworks factory fire. As usual many people know more & are more eloquent than myself.
One point that I think has been neglected is the Iraqi troups. This wouldn't be a war but a massacre. I've seen pictures (not released to the public) such as of what was left of an Iraqi tank after being hit by a modern tank shell - less than a quarter at the back remained. The death toll will be at least 100 times higher (if not 1000 times) on the Iraqi side for fighting in the desert.
But I've studied F/OIBUA (Fighting/Operations In Built-up Areas). Even against semi trained troups the casualtied will be heavy on both sides.
I have appreciated reading all sides, but I can't get past the point that preemptive strikes are wrong. You can't lock up a man because you think/know he is going to kill someone. You can watch him, limit his chances, but until he attempts to act you have to let him carry on being free.
Originally posted by richhoeySorry, not got used to these complex forum things yet. My last comment was supposed to be a reply to Vaksno's reply to me, if that makes sense.
Thanks for the response. I'm grateful for the rare opportunity not only to contribute to debate, but also to get a valuable insight into other people's thoughts.
Originally posted by richhoeyYou are welcome. This issue is very much a part of our lives and being able to discuss it will help us (me) understand how other view it.
Thanks for the response. I'm grateful for the rare opportunity not only to contribute to debate, but also to get a valuable insight into other people's thoughts.
John
Originally posted by richhoeyYes it makes sense. If you want to respond to a specific post , select "Reply & Quote". Others will see what post you are responding to.
Sorry, not got used to these complex forum things yet. My last comment was supposed to be a reply to Vaksno's reply to me, if that makes sense.
John
As most of you know, I fancy myself as an intellectual. I just want to tell you this: The resortion to violence by any individual and/or group (a good example being our current government) is a candid declaration that you are too exceptionally STUPID to find a more plausible and fruitful solution.
Thus said, I ask you this: Why do we consistently elect such earmarked buffoons to represent us? About 2% of the U.S. population has an I.Q. of 135 or over. Why are none of these people ever our president? At this point, the ability of a leader to even speak our language properly would get kudos from me!
Yes, I know there are some very intelligible reasons for our governments wanton destruction of foreign soil. I simply can't find any of those reasons to be in the interest of the people. To put it all under the pretense of patriotic defense is only that much more despicable. What can I say? I guess the definition of "selfless" must be transposed with the meaning of "selfish" in some of the Texas schools dictionarys. 😀
Enough of my ranting. If I upset anyone, they have my apologies. This is only my honest observations and opinions. If you think differently, GOOD! Thinking for yourself is something we can both agree on.
About 2% of the U.S. population has an I.Q. of 135 or over. Why are none of these people ever our president?I work with many people with IQ's over 135. Good guys but I wouldn't rush to invite them to a party (sorry guys). Some of them have no interpersonal skills at all. That's why they're rarely elected. Being a leader has more to it than just intelect. Not saying that you shouldn't have a bit of it...
As for the "is war ever justified" question, that one has been argued for longer than we've been around. I'd have to say that it is; that sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. But you shouldn't start the first blaze because the other person might be holding matches.