The alleged Norwegian attacker

Started by Michael Slusser, July 23, 2011, 07:51:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jpetty

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 29, 2011, 01:23:31 AM
Quote from: dgkirch on July 29, 2011, 12:55:55 AM
Quote from: jpetty on July 28, 2011, 11:15:55 PM

Is there another kind of messiah besides an "earthly" one?

Yes, a Messiah coming in power and might per Daniel who would usher in a new heaven and a new earth.


The Book of Daniel I read never talks about a new heaven and a new earth. I know Isaiah and Revelation do.

And isn't that "the human one"?

Jim_Krauser

I am fully understand such people exist.  But I recognize limits on what means can be used to stop them.
"Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Quote from: PTMcCain on July 28, 2011, 04:09:39 PM
I'm grateful that our nation has the weapons necessary to protect and defend our citizens against those who would do us harm, including nuclear weapons. Some people have a hard time understanding that there are those who hate us and will stop at nothing to destroy us.
Jim Krauser

Pastor-Grace Evang. Lutheran Church, North Bellmore, NY

Jim_Krauser

I suppose it is possible that there are other like-minded fanatics out there.  But until we see more evidence that it is so, this might simply be a fantasy of Breivik's delusional mind.

Quote from: George Erdner on July 28, 2011, 05:32:07 PM
Here's the lastest from the news wires regarding the Norwegian terrorists. It seems he was part of a group of neo-Knights Templar.

In his 1,500-page manifesto, confessed Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik claimed allegiance to a resurrected version of the Knights Templar, a medieval formation of Christian soldiers who waged brutal battle against Islam for control of the Holy Land and its relics. Breivik also wrote favorably of the mentorship of a British man known as "Richard (the Lionhearted)," who he credits for imparting to him the secrets of the Templar tradition.

Not that I defend the Norwegian nutcase, he's clearly mentally unbalanced. It might take a trained professional to determine the precise details of his mental pathologies, but even an untrained layman can recognize that something is wrong in his mind, and that trained shrinks need to determine the details.

But, I wonder what kind of shape the world would be in today if Charles Martel had been convinced to not fight at the Battle of Tours, and to instead seek to either negotiate or to seek a means of peaceful coexistence with the Muslims in all of Europe.
Jim Krauser

Pastor-Grace Evang. Lutheran Church, North Bellmore, NY

PTMcCain

Total confusion of the two kingdoms. God has given to the state the means and authority to punish evil doers, to thwart those who would do us harm and to protect us. You do not bring a knife to a gun fight, and similarly you do not confront those with the means and will to use nuclear weapons with butterfly kisses and pious wishes.

Jim_Krauser

As I remember that gambit, the deterrence was cast in terms of "mutually assured destruction."  My question always was, if we are struck first, what does striking back gain us?

Quote from: Robert Johnson on July 28, 2011, 06:24:05 PM
Quote from: Jim_Krauser on July 28, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
That's one vote for the utilitarian world-view.

In what way is a nuclear arsenal a deterrent against a rogue terror cell?  A rogue nation?

The problem is how do you punish only the guilty and spare the innocent with such weapons?

God was willing to spare the city for the sake of 10.

So you're willing to endure a nuclear attack without response?
Jim Krauser

Pastor-Grace Evang. Lutheran Church, North Bellmore, NY

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: jpetty on July 29, 2011, 11:18:12 AM


And isn't that "the human one"?

True God and true Man. Of course.  Your point is...?
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Jim_Krauser

Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 29, 2011, 09:26:09 AM
Quote from: Charles_Austin on July 29, 2011, 04:21:49 AM
Then there are those warnings to the people of God about relying on - in those days - horses, chariots and spears rather than on God.
So what do you suggest?  That all Christians should push for a total and unilateral disarmament of the USA, disband the military, and remove all weapons from the police so that we can rely on God to protect the people of our nation?
That would be rash. There is always a need for defensive forces. 
That is the main objective of our police:  serve and protect. 
I certainly think Christians should "push" for multilateral nuclear disarmament. 
I dispute the notion that nuclear weapons are defensive.  They are an implicit threat of offensive escalation at the very least. 
So much GDP around the globe could be put to better use if all nations would reduce their military postures to defensive rather than offensive capabilities. 
Quote
Or would you suggest that Christians should completely refuse to serve in the military, refuse to serve in any government post that could involve the use or command and control of weaponry, and refuse to serve in any armed capacity in the police or other security?
Many if not most early Christians would have agreed with this.  Only when the government became "Christian" did the church entertain any other view.  Now when few governments can be called "Christian," or feel bound by Christian scruples about the conduct of war, perhaps the church should once again consider the matter.
Jim Krauser

Pastor-Grace Evang. Lutheran Church, North Bellmore, NY

George Erdner

Quote from: Jim_Krauser on July 29, 2011, 11:29:15 AM
I suppose it is possible that there are other like-minded fanatics out there.  But until we see more evidence that it is so, this might simply be a fantasy of Breivik's delusional mind.

Actually, there is a modern, self-styled "Knights Templar" organization, though it's mostly just a guy with a blog and a few loyal readers. They are disavowing any relationship with Breivik. Breivik might be deluded into thinking he was part of or acting on behalf of what Brievik thought was a major movement, but the puny little group that style themselves as the new "Knights Templar", is not a fantasy.

As to whether those who are "like minded" are fanatics or not depends on the details of how they are "like minded". Breivik's actions to accomplish his goals are self-evidently insane. Breivik's fears of a Muslim take-over of Europe are subject to disagreement, but could well have a kernel of reality behind them. Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean that there might not be bona-fide things he needs to fear.

Or were you referring to Charles Martel defeating the Moors at the Battle of Tours as "a fantasy of Breivik's delusional mind"?

Mike Gehlhausen

Quote from: George Erdner on July 29, 2011, 11:50:18 AM
Actually, there is a modern, self-styled "Knights Templar" organization, though it's mostly just a guy with a blog and a few loyal readers. They are disavowing any relationship with Breivik. Breivik might be deluded into thinking he was part of or acting on behalf of what Brievik thought was a major movement, but the puny little group that style themselves as the new "Knights Templar", is not a fantasy.

Hey, George, forgive me for forgetting you as yet another excellent source for interesting links.

Thanks for this one.

Mike

Jim_Krauser

Dr. Martin recognized the soldiers.  But St. Martin, once baptized, resigned his soldier's commission.

Quote from: Buckeye Deaconess on July 29, 2011, 10:21:15 AM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 29, 2011, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Charles_Austin on July 29, 2011, 09:45:25 AM
I have no argument with Father Martin on this point, deaconess.
Can you stand with me in supporting those whose consciences say they cannot accept armed, uniformed service?
I cannot answer for the deaconess but personally if I were asked to support someone taking that position I would have to ask on what basis they take it.  I would not support someone who takes the position that all Christians should be pacifists.  I think that is a misreading of Scripture and a failure to understand the two kingdom doctrine.  One the other hand, there may be those who conscientiously object to this or that conflict, or whose calling is otherwise.

Dan

Since he asked so nicely and I saw it through your response, I'll answer.

First, even Luther recognizes the work of a soldier as an office.  I do not see why one would even enter this office if they were going to later claim the status of conscientious objector.  In the event of a draft, there are conditions under which one can successfully receive this status, which I support.

And to show that I don't think conscientious objectors are cowards, I'll post this link to an article showing their valuable contributions throughout history.
Jim Krauser

Pastor-Grace Evang. Lutheran Church, North Bellmore, NY

George Erdner

Quote from: Jim_Krauser on July 29, 2011, 11:31:39 AM
As I remember that gambit, the deterrence was cast in terms of "mutually assured destruction."  My question always was, if we are struck first, what does striking back gain us?


If you have to ask that, then you don't understand the concept of deterrence. The credible threat that we'll strike back with massive retaliation gains us the knowledge that the other side won't attempt to attack us at all with nuclear weapons.

Deterrence wasn't just to prevent an all-out attack from the Soviet Union that would attempt to wipe out the US. It was also intended to prevent the Soviets from thinking they could take out one or two cities and our SAC bases and we'd simply surrender. Remember, Japan lost two cities to nuclear weapons and surrendered. Japan survived and still exists today. Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt.

Josef Stalin was quoted as saying that given how many Soviet people died in WWII, and yet the nation survived, they could accept losing a few cities in a limited nuclear war with the US, while the US couldn't. The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction was to assure the Soviets that there would be no gradual trading of one city for another until one side or the other capitulated.

One may choose to disagree with the idea as an intellectual exercise, but it cannot be denied that the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction worked.

jpetty

Quote from: dgkirch on July 29, 2011, 11:32:04 AM
Quote from: jpetty on July 29, 2011, 11:18:12 AM


And isn't that "the human one"?

True God and true Man. Of course.  Your point is...?

The Daniel figure is identified as "the human one," which is consistent with popular and scriptural conceptions of the "messiah" in first century Israel.

Jim_Krauser

Perhaps they cannot be held to a personal standard of ethical accounability, but then what will the ethical standard?  It seems to me the answer all round comes to the utilitarianism that was earlier denounced and about which I have grave reservations and great skepticism.

Another pragmatic problem is can nation-states be held ethically accountable for anything?  If so, how so?  Sanctions?  Reparations? 

As we have debated torture on this boad, it seems clear that in the case of our government (and I have no reason to believe other governments wouldn't do the same) we have well insultated our political leaders from any legal/criminal consequences for state actions they authorize that may be deemed immoral or unethical.




Quote from: pearson on July 29, 2011, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: Jim_Krauser on July 28, 2011, 02:25:13 PM

And as much as we'd like to blame facism, Marxism, secularism and materialism, it is striking that Christians find it difficult to unequivocally speak against nuclear weapons.  Even in such places as Lutheran Forum extraordinary forms of violence are given a moral "pass" on utilitarian grounds, i.e. torture, etc.

Can you join with me in condemning that kind of utilitarian philosophy?

As long as we accept and encourage an attitude of "what ever it takes," the future will most likely be even bloodier.


I'm not overly confident about this, but I wonder if the Forum folks here would be willing to consider and discuss the thesis advanced by Reinhold Niebuhr in Moral Man and Immoral Society.  His proposal is that governments of modern nation-states cannot, and should not, be held to moral standards to which we hold individuals.  These governments, Niebuhr claims, have multiple conflicting responsibilities for the protection, safety and well-being of large and diverse populations, and we simply cannot expect them to function ethically as we would an individual whose choices and actions are, typically, more narrowly focused on selected interests afftecting herself and those in her immediate environment.  In short, modern nation-states cannot be regarded as if they were individual persons when it comes to moral accountability.

I read Moral Man and Immoral Society as a young man, when I was trying to figure out how the world works.  Although I still don't fully grasp how the world works, Niebuhr deeply influenced my thinking about political reality, and I continue to find his work provocative and insightful.  Anyone else?

Tom Pearson
Jim Krauser

Pastor-Grace Evang. Lutheran Church, North Bellmore, NY

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: George Erdner on July 29, 2011, 11:50:18 AM
Actually, there is a modern, self-styled "Knights Templar" organization, though it's mostly just a guy with a blog and a few loyal readers.

Huh?  There is a long-time, substantial organization, Knights Templar, that is a part of the Masonic structure known as the "York Rite Of Freemasonry." They claim to trace their origin to the original Knights Templar.

http://www.knightstemplar.org/

Recall that Ethan Allen Hawley, the main character in Steinbeck's novel The Winter of Our Discontent was a Knight Templar in that Masonic organization.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: jpetty on July 29, 2011, 12:03:25 PM

The Daniel figure is identified as "the human one," which is consistent with popular and scriptural conceptions of the "messiah" in first century Israel.

So? Who said otherwise?

The issue is whether the Jews were looking for an earthly messiah who would save them from the Romans. I don't see it.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk