Philosophical Look on Christ's Message

[Im_A]

please remember this is meant to be a philosophical discussion:

i've been keeping up on the discussion going on over in Liberal Theology, in regards to the war.

we have both sides making their views pretty heavily/going above one another at times.

but there's an underlining message here that i see...maybe it is just me.

if the war is not what Christ wanted to do, then that means Christ's message is hypocritical because without intervention the estimated number of 500,000 to 1,000,000 murders of the course of Saddam's dictatorship would keep going. one can't justify that it is not what Christ wanted us to do when the effect would be the continuing of murder after murder. but it also goes against the words of Christ to even go to war.

so keeping this from a war discussion and now to the philosophical side of this discussion, how does one see Christ's message in all reality? meaning the application of the teachings of Christ in all areas of this life.

(looking for serious, respectful, kind, considering discussion here.)

God Bless you all! <><

 

[Orontes]

so keeping this from a war discussion and now to the philosophical side of this discussion, how does one see Christ's message in all reality? meaning the application of the teachings of Christ in all areas of this life.

(looking for serious, respectful, kind, considering discussion here.)

God Bless you all! <><

Hello,

From a philosophical perspective: how is the above a philosophical question as opposed to a theological one per say? Philosophically, one would first need to demonstrate the rational basis of a "Christ's message" prior to any discussion of content of the message or its scope. What would this be without begging the question?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Hello,

From a philosophical perspective: how is the above a philosophical question as opposed to a theological one per say? Philosophically, one would first need to demonstrate the rational basis of a "Christ's message" prior to any discussion of content of the message or its scope. What would this be without begging the question?

I think he meant to not be distracted into a concern of the existence of God and concentrate on the teachings of Jesus. Most of Jesus' teachings were not directly related to any concept of God but rather toward "the right way to treat others". Granted that he proposed this right way based on an acceptance of God, but the OP is directed to the philosophy of living, not the philosophy of existence.

But as to the OP question...

One thing that has confused all of Christianity for 2000 years is exactly how does one accomplish "Love" as Jesus intended. By not making this issue very clear, many "fight" in the name of Jesus.

To love as Jesus taught is to support with true intent the "soul" existence of all others. This does not mean that you should not stop them in their tracks. Nor does it mean that you should allow the killing of one so as to not kill another.

The key to resolving what Jesus would have done if present at the moment is in truly understanding without doubt, exactly how the Holy Spirit works, what it is composed of and why it makes sense to follow it. Through that UNDERSTANDING (as opposed to mere faith that such is there) it can be seen exactly what should or should not be done at any one time.

This does not mean that one would never err. It means that every person would be doing all they could do such as to resolve any and every problem toward the final destiny of an Earthly heaven ("pray that it be done on Earth as it is in Heaven").

The choice of what is to be done at any one time cannot be known without that understanding of the Holy Spirit (which Jesus was the example of). One MUST understand how to accomplish Love, not merely attempt to feel it out (Love and pray with all of your heart, MIND, and soul). They have always left out (and still do) the "mind" part.

 

[elman]

please remember this is meant to be a philosophical discussion:

i've been keeping up on the discussion going on over in Liberal Theology, in regards to the war.

we have both sides making their views pretty heavily/going above one another at times.

but there's an underlining message here that i see...maybe it is just me.

if the war is not what Christ wanted to do, then that means Christ's message is hypocritical because without intervention the estimated number of 500,000 to 1,000,000 murders of the course of Saddam's dictatorship would keep going. one can't justify that it is not what Christ wanted us to do when the effect would be the continuing of murder after murder. but it also goes against the words of Christ to even go to war.

so keeping this from a war discussion and now to the philosophical side of this discussion, how does one see Christ's message in all reality? meaning the application of the teachings of Christ in all areas of this life.

(looking for serious, respectful, kind, considering discussion here.)

God Bless you all! <><

The message is love. Love sometime involves defending the weak which means that sometimes. we must oppose the oppresor. No other course would be loving.

 

[dlamberth]

please remember this is meant to be a philosophical discussion:

i've been keeping up on the discussion going on over in Liberal Theology, in regards to the war.

we have both sides making their views pretty heavily/going above one another at times.

but there's an underlining message here that i see...maybe it is just me.

if the war is not what Christ wanted to do, then that means Christ's message is hypocritical because without intervention the estimated number of 500,000 to 1,000,000 murders of the course of Saddam's dictatorship would keep going. one can't justify that it is not what Christ wanted us to do when the effect would be the continuing of murder after murder. but it also goes against the words of Christ to even go to war.

so keeping this from a war discussion and now to the philosophical side of this discussion, how does one see Christ's message in all reality? meaning the application of the teachings of Christ in all areas of this life.

(looking for serious, respectful, kind, considering discussion here.)

God Bless you all! <><

If 30 years ago, on a large scale we helped get water to the people in Africa, helped them with medical needs and helped them build schools I'm fairly certain that today they would have a lot less of the problems the do now. AND America would be seen as much differently in the world than it now is. Cuba sent teachers and doctors to Africa and became known for helping countries in need. America sends tanks and guns. Something's kind of backwards there. Christ taught us to help those in need. I feel that if we had from the beginning, the face of the world would be much friendlier today than it is.

In Iraq we sent to Saddam the stuff to make WMD. We embrased Saddam as a friend. At the same time we did nothing to help the Iraq people. I believe today we are seeing the results of those decisions.


.

 

[armyman_83]

Maybe this will help a little bit.

The most noteworthy aspect of the moral approach to warfare in Aquinas and Calvin is that it teaches&#8212;contrary to today&#8217;s prevailing views&#8212;that a failure to engage in a just war is a failure of virtue, a failure to act well. An odd corollary of this conclusion is that it is a greater evil for Christians to fail to wage a just war than it is for unbelievers. When an unbeliever fails to go to war, the cause may be a lack of courage, prudence, or justice. He may be a coward or simply indifferent to evil. These are failures of natural moral virtue. When Christians fail to engage in just war, it may involve all of these natural failures as well, but it will also, and more significantly, involve a failure of charity. The Christian who fails to use force to aid his neighbor when prudence dictates that force is the best way to render that aid is an uncharitable Christian. Hence, Christians who willingly and knowingly refuse to engage in a just war do a vicious thing: they fail to show love toward their neighbor as well as toward God.

 

[Emmy]

Dear tattedsaint, you had good, and to the point replies. Before I say that I agree wholly, I like to mention our Lord`s answer to war, or aggression. He stated, that whosoever picks up the sword, must be prepared to be killed by it. Jesus also said, to give one`s life, for another, is the highest proof of giving oneself. I am a woman, tattedsaint, and I find all wars cruel and destroying, but I do agree, that merciless tyrants, must be eliminated one way or another. I say this humbly and trustingly, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[mikenet2006]

I doubt a God would view defensive war tactics as killing rather than doing something to save lives. It is wrong that we fight the way we do, but this is how I see it.

At this point in the game your participation in war can actually be good depending on your intentions. People need to understand this in a different light.

Think of the United States participating in wwII. Its something we didnt want, and its something we held off doing as long as we could. However sometimes it becomes necessary to fight and kill in order to save lives. There is no telling how far hitler would have spead his destruction if it wernt for the U.S. and other allies coming together to bring an end to his relentlessnes.

He had von braun invent the very first rocket in exsistence for the sole purpose of raging further destruction against great brittian. He never hesitated to use a new invention to help spread the dominance of his country. If we would have set on our rear end and done nothing about this, it would have been a matter of time before he would have achieved world domance. And what did hitler do with the domance he had? Well he took it upon himself to murder thousands for being different.

So when we went to war with russia we saved lives by taking lives and this is the way things today need to be understood. Sometimes you have to fight to survive.

The United States was attacked in 2001 by a lesser power than russia and it proved devestating.

Should we have gone to war with Iraq on the basis of this? Yes Considering this was already a country considered to be a nusance to neighboring Iran, they to are obviously a country who will use any resorce they can get their hands on to spread destruction, just as russia did back in the day.

Perhaps our main agenda however should remain insuring the saftey of our own country rather than being too involved in building on the stengths of irans government but im sure the help is apreciated.