Funny thing: you atheists and agnostics have rejected religion, while still clinging to blind patriotism.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. At least there is proof that a country exists.

All the conquerors of the Western Hemisphere, Australia and NZ and their descendants, except less than 1% who practiced Christian pacifism, shared 2 errors:

Their false churches taught that God did not want them to love their enemy and live peaceably;

The government taught that citizens must obey blindly when they declared war.

Funny thing: you atheists and agnostics have rejected religion, while still clinging to blind patriotism.

You're bundling alot of people together there.

I see "blind patriotism" as found in a few countries (North Korea and America for example) as a sort of religion. It is certainly akin to religious fervour.

North Korea is probably the best example of patriotism brainwashed into the people to the point where it is religious.

Funny thing: you atheists and agnostics have rejected religion, while still clinging to blind patriotism.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. At least there is proof that a country exists.

How true.

I worshipped beer for a long time.

There's definite proof beer exists, it's call a mirror.

All the conquerors of the Western Hemisphere, Australia and NZ and their descendants, except less than 1% who practiced Christian pacifism, shared 2 errors:

Their false churches taught that God did not want them to love their enemy and live peaceably;

The government taught that citizens must obey blindly when they declared war.

Funny thing: you atheists and agnostics have rejected religion, while still clinging to blind patriotism.

This is an interesting debate but a bit short on facts.

More than 99% of churches are false churches, and how is that defined? You may be right if you are saying churches are very influential in creating patritism but you have not proved your case.

Your "second error" that you quote is I think more a question of how democracy works. " My country right or wrong". In a democracy, if a war is declared on a majority view, it has legality within the terms of the law. ( The usual defence at Nuremberg in following orders. Actons outside the law - war crimes - is a different matter of course)

Your last sentence is your own view I think. it would be interesting to hear how you can back up your point other than just stating it.

Atheists believe there is no God; agnostics arev open-minded about it. Neither have "rejected" religion. Buddhism is a religion though they do not beleive in a God.

I respect your pacifist views, PB, there is much I would support in some of the things you say; but you often express your views rather aggresively and without a developed argument.

caf

Yes, after 35 years of battling near-total ignorance in these matters, I do not suffer fools.

"Christendom" - the violent, hateful, twisted, dominating perversion of the love of Christ - shapes Western 'civilization' still.

That was paired with absolute loyalty to the Nation-State as a God. That was The Fall of The Church, ca. 325 AD.

You dare to accuse me of being short on facts? Guilty as charged.

caf, democracy doesn't work well at all. Nation-states, especially mine, wage wars without declaring them constitutionally. Those who serve in combat must kill all declared enemies, and citizens who support that are complicit in their killings. AFAIK, there has never been a decision whether any war was just.

So, in my arrogant pacifist opinion, it's not only the believers who are deceived, but non-believers as well. The Buddhist monks, who are pacifists, almost never convince Buddhists to reject wars, even against 'Buddhists.' The Nation-State triumphs.

Time for me to bring out Buffy, my vampire killer

Universal Soldier

[Lade Songtext von http://lyrics.wikia.com/lyrics/Buffy Sainte-Marie:The Universal Soldier (http://lyricwiki.org)]

He's five feet two and he's six feet four

He fights with missiles and with spears

He's all of 31 and he's only 17

He's been a soldier for a thousand years

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain,

a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew

and he knows he shouldn't kill

and he knows he always will

kill you for me my friend and me for you

And he's fighting for Canada,

he's fighting for France,

he's fighting for the USA,

and he's fighting for the Russians

and he's fighting for Japan,

and he thinks we'll put an end to war this way

And he's fighting for Democracy

and fighting for the Reds

He says it's for the peace of all

He's the one who must decide

who's to live and who's to die

and he never sees the writing on the walls

But without him how would Hitler have

condemned him at Dachau

Without him Caesar would have stood alone

He's the one who gives his body

as a weapon to a war

and without him all this killing can't go on

He's the universal soldier and he

really is to blame

His orders come from far away no more

They come from him, and you, and me

and brothers can't you see

this is not the way we put an end to war.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Yes, after 35 years of battling near-total ignorance in these matters, I do not suffer fools.

"Christendom" - the violent, hateful, twisted, dominating perversion of the love of Christ - shapes Western 'civilization' still.

That was paired with absolute loyalty to the Nation-State as a God. That was The Fall of The Church, ca. 325 AD.

You dare to accuse me of being short on facts? Guilty as charged.

caf, democracy doesn't work well at all. Nation-states, especially mine, wage wars without declaring them constitutionally. Those who serve in combat must kill all declared enemies, and citizens who support that are complicit in their killings. AFAIK, there has never been a decision whether any war was just.

So, in my arrogant pacifist opinion, it's not only the believers who are deceived, but non-believers as well. The Buddhist monks, who are pacifists, almost never convince Buddhists to reject wars, even against 'Buddhists.' The Nation-State triumphs.

PB, why not answer the points I raised.

Even after I said

"I respect your pacifist views, PB, there is much I would support in some of the things you say;"

you still continue to post the way you do.

And your comment

"Christendom" - the violent, hateful, twisted, dominating perversion of the love of Christ" ; if targeting all members of a religious belief is not only naive but against forum rules.

A disgraceful comment for which you should apologise.

caf

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Jewish mystics often spoke figuratively. That's a good example. The Old and New Testaments both use hyperbole to state that the Messiah would be so non-violent that he wouldn't bend a blade of grass. When Jesus' followers misunderstood that he meant that figuratively - read the context - he chided them, walked out to be arrested by a cohort of 500 armed Roman guards, and laid them all on the ground by pronouncing God's name.

What if one feels that he was speaking figuratively when he said to love one's enemies? A lot of things in the Bible contradict each other.

caf, those remarks were not aimed at you. I apologize for not thanking you for your support. Since I love my enemies, surely I love my fellow Christians even more. And I would be contributing to passively endorsing violence if I remain silent, after 1,600 years of false teachings.

I apologize for not sugar-coating my remarks about how a Fallen Church has twisted love into hate.

I answered your post in my own way. You have no idea how hard it is for me to type.

What if one feels that he was speaking figuratively when he said to love one's enemies? A lot of things in the Bible contradict each other.

Not half as many as you might imagine, and none of them crucial. Some figures of speech are clear in the immediate context. That was clearly figurative, and never meant what the warriors claim. Other doubtful, apparent contradictions are easily resolved by looking at everything the speaker said on the subject. His major speech on this subject, the Sermon on the Mount, leaves no room for doubt, and was reinforced by Paul, Peter and John.

This post took 12 minutes to write.

I consider myself a patriot. That doesn`t mean I endorse all my country`s shortcomings, rather that I will not allow you to use them to dissuade me from my loyalty.

What if one feels that he was speaking figuratively when he said to love one's enemies? A lot of things in the Bible contradict each other.

Not half as many as you might imagine, and none of them crucial. Some figures of speech are clear in the immediate context. That was clearly figurative, and never meant what the warriors claim. Other doubtful, apparent contradictions are easily resolved by looking at everything the speaker said on the subject. His major speech on this subject, the Sermon on the Mount, leaves no room for doubt, and was reinforced by Paul, Peter and John.

This post took 12 minutes to write.

I am so sorry to hear that PB.....I didn't know....I really didn't

May I ask how come?; please just one sentence in order not to disturb you or let yourself hurt

LaoPo

What if one feels that he was speaking figuratively when he said to love one's enemies? A lot of things in the Bible contradict each other.

Not half as many as you might imagine, and none of them crucial. Some figures of speech are clear in the immediate context. That was clearly figurative, and never meant what the warriors claim. Other doubtful, apparent contradictions are easily resolved by looking at everything the speaker said on the subject. His major speech on this subject, the Sermon on the Mount, leaves no room for doubt, and was reinforced by Paul, Peter and John.

This post took 12 minutes to write.

Assuming God wrote the Bible, didn't he write it (through man) in old Hebrew or Aramaic? I'm not sure I would trust the modern translations. In fact, I don't.

What if one feels that he was speaking figuratively when he said to love one's enemies? A lot of things in the Bible contradict each other.

Not half as many as you might imagine, and none of them crucial. Some figures of speech are clear in the immediate context. That was clearly figurative, and never meant what the warriors claim. Other doubtful, apparent contradictions are easily resolved by looking at everything the speaker said on the subject. His major speech on this subject, the Sermon on the Mount, leaves no room for doubt, and was reinforced by Paul, Peter and John.

Assuming God wrote the Bible, didn't he write it (through man) in old Hebrew or Aramaic? I'm not sure I would trust the modern translations. In fact, I don't.

Good question. AFAIK, except portions of Daniel in Aramaic, the OT was written in old versions of Hebrew. The NT was written in common 1st century AD Greek. Which for other than Paul and Luke, may have been first written in 1st century Aramaic. The central message of the NT is less doubtful than other stories in those days. What I'm arguing here is unquestioned by scholars: that the central feature of the early Church was pure pacifist. When R. Neibuhr wrote Why I An Not a Pacifist, he admitted that no scholar would doubt the early Church was purely pacifist. Neibuhr hated Hitler; so finally did the former pacifist who tried to kill Hitler.

Since 2007, I can't use my right hand for typing, and my mistakes are legion.

What if one feels that he was speaking figuratively when he said to love one's enemies? A lot of things in the Bible contradict each other.

Not half as many as you might imagine, and none of them crucial. Some figures of speech are clear in the immediate context. That was clearly figurative, and never meant what the warriors claim. Other doubtful, apparent contradictions are easily resolved by looking at everything the speaker said on the subject. His major speech on this subject, the Sermon on the Mount, leaves no room for doubt, and was reinforced by Paul, Peter and John.

Assuming God wrote the Bible, didn't he write it (through man) in old Hebrew or Aramaic? I'm not sure I would trust the modern translations. In fact, I don't.

Good question. AFAIK, except portions of Daniel in Aramaic, the OT was written in old versions of Hebrew. The NT was written in common 1st century AD Greek. Which for other than Paul and Luke, may have been first written in 1st century Aramaic. The central message of the NT is less doubtful than other stories in those days. What I'm arguing here is unquestioned by scholars: that the central feature of the early Church was pure pacifist. When R. Neibuhr wrote Why I An Not a Pacifist, he admitted that no scholar would doubt the early Church was purely pacifist. Neibuhr hated Hitler; so finally did the former pacifist who tried to kill Hitler.

Back in the early days what choice did the early Christians have than to be pacifist? They were lion food until they gained power. And we know what happened as soon as Christians gained wealth and power.

Since 2007, I can't use my right hand for typing, and my mistakes are legion.

...I think we need the inventors to speed up things a little so that you can use a speech application do the typing for you!

I just Googled..did you know about Vista speech recognition?; I didn't.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...eco&aqi=g10

LaoPo

I feel love for my enemies.

Women ARE the enemy aren't they?

Samuel Johnson defined it the best.

When does a Patriot become a Freedom Fighter, or a Terrorist?

I consider myself a patriot. That doesn`t mean I endorse all my country`s shortcomings, rather that I will not allow you to use them to dissuade me from my loyalty.

I don't think anyone wants to persuade anyone else to be disloyal.

Rather than defending or ignoring those shortcomings, if there are some shortcomings, wouldn't it be more loyal to rally to correct them?

Would you consider yourself any less of a patriot if you critisised what you saw as a shortcoming?

There was a parallel debate in NZ regarding loyalty in families. It was noted that whenever a Maori was up before the court, his family would pack the court and always be vocally and demonstratively supportive.

Some people could'nt understand why the support was so big, even for repeat offenders that had done horrific crimes against children.

The question posed was;You can love him, but do you support him no matter what?

When does a Patriot become... a Terrorist?

When he starts purposely targeting only non-combatants.

Rather than defending or ignoring those shortcomings, if there are some shortcomings, wouldn't it be more loyal to rally to correct them?

Would you consider yourself any less of a patriot if you critisised what you saw as a shortcoming?

I criticize my country all the time. Patriotism has nothing to do with blind faith. But I stick by my country even when things aren't going the way I'd like.

I remember back in 2004 seeing bumper stickers in the US saying "If Bush is re-elected I'm moving to Canada"

Fortunately few did, as we don't need more fair weather patriots who would abandon their country over such a frivolous thing.

Right on dude. No wonder I agree with so much that you write and say.

When does a Patriot become... a Terrorist?

When he starts purposely targeting only non-combatants.

Dresden?

Hiroshima?

When does a Patriot become... a Terrorist?

When he starts purposely targeting only non-combatants.

Dresden?

Hiroshima?

London Coventry

caf

When does a Patriot become... a Terrorist?

When he starts purposely targeting only non-combatants.

Dresden?

Hiroshima?

There were plenty of soldiers in both places.

London Coventry

caf

I am not arguing the rights or wrongs Caf