Oppose Evil Or No?

[FightingFalcon]

This semester I'm taking a New Testament class and a couple weeks ago we covered the Gospels - specifically Matthew. We also had to write a term paper on any topic we wanted and so I picked the Sermon the Mount, because it has interested me for quite some time.

Recently, however, I have been debating this issue with myself a lot because of the research that I had to do for my paper. In the past, I have always had an unwavering belief in the obligation of the forces of good to oppose those of evil. Indeed, it was the main reason that I supported Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and it is why I continue to oppose all dictatorships around the world. I believe America has a mission from God (just as our Founding Fathers believed) to spread liberty to the darkest corners of the globe, where our brothers and sisters languish under the chains of tyrannical slavery.

The problem came when I had to re-read the Sermon on the Mount and really take a critical look at it for my paper. I had read the Sermon many times before but this time I tried to really understand what Jesus was getting at. It then dawned on me, Can we kill people whom we are supposed to love? Jesus commands us to love our enemies and pray for them. I used to reconcile this by praying for our enemies (even Osama bin Laden and his ilk) while at the same time advocating their death. I prayed for their conversion from their evil ways but at the same time I supported military action against them. The problem is that we are supposed to love our enemies like we would our mother or father. But honestly, who feels the same way about Osama bin Laden as they do about their parents? And if you support killing bin Laden even though you love him, would you also support killing your own parents?

Ultimately I think this argument goes back to the debate over Idealism/Pragmatism, which I posted about a couple weeks ago. Ideally it would be nice to follow the words of Jesus and outlaw war forever. Unfortunately, in this evil world that we live in, it is necessary to oppose people like Hitler in order to defend the helpless. There is very little that Jesus says that could ever be used to defend armed conflict against another human being - indeed, Jesus even said that we shouldn't oppose evil in Matthew 5:38. The Catholic Church defends its Just War Theory largely using the teachings of other Christians (and even writings in the OT) but I wonder if Jesus would support the Just War Theory.

In the end, I still think that we (and America in particular) have an obligation to oppose evil and "make the world safe for democracy" as President Wilson said after World War I. While it would be nice to live in a world where war did not exist, it simply isn't feasible. We simply have to ask ourselves if Jesus would rather us strictly follow His Word and all die at the hands of evil people or defend ourselves and destroy evil. Then again, who is to say that God would let us be destroyed if we stopped opposing evil. On the other hand though, who is to say that God doesn't use humans to execute His Will, e.g. the Allies in World War II?

It's a never-ending argument and I'm getting a head-ache just typing about it . I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on this because it's a subject that I have been debating at length with myself - along with the broader topic of whether it is better to be an Idealist or a Pragmatist. I would love to be an Idealist (and I think like one) but I just don't think that it is possible in the world that we live in.

So, feel free to comment

[Merceditas]

When Christ said we have to love our enemies, I believe He meant not to hate, not to want to see them suffer in Hell. To truly love someone you need to want to see them saved, in Heaven eventually. Desiring justice can mean death sometimes, so that's not necessarily wrong.

The soul...........that's what is important, what sufferings we have here on earth, including death are only temporary...........Heaven is our goal. If you want to see someone lose Heaven, that is definitely not loving your enemy. A person can die and still go to Heaven.

In the end what God wants is for all of us to love Him and be happy with Him in Heaven........He wants all of us to turn to Him. Wouldnt' it offend Him if we didn't want what He wanted for everyone?

[Far Rider]

We simply have to ask ourselves if Jesus would rather us strictly follow His Word and all die at the hands of evil people or defend ourselves and destroy evil. Then again, who is to say that God would let us be destroyed if we stopped opposing evil. On the other hand though, who is to say that God doesn't use humans to execute His Will, e.g. the Allies in World War II?

This reminds me of the problem with kharma: if I punch you in the nose am I bringing bad kharma down on myself or are you just getting what's coming to you via kharmic retribution?

Taking Jesus' words out of context is meaningless. There is much Jesus had nothing to say about, a fact that many exploit to use as a license to steal. Still, Jesus was a practicing Jew, not some nutcase with a totally different theology, as He Himself explained.

When taken as a unit, though, we see that the rules of warfare are clearly spelled out in the OT, which a lot of people don't like because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

Jesus wouldn't have even existed if the Jews hadn't adopted some of the rules of war they did. This is a truth I am acutely aware of: you are of no use to anybody dead. Had the Jewish people not survived in the face of all of the enemies who wanted to exterminate them (a belief which continues to this day!) there would have been no Jesus to argue about.

Many people don't think the words of the apostles are worth much, either, even though they amplify Jesus' own words while honoring OT law.

[talkswithbeagles]

Okay, let's look at the historical context. At the time of Jesus, Israel was occupied and ruled by the Roman Empire. We tend to think of the Romans as cruel and barbaric, but compared to other regimes in those days, they were pretty enlightened. There had recently been several unsuccessful rebellions in Israel, and every time it just brought the Romans down harder on the people. In this situation, Jesus' advice to "turn the other cheek", and "go the extra mile" made a lot of sense. The Jews were powerless to resist the Romans, and things would be better for them if they just got along by going along. Of course, you have to draw the line somewhere, but there is no point in making more trouble for yourself than you have to.

In order to fight somebody with a sword or spear, it is necessary to psyche yourself up with a certain amount of hatred. Most other times, hate is a counterproductive emotion. It can throw your aim off if you are using a gun, and can really damage your argument if you are using words. If you aren't in a position to fight back at all, hatred will just tear your guts out. I think this is the kind of hatred that Jesus cautioned his people against.

Jesus said to "love your enemies", but in modern English, "love" might not be the correct translation. The Greeks had seven different words for "love", and the early Gospels were probably written in Greek. This is just my theory, but perhaps "respect" would be a more accurate rendering. When we kill a deer, we don't hate it, we respect it. We are doing what hunters are suposed to do to a deer, and the deer is fullfilling its destiny as a prey animal.

When we fight a war, or defend ourselves or others from violent crime, we are doing it to prevent violence. It seems hypocritical to use violence to prevent violence, but that's the only language some people understand. If we could talk them out of it, we would; but we can't, so we do what needs to be done to get our point across.

Now if our enemy were to surrender to us, it would be wrong to mercilessly cut him down. This is where forgiveness comes in. Forgiveness is conditional on repentence. Even God does not forgive a sinner until he repents, so I doubt that He would expect us to do otherwise. The purpose of punishment is to change behavior. Once the offender changes his behavior, any further punishment is retribution or revenge. While revenge has its place in the OT, Jesus proposed a better way for us.

I realize that this doesn't answer all your questions, but it might give you something to think about. Better men than us have been struggling with these questions for thousands of years. We can criticize them for not giving us the answers on a silver platter, or we can honor them for breaking a trail through the wilderness for us to widen and improve.

[101ABN]

Perhaps the reason why Christ warned against contending with evil is that in order to contend with it, you must meet it at it's level.

It's difficult to do without losing one's soul and being absorbed and eventually becoming one with it.

This classic struggle is symbolically portrayed in mythology and fantasy such as LOTR and the Star Wars series.

Military combat is perhaps the best real-life example of this as it hardens the heart while it inflames the passions, bringing out the best and worst in people simultaneously.

[FightingFalcon]

OK I read everyone's reply...I'll try to reply later tonight.

Haven't forgotten about ya'll

[FightingFalcon]

merceditas said:

When Christ said we have to love our enemies, I believe He meant not to hate, not to want to see them suffer in Hell. To truly love someone you need to want to see them saved, in Heaven eventually. Desiring justice can mean death sometimes, so that's not necessarily wrong.

The soul...........that's what is important, what sufferings we have here on earth, including death are only temporary...........Heaven is our goal. If you want to see someone lose Heaven, that is definitely not loving your enemy. A person can die and still go to Heaven.

In the end what God wants is for all of us to love Him and be happy with Him in Heaven........He wants all of us to turn to Him. Wouldnt' it offend Him if we didn't want what He wanted for everyone?

That's pretty much exactly as I feel Merc. That it is OK to kill our fellow human beings but that we should never desire to want them to go to Hell. Unfortunately, in order to bring about justice and peace in this world, it is necessary for us to kill our fellow human beings. However, if we truly love them, we would want them to repent of their evil ways and go to Heaven.

Many people argue with me, Well what if Hitler, Stalin, Mao (insert tyrannical, evil dictator) repented on their death bed? Should/Would they go to Heaven? My answer to that is of course, on both accounts. The amoutn of sin is inconsequential - we are all guilty of failing God's expectations. So it wouldn't bother me one bit if I, God-willing, went to Heaven and saw that people like Hitler were there so long as they repented of their evil ways.

So I think we are in complete agreement here. I'm just curious as to whether this is what Jesus wanted or not. I suppose that we can only guess.

[FightingFalcon]

farrider said:

Taking Jesus' words out of context is meaningless. There is much Jesus had nothing to say about, a fact that many exploit to use as a license to steal. Still, Jesus was a practicing Jew, not some nutcase with a totally different theology, as He Himself explained.

You're definitely right about the first point - something that Damn_Yankee is always quick to point out. Simply because Jesus did not condemn abortion does not mean that He supported it. Such flawed logic makes absolutely no sense - He was after all, as you point out, a practicing Jew.

When taken as a unit, though, we see that the rules of warfare are clearly spelled out in the OT, which a lot of people don't like because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

I suppose a lot of us are guilty of twisting our religious beliefs in order to satisfy our political beliefs. I am currently trying to do the opposite - changing my political beliefs in order to fit my religious ones. I'm simply trying to figure out what Jesus truly meant in order to become a better Christian.

I think if people try hard enough though, they can use the Bible to support almost anything they want. It has been used by the pro- and anti-slavery crowd, the pro- and anti-war crowd, etc. Obviously this is not the way that God intended it to be but people will do whatever necessary to justify their beliefs.

Jesus wouldn't have even existed if the Jews hadn't adopted some of the rules of war they did. This is a truth I am acutely aware of: you are of no use to anybody dead. Had the Jewish people not survived in the face of all of the enemies who wanted to exterminate them (a belief which continues to this day!) there would have been no Jesus to argue about.

Hrm...well, I would argue that Jesus is/was much more powerful after death than when He was here on Earth. On Earth He was "just" the Son of God and a Prophet. After death, He was/is the Risen Lord and the hope for all mankind.

Many people don't think the words of the apostles are worth much, either, even though they amplify Jesus' own words while honoring OT law.

My argument all along has been that, while I believe it is important to study the other aspects of Christianity, that we shoudn't lose sight of the Big Picture. This is the same thing that St. Paul taught when St. Peter and the Jerusalem school were putting emphasis on unimpotant things like circumcision and whether or not they should eat with Gentiles. St. Paul rescued Christianity (IMHO) from a religion based on the Law to a religion based on the simple fact that Jesus is the Son of God and only through your belief in Him may you be forgiven of your sins and join the Holy Father in Heaven.

As for Jesus' teachings on war - I do not argue that we do not have a right to defend ourselves. My position all along has been for America (and other benevolent nations) to use their power to oppose evil. I just wonder if this is what Jesus would have wanted us to do. That's all.

[FightingFalcon]

Talks with Beagles - thanks for your input. I read what you wrote and I'll have to reflect on it later.

101 - "Perhaps the reason why Christ warned against contending with evil is that in order to contend with it, you must meet it at it's level.

It's difficult to do without losing one's soul and being absorbed and eventually becoming one with it."

That is exactly the question that I have been grappling with for a while now. I am afraid that if we work with evil in order to defeat evil, that we will corrupt ourselves from the inside and become what we used to oppose. If we work with evil, we will become more open towards it and might eventually lose our souls.

I posted about this on THC a few weeks ago and it's something that I still think about a lot. Should we use evil dictators to oppose evil dictators? For example, should we support the regime of Uzbekistan if it means that we can liberate Afghanistan? I'm afraid that if we do, we lose our moral superiority and become slightly evil ourselves. Then again, what do we say to the people suffering under Islamic tyranny? Sorry but we can't help you? I believe that that is even more evil...

The problem with Idealism, IMHO, is that in order to stay an Idealist, you have to detach yourself from the world. The world is so evil that in order to retain your idealism, you cannot compromise and/or work with evil people. Hence why the world's greatest Idealists (Brutus, Cato, Woodrow Wilson, etc. who are all heroes of mine) refused to compromise their ideals and so therefore were ultimately defeated. It is very hard for an Idealist to change the world and so that is why I am drawn towards Pragmatism. I just wish I didn't have to sacrifice my own personal ideals in order to bring about some sort of good in this world.

[Far Rider]

I think if people try hard enough though, they can use the Bible to support almost anything they want. It has been used by the pro- and anti-slavery crowd, the pro- and anti-war crowd, etc. Obviously this is not the way that God intended it to be but people will do whatever necessary to justify their beliefs.

The question is, what are you going to do with it, not what did the other guy do with it? As I said, the rules of warfare are clearly spelled out.

Hrm...well, I would argue that Jesus is/was much more powerful after death than when He was here on Earth. On Earth He was "just" the Son of God and a Prophet. After death, He was/is the Risen Lord and the hope for all mankind.

Well, I don't know if I could say whether the risen Christ is more powerful than the pre-crucifixion Christ is more powerful than the pre-incarnate Christ. He has always been the hope of mankind, even before He was born.

My argument all along has been that, while I believe it is important to study the other aspects of Christianity, that we shoudn't lose sight of the Big Picture. This is the same thing that St. Paul taught when St. Peter and the Jerusalem school were putting emphasis on unimpotant things like circumcision and whether or not they should eat with Gentiles.

That argument was actually about whether Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism (which is where the circumcision thing comes in) before they could become Christians. Not really a big picture or a small picture thing, just a point of clarification. These guys didn't have the advantage of opening a New Testament for guidance.

Of course, the object behind any ceremony is obedience, but too many people want to say that if the ceremony isn't important the obedience isn't, either.

As for Jesus' teachings on war - I do not argue that we do not have a right to defend ourselves.

One of the most misused Bible verses of all time (other than "judge not") is the one where Jesus says "turn the other cheek". What Jesus is talking about here is the literal insult of somebody slapping you on the cheek with a glove, or open hand, or whatever. The challenge, like a duel. When He says "turn the other cheek" what He is saying is "pick your battles", not "let somebody beat the shit out of you".

He even told Pilate that if His kingdom were of this earth His followers would have fought to keep Him from being arrested, and they wanted to, but He told them that what was about to happen was preordained.

[AmericanPride]

James--

If we are to love anyone, are we not obligated to inform them of their mistakes? Of wrong-doing? Of dangerous courses of actions may lead to their harm or death, or that of others? I would contend that we are therefore obligated by said love to dispatch such men as Bin Laden from the torment of their sinful existence and to secure for ourselves and others peace.

We talked briefly about this in my anthropology class. I said that we "absolutely" had the right to interfere in any country or culture when genocide and other atrocities are occurin regardless of how the perpetrators justify the act. Someone mentioned something about Iraq and that "right and wrong" doesn't matter, despite Saddam's genocide. I simply said -- "Look - if right and wrong do not matter, why then do you oppose the Iraq war as "wrong"? We could destroy every culture because we could if "right and wrong" do not matter." He shut up after that. I also justified enthnocentrism by stating that if we are assume survival to be our object (which my anthropology instructor assumes), any culture that survives is superior to any culture that does not survive. That's as "objective" as that gets.