Gerry Adams on the life of Jesus

Glenster

Maybe everyone else noticed this weeks ago, but I just saw an ad for Gerry Adams presenting next weeks jesus edition of a history of the bible.

Like most people (I expect) I was shocked at first, but now it seems to make some sort of sense, it's not like jesus lived in a time of peace.

I assume the producers aren't trying to say that Gerry Adams=Jesus (although they might be), just trying to get the point of view of someone who isn't some professor who's spent the last thirty years in a tenured position at a wood-panelled desk.

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

Ash.J.Williams

Glenster wrote: »

Maybe everyone else noticed this weeks ago, but I just saw an ad for Gerry Adams presenting next weeks jesus edition of a history of the bible.

Like most people (I expect) I was shocked at first, but now it seems to make some sort of sense, it's not like jesus lived in a time of peace.

I assume the producers aren't trying to say that Gerry Adams=Jesus (although they might be), just trying to get the point of view of someone who isn't some professor who's spent the last thirty years in a tenured position at a wood-panelled desk.

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

I would rather think he was chosen because of his knowledge of the subject matter?

PDN

Glenster wrote: »

Maybe everyone else noticed this weeks ago, but I just saw an ad for Gerry Adams presenting next weeks jesus edition of a history of the bible.

Like most people (I expect) I was shocked at first, but now it seems to make some sort of sense, it's not like jesus lived in a time of peace.

I assume the producers aren't trying to say that Gerry Adams=Jesus (although they might be), just trying to get the point of view of someone who isn't some professor who's spent the last thirty years in a tenured position at a wood-panelled desk.

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

He could blame Christianity for causing so many deaths.

Fanny Cradock

Has the series been good so far? I might try catch it on iPlayer if I can.

It seems that over the last few months (months that I haven't been in the country) there have been a couple of major Christian documentaries that I've missed

Glenster

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I would rather think he was chosen because of his knowledge of the subject matter?

I'd always be wary of celebrity experts, Is he really the most qualified scholar to discuss the life of jesus as portrayed in the bible?

Surely his selection had something more to do with any personal insights he might have, or something?

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Has the series been good so far? I might try catch it on iPlayer if I can.

It seems that over the last few months (months that I haven't been in the country) there have been a couple of major Christian documentaries that I've missed

Some good moments, some bad moments. Sundays one was awful! I switched off after about 20mins. Some real howlers in some of them too, like the scholar who supposed that monotheism did not enter the jewish world until the Babylonian exile. Why? Due to the 'archeological evidence' found. What was that evidence? A figurine of a Goddess found in a jewish house that was burnt by the Babylonians. HELLO, why were the Jews handed over to the Babylonians by God??

Anyway, will be tuning in again on Sunday to see what its like.

Saint Ruth

Glenster wrote: »

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

Well, considering the first episode (about Creation) had an non-believing Jew, the second had a muslim ex-BBC (now Al Jazeera ?) reporter, the third was Ann Widecome, though the fourth was by a historian, having old Gerry Adams on doesn't seem that much of a change.

Still, I'll watch it with an open-mind, the other episodes have been interesting...

Saint Ruth

JimiTime wrote: »

Some good moments, some bad moments. Sundays one was awful! I switched off after about 20mins. Some real howlers in some of them too, like the scholar who supposed that monotheism did not enter the jewish world until the Babylonian exile. Why? Due to the 'archeological evidence' found. What was that evidence? A figurine of a Goddess found in a jewish house that was burnt by the Babylonians. HELLO, why were the Jews handed over to the Babylonians by God??

Yep, saw her. She was also Mrs bloody "BCE"! BCE when she's even talking about the bible!?!

She was on Ann Widecome's episode too. Ann wasn't having any of it. Got her to admit that it was just "her opinion".
And then she came out with some flimsey reason that it didn't happen because the Egyptians didn't mention it (this is 1200 BC! Scholars are still arguing over which
pharaoh ruled when, never mind if and when a bunch of slaves espaced!) and that there's no archaeological record of it...3000 year old movement of people? Archaeological remains? What on earth would those be!).

She seemed to have a reasonable theory in the first episode but in the third her theory was very very flimsey.

Glenster

JimiTime wrote: »

Some good moments, some bad moments. Sundays one was awful! I switched off after about 20mins. Some real howlers in some of them too, like the scholar who supposed that monotheism did not enter the jewish world until the Babylonian exile. Why? Due to the 'archeological evidence' found. What was that evidence? A figurine of a Goddess found in a jewish house that was burnt by the Babylonians. HELLO, why were the Jews handed over to the Babylonians by God??

That theory has been suggested before by people who study the bible, I wouldn't claim to understand it but they say that there was a subtle break in the language of the bible after the exile i.e. before they used a word that meant "God as in one of the Gods" and after they used a word that meant "God as in all-powerful godhead".

I'm not sure what the last question implies.......

JimiTime

Glenster wrote: »

That theory has been suggested before by people who study the bible, I wouldn't claim to understand it but they say that there was a subtle break in the language of the bible after the exile i.e. before they used a word that meant "God as in one of the Gods" and after they used a word that meant "God as in all-powerful godhead".

I'm not sure what the last question implies.......

Well why were the Jews given over to Babylon?

Stephentlig

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Yep, saw her. She was also Mrs bloody "BCE"! BCE when she's even talking about the bible!?!

She was on Ann Widecome's episode too. Ann wasn't having any of it. Got her to admit that it was just "her opinion".
And then she came out with some flimsey reason that it didn't happen because the Egyptians didn't mention it (this is 1200 BC! Scholars are still arguing over which
pharaoh ruled when, never mind if and when a bunch of slaves espaced!) and that there's no archaeological record of it...3000 year old movement of people? Archaeological remains? What on earth would those be!).

She seemed to have a reasonable theory in the first episode but in the third her theory was very very flimsey.

they will never know which Pharaoh ruled in the Exodus, scholars have been baffled as to which Pharaoh this is, why are we told the two midwives names such as puah and shiprah, who obeyed God and did not obey the instructions of Pharaoh? because of Pharoahs great sin against Gods people and against God, therfore to not mention his name or blot out his name from the Book was a form of judgment/punishment for what he did to the Jewish people then. yet the two midwives are remembered for all posterity for their brave acts and God even grants them descendants, but pharaoh isnt remembered for all posterity.

Speaking about names, whats interesting also is that before the old testament was translated to the Greek septuagint giving it the title ''Exodus'' it was literally called ''the book of names'' hence the opening line of the Exodus ''these are the names'' and the theme of ''name'' is one of the major themes seen in the book of Exodus along with many others.

so I do believe that because God blotted his name out of the Book of Exodus, that we'll never ever ever know which pharoah it was.

thats my two cents.

prinz

Glenster wrote: »

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

Absolutely nothing of worth. Which is precisely what he brings to the table any time I have seen him discuss anything tbh.

Glenster

JimiTime wrote: »

Well why were the Jews given over to Babylon?

Cuz they were sinful.... I dont know, something like that

Cuz the Babylonians had a more advanced agrarian system which could support larger field armies......i dont know.

Cuz the devil poisoned their wine?

I just dont know why you asked the question, the bible says it was because they turned away from god but the bible account was written afterwards.

Fanny Cradock

Glenster wrote: »

I just dont know why you asked the question, the bible says it was because they turned away from god but the bible account was written afterwards.

Yes, it would have been ideal if the wrote it before :pac:

JimiTime

Glenster wrote: »

I just dont know why you asked the question, the bible says it was because they turned away from god but the bible account was written afterwards.

They were worshipping other gods and godesses. So finding a figurine of a goddess and saying it was 'evidence' that the Jews had not yet 'Invented' monotheism is quite simply a steaming pile of ignorant tosh.

Glenster

JimiTime wrote: »

They were worshipping other gods and godesses. So finding a figurine of a goddess and saying it was 'evidence' that the Jews had not yet 'Invented' monotheism is quite simply a steaming pile of ignorant tosh.

That's a bit harsh.

Admittedly all it shows us is that there was polytheism going on in Israel before the babylonian enslavement.

I cant remember exactly what the woman said but I feel as though I would have been shocked if she 'ad of held up a stuatue and claimed that it was evidence that the Israelites had not yet invented Monotheism.

Are you sure you aren't misrepresenting her a little bit?

Stephentlig

Are you sure you aren't misrepresenting her a little bit?

nope, I wouldn't say he did, Scientists really are that intelligently stupid.:pac:

JimiTime

Glenster wrote: »

That's a bit harsh.

I don't think so. There are so many folk who have such faith in the word of intellectuals, that if they talk such rubbish, they don't tend to question.

Admittedly all it shows us is that there was polytheism going on in Israel before the babylonian enslavement.

Nail on the head.

I cant remember exactly what the woman said but I feel as though I would have been shocked if she 'ad of held up a stuatue and claimed that it was evidence that the Israelites had not yet invented Monotheism.

Are you sure you aren't misrepresenting her a little bit?

I think there are some crossed wires, likely my fault for introducing different episodes to the discussion. Anyway, I'm referencing the episode with Rageh Omar presenting, not the episode at the weekend. He was talking with an Israeli archaelogist.

PDN

Just looking at the thread title again. It strikes me that a much more important assessment will be that of Jesus on the life of Gerry Adams.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

Just looking at the thread title again. It strikes me that a much more important assessment will be that of Jesus on the life of Gerry Adams.

Can't disagree with this!

For information, the next episode of "The Bible: A History" will be broadcast on Channel 4 on Sunday 21 February at 7PM. The series is produced by the same company who did "Christianity: A History" this time last year (see this thread for discussion). So far, the current series had Howard Jacobson on the Creation story, Rageh Omaar on Abraham and his children, Ann Widdecombe on the Ten Commandments and last week Bettany Hughes on women in the Bible. As always, lots of travel pictures of the Middle East (including Ann Widdecombe on top of Mount Sinai), but the programmes are a bit hit-and-miss on content. I thought that Widdecombe was dreadful, but enjoyed Hughes on women last Sunday, especially the way in which all her "talking heads" from church and academe were women.

The Gerry Adams episode has already garnered quite a lot of controversy (just what TV producers love, I suspect), but we don't have long to wait until it's broadcast (always assuming we can actually get access directly or via the internet).

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

Just looking at the thread title again. It strikes me that a much more important assessment will be that of Jesus on the life of Gerry Adams.

Let us who is without sin be the first to cast a stone. :P

wolfsbane

Glenster wrote: »

Maybe everyone else noticed this weeks ago, but I just saw an ad for Gerry Adams presenting next weeks jesus edition of a history of the bible.

Like most people (I expect) I was shocked at first, but now it seems to make some sort of sense, it's not like jesus lived in a time of peace.

I assume the producers aren't trying to say that Gerry Adams=Jesus (although they might be), just trying to get the point of view of someone who isn't some professor who's spent the last thirty years in a tenured position at a wood-panelled desk.

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

Watched it with great interest. Gerry did not present himself as any sort of expert (except in terrorism), but was an honest enquirer about the facts.

He was in for a great disappointment. The amount of twaddle and unbelief was amazing (or would have been to anyone not familiar with such documentaries). Gerry will go into the kingdom before most of those religious experts. The Irish theologian (I forget his name) was appalling.

I found myself saddened for Gerry, a lost sheep being fed rocks by by those he looks to for guidance.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Watched it with great interest. Gerry did not present himself as any sort of expert (except in terrorism Or freedom fighting), but was an honest enquirer about the facts.

He was in for a great disappointment. The amount of twaddle and unbelief was amazing (or would have been to anyone not familiar with such documentaries). Gerry will go into the kingdom before most of those religious experts. The Irish theologian (I forget his name) was appalling.

I found myself saddened for Gerry, a lost sheep being fed rocks by by those he looks to for guidance.

The old saying, 'Knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing.', is a saying that always comes to mind when I see someone being referred to as a theologian. The reason I find the saying apt in this context, is that I so often see these people with certain knowledge about the texts (price), but have very little in the way of understanding (Value).

Also, Gerry Adams' position is a very interesting one from a Christian perspective. Few Christians object to the violence dished out against the Nazi's in order to repel their tyranny. However, few seem to feel the same way about the arms struggle against the British Tyranny that once existed in the North. You referenced his 'terrorism', yet we don't hear such rhetoric about Mandela, and the catholic plight in Northern Ireland was a form of apartheid. So, as a Christian, should the catholics have turned the other cheek? I'm not giving an opinion here one way or another btw. IMO, it raises a general point, which is:

Is taking up arms a faithless position for the Christian? A, 'Sorry God, but I'm not turning the other cheek here'. How can it be reconciled with Jesus' example? The Jews wanted an uprising to rid their land of Rome, but Christ never encouraged it. He put himself at the mercy of the earthly power. I DO understand the justification for repelling tyranny, or fighting against an oppressor, but is this truly a Christ like position? Should we as Christians not follow him, and trust him to deliver us, and not love our fleshly lives that we'd kill another? I personally think its an interesting question for CHRISTIAN debate. I'd love to hear your reasonings.

I would ask that only Christians tackle the question I ask, thanks.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Is taking up arms a faithless position for the Christian? A, 'Sorry God, but I'm not turning the other cheek here'. How can it be reconciled with Jesus' example?

I would say that the difference lies in how we take up arms. If all comes to all physical force becomes necessary even for a Christian. However the manner in which arms were taken up in Northern Ireland is inexcusable.

Stephentlig

prinz wrote: »

I would say that the difference lies in how we take up arms. If all comes to all physical force becomes necessary even for a Christian. However the manner in which arms were taken up in Northern Ireland is inexcusable.

''This belongs to me'' is the biggest destroyer of peace wouldnt you agree?

The Catholic Church has an infallible just war doctrine, and as far I know a Just war is only justifiable when falls under/meets that doctrines conditions.

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

The old saying, 'Knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing.', is a saying that always comes to mind when I see someone being referred to as a theologian. The reason I find the saying apt in this context, is that I so often see these people with certain knowledge about the texts (price), but have very little in the way of understanding (Value).

Also, Gerry Adams' position is a very interesting one from a Christian perspective. Few Christians object to the violence dished out against the Nazi's in order to repel their tyranny. However, few seem to feel the same way about the arms struggle against the British Tyranny that once existed in the North. You referenced his 'terrorism', yet we don't hear such rhetoric about Mandela, and the catholic plight in Northern Ireland was a form of apartheid. So, as a Christian, should the catholics have turned the other cheek? I'm not giving an opinion here one way or another btw. IMO, it raises a general point, which is:

Is taking up arms a faithless position for the Christian? A, 'Sorry God, but I'm not turning the other cheek here'. How can it be reconciled with Jesus' example? The Jews wanted an uprising to rid their land of Rome, but Christ never encouraged it. He put himself at the mercy of the earthly power. I DO understand the justification for repelling tyranny, or fighting against an oppressor, but is this truly a Christ like position? Should we as Christians not follow him, and trust him to deliver us, and not love our fleshly lives that we'd kill another? I personally think its an interesting question for CHRISTIAN debate. I'd love to hear your reasonings.

I would ask that only Christians tackle the question I ask, thanks.

I meant no particular judgement by using the term 'terrorism'. It is used in the evil sense most often, but I see no reason for not applying it to any valid rebellion that uses terror as a tactic.

I happen to believe the IRA and Loyalists were engaged in a war, just not a just one. Stephentlig rightly refers to the Just War doctrine - I agree it provides a very helpful test before one commits to war.

Should the Catholics have turned the other cheek? They should have exhausted all democratic means before resorting to violence. But they had the example of the founders of the Irish State to appeal to, and it had been taught to them at home and school, so little wonder they took a short cut.

Not that they were the guilty and the Prods the innocents. Prods like myself and my fathers failed to do everything to accommodate the Irish sensitivities of our neighbours. Insisting on Ulster being just British was not being considerate of others, any more than insisting on it being just Irish. It took 30+ years and 3000+ dead to cause us all to think again.

There were rights and wrongs on both sides, but we are quicker to respond to our hurts than theirs. The wrath of man - however justified - works not the righteousness of God.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

I would say that the difference lies in how we take up arms. If all comes to all physical force becomes necessary even for a Christian.

And reconciling this with Christ?

However the manner in which arms were taken up in Northern Ireland is inexcusable.

I suppose this is a specific issue which is divisive as its close to home. I used it to point out how alot of Christians praise the war on the Nazi's, or even Mandela, yet seem to ignore the apartheid of the North and go on about the 'terrorists'. Are we saying we can reconcile the war against the Nazi's, and war against South African Apartheid with Christ, but not the apartheid suffered by the catholics of Northern Ireland?

From a Christ like position, are they not all the same? Men taking up arms, feeling like they must. Again, is this a faithless position, or did God want us as Christians to kill Nazi's etc? I would have thought the principal remains the same? I'm genuinely seeking an answer as to reconciling Christ and his example, to taking up arms. Here was a man, along with his followers, who were oppressed and persecuted, yet never tried to start a war or repel with violence, any tyranny. So how do we justify such methods today?

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

And reconciling this with Christ?



I suppose this is a specific issue which is divisive as its close to home. I used it to point out how alot of Christians praise the war on the Nazi's, or even Mandela, yet seem to ignore the apartheid of the North and go on about the 'terrorists'. Are we saying we can reconcile the war against the Nazi's, and war against South African Apartheid with Christ, but not the apartheid suffered by the catholics of Northern Ireland?

From a Christ like position, are they not all the same? Men taking up arms, feeling like they must. Again, is this a faithless position, or did God want us as Christians to kill Nazi's etc? I would have thought the principal remains the same? I'm genuinely seeking an answer as to reconciling Christ and his example, to taking up arms. Here was a man, along with his followers, who were oppressed and persecuted, yet never tried to start a war or repel with violence, any tyranny. So how do we justify such methods today?

Jimi if jihad muslims were allowed to do what they wanted and we turned the other cheek their would be no Christianity wouldnt you agree?

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

Jimi if jihad muslims were allowed to do what they wanted and we turned the other cheek their would be no Christianity wouldnt you agree?

Is this not a faithless position though? God said the church would not die, so are we not being faithless in compromising Jesus' loving example, to take it upon ourselves to sort it out?

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this not a faithless position though? God said the church would not die, so are we not being faithless in compromising Jesus' loving example, to take it upon ourselves to sort it out?

of course Gods church will never die, and war should be avoided at all costs, and although scripture teaches us that we should avoid war at all costs it also alludes to self defence in the case of having to go to war.

to under stand the Catholics teaching and position on just war visit this page http://www.scripturecatholic.com/just_war.html

Edit: it also gives you its bibilical basis

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

And reconciling this with Christ?

Defend those who cannot defend themselves. I don't think Jesus would want people to stand idly by while murder and genocide is carried out.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose this is a specific issue which is divisive as its close to home. I used it to point out how alot of Christians praise the war on the Nazi's, or even Mandela, yet seem to ignore the apartheid of the North and go on about the 'terrorists'. Are we saying we can reconcile the war against the Nazi's, and war against South African Apartheid with Christ, but not the apartheid suffered by the catholics of Northern Ireland?

Those in the North were terrorists. Their goal was to inspire such terror in people that those people would affect political change. The target of a vast majority of the attacks by republicans in Northern Ireland were not servants of the British State, or political opponents.. they were Joe Bloggs greengrocer, a farmer, a schoolchild, a band practising. Putting a bomb into a rubbish bin and blowing up two kids... was that an action against the British State, or was it's aim simply to instill terror in the general population? They had no mandate from anyone to murder and maim.

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

Jimi if jihad muslims were allowed to do what they wanted and we turned the other cheek their would be no Christianity wouldnt you agree?

I must admit I've wondered about this.

However, we have to realise that the development of Islam as a violent religion was simply a copying of Christendom. Augustine's theories helped develop a Constantinian Church/State monstrosity where Christians, rather than a persecuted minority who were prepared to die for Christ, became a persecuting majority who were prepared to kill others for Christ. Islam copied Christendom's policy of converting heathens at the point of the sword but did it more effectively.

In the first three Centuries of the Church Christians turned the other cheek to violent persecutors - and they weren't wiped out. Instead they won the hearts and minds of their neighbours.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Defend those who cannot defend themselves. I don't think Jesus would want people to stand idly by while murder and genocide is carried out.

I agree, but is taking up arms the method he'd encourage?

prinz wrote: »

Those in the North were terrorists. Their goal was to inspire such terror in people that those people would affect political change. The target of a vast majority of the attacks by republicans in Northern Ireland were not servants of the British State, or political opponents.. they were Joe Bloggs greengrocer, a farmer, a schoolchild, a band practising. Putting a bomb into a rubbish bin and blowing up two kids... was that an action against the British State, or was it's aim simply to instill terror in the general population? They had no mandate from anyone to murder and maim.

So from a Christian perspective, would it have been ok to take up arms and shoot the oppressive RUC officers? or the soldiers that represented Her Majesty?

As I said, I'm not looking to get into the wheres and whys about the northern conflict, but rather get a Christian perspective on it. In other words, what would have made such a war 'Just' from a Christian perspective? When does killing our enemies become the Christian position?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, but is taking up arms the method he'd encourage?



So from a Christian perspective, would it have been ok to take up arms and shoot the oppressive RUC officers? or the soldiers that represented Her Majesty?

As I said, I'm not looking to get into the wheres and whys about the northern conflict, but rather get a Christian perspective on it. In other words, what would have made such a war 'Just' from a Christian perspective? When does killing our enemies become the Christian position?

While I don't go along with a lot of the Just War Theory, here are some of its classic principles:

# A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
# A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
# A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
# A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
# The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
# The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
# The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target

I think that the IRA campaign in the North fails to qualify on several levels.
1. It had no chance of success. We can see this in that the campaign has ended without achieving its stated objectives of a United Ireland or getting the Brits out.
2. Non violent options still existed. The Civil Rights movement, which tried to copy Martin Luther King's appproach to discrimination and injustice, was hijacked and exploited by the men of violence.
3. The IRA were not a legitimate authority. During the years they were involved in violence their political wing was consistently less popular electorally than constitutional Nationalists.
4. The violence and suffering created by the IRA's campaign was greater than the perceived evils it was supposed to address.
5. The Campaign deliberately targetted civilians. Designating telecom workers who repaired phone lines in government buildings as 'legitimate targets' was a piece of sophistry designed to mask this cynical murdering of non military targets.

So, in my opinion, no Just War defence can work for the Provos.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

While I don't go along with a lot of the Just War Theory, here are some of its classic principles:

# A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
# A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
# A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
# A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
# The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
# The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
# The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target

I think that the IRA campaign in the North fails to qualify on several levels.
1. It had no chance of success. We can see this in that the campaign has ended without achieving its stated objectives of a United Ireland or getting the Brits out.
2. Non violent options still existed. The Civil Rights movement, which tried to copy Martin Luther King's appproach to discrimination and injustice, was hijacked and exploited by the men of violence.
3. The IRA were not a legitimate authority. During the years they were involved in violence their political wing was consistently less popular electorally than constitutional Nationalists.
4. The violence and suffering created by the IRA's campaign was greater than the perceived evils it was supposed to address.
5. The Campaign deliberately targetted civilians. Designating telecom workers who repaired phone lines in government buildings as 'legitimate targets' was a piece of sophistry designed to mask this cynical murdering of non military targets.

So, in my opinion, no Just War defence can work for the Provos.

The thing is, I'm not really looking for a man made structure of what defines when it is just to kill our enemies. Its reconciling it with Christ. If as Christians we have a point in which we take up arms against our enemies, I am asking, how we reconcile this to Christ.

There is a certain amount of sense in the whole Just War philosophy, but is it still faithless? Is it compromising Christs example and teaching? If its not, then how is it not? Is the bones of taking up arms against our enemies saying to God, 'Well you're not going to do anything, so I think we'll suspend Christs teachings here.' Is the premise that sometimes war is necessary, wrong from a Christian perspective?

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

I must admit I've wondered about this.

However, we have to realise that the development of Islam as a violent religion was simply a copying of Christendom. Augustine's theories helped develop a Constantinian Church/State monstrosity where Christians, rather than a persecuted minority who were prepared to die for Christ, became a persecuting majority who were prepared to kill others for Christ. Islam copied Christendom's policy of converting heathens at the point of the sword but did it more effectively.

In the first three Centuries of the Church Christians turned the other cheek to violent persecutors - and they weren't wiped out. Instead they won the hearts and minds of their neighbours.

PDN islamic violence is rooted in the Koran, that if someone doesnt convert to their religion they should be murdered, and that goes way far back than St.Augustine.

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

The thing is, I'm not really looking for a man made structure of what defines when it is just to kill our enemies. Its reconciling it with Christ. If as Christians we have a point in which we take up arms against our enemies, I am asking, how we reconcile this to Christ.

There is a certain amount of sense in the whole Just War philosophy, but is it still faithless? Is it compromising Christs example and teaching? If its not, then how is it not? Is the bones of taking up arms against our enemies saying to God, 'Well you're not going to do anything, so I think we'll suspend Christs teachings here.' Is the premise that sometimes war is necessary, wrong from a Christian perspective?

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

hivizman

Stephentlig wrote: »

PDN islamic violence is rooted in the Koran, that if someone doesnt convert to their religion they should be murdered, and that goes way far back than St.Augustine.

St Augustine of Hippo died in 430, while Muhammad was not born until 570 or 571. Muslims claim that Islam is the "natural religion", preached by all the prophets back to Adam (they include Jesus as a prophet). However, the Qur'an was not revealed until the period 610-632.

There are certainly some verses in the Qur'an that appear to approve of violence against those who do not accept Islam (for example, Surat Al-Tawbah 9:5 and 9:28), but even these verses do not require those who do not accept Islam to convert at pain of death - accepting the rule of Muslims is sufficient. Until the 20th century, predominantly Muslim countries, such as the Ottoman Empire, had significant Christian and Jewish minorities (in some cities, such as Salonica and Smyrna, non-Muslims were in the majority).

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

PDN islamic violence is rooted in the Koran, that if someone doesnt convert to their religion they should be murdered, and that goes way far back than St.Augustine.

The Koran was supposedly given to Mohammed during his lifetime (early 7th Century AD). So the Koran came along two centuries after Augustine (who died in 430 AD) advocated forcible conversion as the duty of the Church and the State.

Many Christian historians (Catholic, Orthodox and 'Protestant') believe that Islam began as a Christian heresy. It copied what the Christians were already doing - 'converting' pagans at the point of a sword.

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

If I may humbly advise. If you look at a website, or a read something which excavates quotes in the manner above, I would advise reading the excavated pieces in full context. Below is Romans from Chapter 12 verse 9 to the end of Chapter 13.

Romans wrote:

Chapter 12
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Chapter 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Love, for the Day is Near
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.[c]

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

The Koran was supposedly given to Mohammed during his lifetime (early 7th Century AD). So the Koran came along two centuries after Augustine (who died in 430 AD) advocated forcible conversion as the duty of the Church and the State.

Many Christian historians (Catholic, Orthodox and 'Protestant') believe that Islam began as a Christian heresy. It copied what the Christians were already doing - 'converting' pagans at the point of a sword.

PDN the burden is then on you to quote me St.Augustine on that.

my wife says that is total speculation as she studied islam and said that what your talking is absolute tripe.

My wife suggests you go do some research on islam and then come back.

Shes very genuinely interested to know where you got this from?

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

If I may humbly advise. If you look at a website, or a read something which excavates quotes in the manner above, I would advise reading the excavated pieces in full context. Below is Romans from Chapter 12 verse 9 to the end of Chapter 13.

St.Paul obviously shows and supports military defence in the below quote, truth cannot contradict truth jimi, read your Bible Jimi.

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

St.Paul obviously shows and supports military defence in the below quote, truth cannot contradict truth jimi, read your Bible Jimi.

Please explain the obvious support of military defence. Also, I'd like to know how we reconcile killing our enemies with Christs teachings and example. I'd be interested in YOUR thoughts on it.

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

I once again draw your attention to the context of the excavated piece.

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

Please explain the obvious support of military defence. Also, I'd like to know how we reconcile killing our enemies with Christs teachings and example. I'd be interested in YOUR thoughts on it.


I once again draw your attention to the context of the excavated piece.

I understand what you mean, I was in the same position as you, but as I'm not a Catholic apologist I will have to draw your attention to John Salza who is qualified in that area. my thoughts are those of the infallible doctrine, which I quote to you from John Salzas exegesis of the Just war doctrine.

www.scripturecatholic.com his e-mail address is on his website.

God bless Jimi, you've a good heart. If you feel confident that your right then e-mail John who is educated on the matter. my knowledge is limited.

Pax Christi
Stephen

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, but is taking up arms the method he'd encourage?

In cases I believe He would yes.I cannot accept that it would be my Christian duty to stand by and watch innocent people being attacked/assaulted/murdered. IMO Jesus gave us a civic duty as well as a duty towards our fellow man.

JimiTime wrote: »

So from a Christian perspective, would it have been ok to take up arms and shoot the oppressive RUC officers? or the soldiers that represented Her Majesty?

In the context of an open and declared war where people are aware of what's going on etc then possibly yes.

In the context of phoning in false emergency calls to the RUC in order to lure a policeman out of his station doing his duty and then gunning him down/waiting outside his house to shoot her/him/planting bombs under cars/ambushes of people going about their daily lives/shooting and executing unarmed people as they collect their pizza then no.

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

my wife says that is total speculation as she studied islam and said that what your talking is absolute tripe.

My wife suggests you go do some research on islam and then come back.

Well then maybe your wife can correct you on the tripe in your last post then ?

Stephentlig wrote:

islamic violence is rooted in the Koran, that if someone doesnt convert to their religion they should be murdered, and that goes way far back than St.Augustine.

Islamic violence being rooted in the koran is as accurate as saying Christian violence is rooted in the Bible. Both are complete nonsense.

And I'm surprised your wife didn't correct you, Muhammad was born in 570 or 571, Augustine died in 430, so unless Muhammad had a time machine then no, it doesn't go way back before Augustine.

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

I understand what you mean, I was in the same position as you, but as I'm not a Catholic apologist I will have to draw your attention to John Salza who is qualified in that area. my thoughts are those of the infallible doctrine, which I quote to you from John Salzas exegesis of the Just war doctrine.

With the upmost of respect, I think its unfortunate that you feel the need for some institutions qualification in order to form opinions on biblical topics. Not many are 'qualified', but we all have our faculties:)

If you feel confident that your right then e-mail John who is educated on the matter. my knowledge is limited.

There may be a misunderstanding here. I have not fully formed an opinion on the matter, but rather, I'm seeking answers as to the reconciling the killing of an enemy with Christ.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

In cases I believe He would yes.I cannot accept that it would be my Christian duty to stand by and watch innocent people being attacked/assaulted/murdered. IMO Jesus gave us a civic duty as well as a duty towards our fellow man.

Why not leave it to God? We as Christians do everything we can in a peaceful manner, and if it doesn't work, leave it in Gods hands?

In the context of an open and declared war where people are aware of what's going on etc then possibly yes.

I would then ask, if you wish to of course, detail how this reconciles itself with Christs teaching and example?

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

They were worshipping other gods and godesses. So finding a figurine of a goddess and saying it was 'evidence' that the Jews had not yet 'Invented' monotheism is quite simply a steaming pile of ignorant tosh.

There was rather more than a single figuirine found. Not only that, but a number of the now defunct practices, such as making offerings on high places etc, are actually mentioned in the OT.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Why not leave it to God? We as Christians do everything we can in a peaceful manner, and if it doesn't work, leave it in Gods hands??

I'd rather intervene to stop slaughter than stand on the sidelines watching and waiting. Jesus himself lost the head when he found money changers in the temple.. did He say 'well I have to leave it to God's hands' and pass on by?

JimiTime wrote: »

I would then ask, if you wish to of course, detail how this reconciles itself with Christs teaching and example?

Jesus asked us to love our enemies not to roll over and let them do whatever they want. It's better to put a stop to their aggression first and love them second. For instance if the post World War I treaties had been a bit more 'loving' then World War II might have been avoided. Christ's teachings and examples were to always defend those who cannot defend themselves.. IMO if that stretches to legitimate military intervention then so be it.