[Peace-discuss] RE: Wesley etc.

[Phil Stinard]

>Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:14:30 -0600
>From: Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Wesley etc.
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20060217102207.021163f8 at express.cites.uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>That is not exactly what I am saying, Phil. I almost always get
>in trouble when I exercise poetic licence and speak or write tersely.
>
>I know that fascism and bigotry are not the same. I know that
>war and racism are not the the same. But there are deeply disturbing
>connections between the causes of all of these things, so I sometimes
>say that I have a lot of trouble telling the difference (and sometimes
>I do).
>
>Two millennia ago, when Jesus walked this earth, his core message
>was that if we forgive each other, God would forgive us. Jesus
>talked about good and evil all of the time, but he also said
>"let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
>
>This is a hard thing to internalize, that we should judge good and
>evil but not judge each other. There is an inherent contradiction.
>If we believe strongly in tolerance, for example, we will condemn
>intolerance. But this too is a form of intolerance. So what are
>we to do?
>
>Bertand Russel wrote that when he was a young man, he found Aristotle's
>idea of the golden mean in ethics to be boring. Later, he wrote, he
>realized that the truth is not always interesting. Aristotle believed
>that in most ethical matters it was the extremes that we should fear.
>
>I'm working my way through a book on human rights at the moment (sorry,
>but I can't think of the author's name). He points out that statements
>of human rights or of ethics, such as the Bill of Rights or the Ten
>Commandments, are inherently contradictory. He brings up as an example
>the question of what should one do if honoring ones parents requires
>that one should kill. There are no easy answers, no cookbook that one
>can follow and be sure that one is right. I don't know what the right
>answer is when dealing with folks who think there is an easy answer.
>
>Bertrand Russel also wrote that any given proposition is either, true,
>false or nonsense. I submit that it is the nonsense that is the biggest
>problem. We can refute falsehood, but what to do with nonsense? It's
>out there big time. It's almost all we hear from the government and
>much of what we hear from the church. For evidence, our behavior is
>Iraq is good enough.
>
>Bob

Hi Bob, thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I think that one thing we need to 
do when speaking about issues of good and evil is to define them.  When I 
speak of good and evil, I define them in terms of what is pleasing and what 
is displeasing to God, as revealed in the Bible.  This will undoubtedly 
shock and horrify those that disdain Christianity (or religion in general), 
but that's my ground rule, so I'll be honest about it.  Other religions will 
undoubtedly define good and evil in their own terms, and those who don't 
believe in a higher being might define evil in terms of something that is 
subjectively very very bad, or discard the term entirely.  Regardless, it's 
important to define your terms--otherwise we're speaking past each other.

If I had to name Jesus' core message, it would be his two Great Commandments 
(Matthew 22:34-40):  (1) Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and 
(2) Love your neighbor as yourself.  Lots of people are uncomfortable with 
number (1) :-).  Jesus did say "let him who is without sin cast the first 
stone."  By saying this, he was making it clear that everyone is a sinner.  
However, he followed this up by saying, "Go and sin no more" (John 8).  
Jesus didn't tell people not to judge, he told them not to be hypocrites 
about it.  ("Remove the beam from your own eye first, and then you can 
remove the speck from your brother's eye."  Matthew 7:1-5.)  In other words, 
if I'm an alcoholic, who am I to tell someone else not to drink?

The point I'm trying to make is that the contradiction you point out might 
not be as insurmountable as it seems, from a Christian perspective (which is 
the basis of your argument).  God asks Christians to live exemplary lives, 
in accordance with His will.  This is a core Christian belief.  Being the 
humans we are, we're not perfect, but we do have an instruction manual (the 
Bible), and we are to strive to live up to those standards.  Some of us do 
better than others.

You ask the question, "If we believe strongly in tolerance, for example, we 
will condemn intolerance. But this too is a form of intolerance. So what are 
we to do?"  If by "we" you mean Christians, then your premise is a little 
flawed.  We are to have tolerance (and indeed encouragement) for that which 
is good, and intolerance for that which is evil (starting with ourselves 
first).  The clash comes when you run up against others who don't share the 
same beliefs and think that their sinful (as defined by the Bible) behavior 
is just fine.  It's the Christian's obligation to "speak the truth in love" 
and not get violent about it.

There are some differences between Christian denominations with regards to 
what constitutes sinful behavior.  And there is the fact that churches are 
overrun by sinners who are trying to influence the church to redefine their 
behavior as not only non-sinful, but good in God's eyes.  I'm not going to 
"go there" in this post.

Well Bob, those are a few more things for you to consider.  I'm not speaking 
on behalf of all Christians everywhere, I'm just telling you where I'm 
coming from.

--Phil