[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[John W.]

What's the point of all this, beyond mere intellectual exercise and a
matching of wits for public consumption?  All of the Biblical people
mentioned here (with the possible exception of David) were acting in
obedience to God.  When that is the case, then yes, the words are "fitly
spoken", and there is a (slim) chance that the person in power will heed
them.

I'd be more interested in hearing one or both of you Bible scholars explain
to Jenifer why God is a necessary component of morality.  Or conversely, how
one can be moral without a belief in God.

John Wason



On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:12 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

But Nathan was not silent before King David, neither Paul before Agrippa.
>
> David indeed feigned mental illness before Achish to avoid loss of his
> freedom,
> but Jesus did not need to say anything to prove his innocence to Pilate.
>
>
> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>

>  Yet Jesus is silent before Pilate, altho' I doubt he considered lying.
>>
>>
>> E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>  John W. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  Chomsky says that he differs with his Quaker friends who recommend
>>>> telling
>>>> truth to power.  Power already knows the truth, he says, and tries to
>>>> cover
>>>> it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is true.  Personally, I think it's often more useful to speak lies
>>>> to
>>>> (those in) power.  But of course you have to figure out what you want to
>>>> accomplish with your lies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One reason that it _can_ be useful to speak the truth to those in power
>>> is
>>> that they are at times subject to blind spots from which they can recover
>>> if
>>> pointed out by the word fitly spoken.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081110/52a211f9/attachment.html