The alleged Norwegian attacker

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Gehlhausen

Quote from: dgkirch on July 29, 2011, 12:05:53 PM
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.

I appreciate your links and book and article references as well.

One of the joys of this forum is that arguments are so often backed up with some sort of additional data.

Mike

George Erdner

Quote from: dgkirch on July 29, 2011, 12:05:53 PM
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.

In that case, there are at least TWO organizations running around calling themselves "Knights Templar". There is the group within the Freemasons and there is that tiny little group I referred to that Breivik was inspired by. I wouldn't doubt if there might not also be a third and fourth such group using that name. It is, after all, in the public domain. The only thing needed to create a group that calls itself "Knights Templar" is a handful of people willing to call themselves by that name.

Buckeye Deaconess

Quote from: Jim_Krauser on July 29, 2011, 11:54:39 AM
Dr. Martin recognized the soldiers.  But St. Martin, once baptized, resigned his soldier's commission.

Both Martins acted responsibly according to their conscience, and I believe both views are salutary.

TravisW

Quote from: George Erdner on July 29, 2011, 12:10:08 PM
Quote from: dgkirch on July 29, 2011, 12:05:53 PM
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.

In that case, there are at least TWO organizations running around calling themselves "Knights Templar". There is the group within the Freemasons and there is that tiny little group I referred to that Breivik was inspired by. I wouldn't doubt if there might not also be a third and fourth such group using that name. It is, after all, in the public domain. The only thing needed to create a group that calls itself "Knights Templar" is a handful of people willing to call themselves by that name.

And you're right.  I believe there are several groups in the U.K. claiming descent from the original Knights Templar (not counting the York Rite group). 

George Erdner

As luck would have it, there's a news story on CNN about how many organizations have adopted the name "Knights Templar", including a Mexican drug cartel.


Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: dgkirch on July 29, 2011, 08:17:03 AM
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 no one hereon has said that it does.


I understand "per Daniel" as meaning, "according to Daniel" or "as written in the Book of Daniel". When Daniel does talk about the coming of an "anointed one" (who many or may not be The Messiah -- translations differ on how they present the Syriac) a very specific time-table is given.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Donald_Kirchner

#276
<sigh>  And I never referenced a new heaven and a new earth "per Daniel." I referred to "a Messiah coming in power and might per Daniel..."
Don Kirchner

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

Brian Stoffregen

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


Literally it says, "one like a son of man" = "one like a human being" on contrast to the beasts that were just described.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

#278
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?


What does it gain us if we strike first?


There was much more fear during the cold war by the Russians than among Americans, because the Russians knew that we were the only nation who has actually used a nuclear weapon on people. We told our people, "The Russians might bomb us." The Russians told their people, "Look at what the Americans have done." Who should be more fearful?


By striking first, we prove to the world that we are the big, rich, arrogant bullies that many believe we are.


How can Christian soldiers rationalize what they are trained to do with the commandment, "You shall not kill" and "Love your enemies"? Do they ignore those passage of the Bible? Do they redefine, retranslate, and reinterpret them so that they don't apply to killing in a war?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Buckeye Deaconess

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 29, 2011, 12:47:10 PM
By striking first, we prove to the world that we are the big, rich, arrogant bullies that many believe we are.

Try telling that to a Pearl Harbor survivor.

Quote
How can Christian soldiers rationalize what they are trained to do with the commandment, "You shall not kill" and "Love your enemies"? Do they ignore those passage of the Bible? Do they redefine, retranslate, and reinterpret them so that they don't apply to killing in a war?

You have obviously never served, have you?  Do you think they do it for sport on the whole, seriously?  Do you understand anything about the freedoms you enjoy?  It's called SACRIFICE for the sake of the security and protection of the innocent.

peter_speckhard

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 29, 2011, 12:47:10 PM
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?


What does it gain us if we strike first?


There was much more fear during the cold war by the Russians than among Americans, because the Russians knew that we were the only nation who has actually used a nuclear weapon on people. We told our people, "The Russians might bomb us." The Russians told their people, "Look at what the Americans have done." Who should be more fearful?


By striking first, we prove to the world that we are the big, rich, arrogant bullies that many believe we are.


How can Christian soldiers rationalize what they are trained to do with the commandment, "You shall not kill" and "Love your enemies"? Do they ignore those passage of the Bible? Do they redefine, retranslate, and reinterpret them so that they don't apply to killing in a war?
Christian soldiers, of which I was one, are not quite so dense as you seem to think. Have you ever even read the Augsburg Confession?

George Erdner

Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 29, 2011, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 29, 2011, 12:47:10 PM
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?


What does it gain us if we strike first?


There was much more fear during the cold war by the Russians than among Americans, because the Russians knew that we were the only nation who has actually used a nuclear weapon on people. We told our people, "The Russians might bomb us." The Russians told their people, "Look at what the Americans have done." Who should be more fearful?


By striking first, we prove to the world that we are the big, rich, arrogant bullies that many believe we are.


How can Christian soldiers rationalize what they are trained to do with the commandment, "You shall not kill" and "Love your enemies"? Do they ignore those passage of the Bible? Do they redefine, retranslate, and reinterpret them so that they don't apply to killing in a war?
Christian soldiers, of which I was one, are not quite so dense as you seem to think. Have you ever even read the Augsburg Confession?

Let's also be a little practical in the idea of "striking first". If an enemy is massing large amounts of troops near your border, and installs artillery and rocket launchers on hillsides where they can attack your people, isn't it wise to use targeted strikes to destroy the enemies artillery and rocket launchers before they can be fired? I realize it's not a perfect analogy, I that some will nitpick the illustration instead of seeing the point, but sometimes a military "preemptive strike" is the equivalent of shooting the gun out of an enemy's hand to prevent a gunfight.


Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Buckeye Deaconess on July 29, 2011, 12:58:52 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 29, 2011, 12:47:10 PM
By striking first, we prove to the world that we are the big, rich, arrogant bullies that many believe we are.

Try telling that to a Pearl Harbor survivor.


So we should have dropped the atomic bombs on Japan when we suspected that they might attack us? That sounds like the revised golden rule, "Do unto others before they can do unto you."

Quote
Quote
How can Christian soldiers rationalize what they are trained to do with the commandment, "You shall not kill" and "Love your enemies"? Do they ignore those passage of the Bible? Do they redefine, retranslate, and reinterpret them so that they don't apply to killing in a war?

You have obviously never served, have you?  Do you think they do it for sport on the whole, seriously?  Do you understand anything about the freedoms you enjoy?  It's called SACRIFICE for the sake of the security and protection of the innocent.


No, I have not served in a war. I have never owned a gun. I have never gone hunting. While others of my generation were going to Vietnam, I was studying the Bible at a Bible Institute. Thus my question about the Bible which you did not answer. What do you do with the command, "You shall not kill?" and "Love your enemies"?


Secondly, sacrifice means giving up one's life for something greater. Many military personnel made the ultimate sacrifice at Pearl Harbor for the sake of the U.S. not being the agressor and the nation to start the war with Japan. (I have a Pearl Harbor survivor in the congregation, he and another member are part of the Chosin Few who fought at the Chosin reservoir in Korea. We have retired and active Marines in the congregation. (Yuma is the home to a Marine Air Station. My previous call was next to an Air Force base and we had active and retired military in that congregation.) Almost annually, I have conducted a special Veterans Day Service with the singing of all six of the anthems of the veterans. (The ones for the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine aren't as well known as the other four.)


Certainly, many Christians can reconcile the biblical commands with military service. (I'm asking how you reconcile them.) Others can't.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 29, 2011, 12:59:31 PM
Christian soldiers, of which I was one, are not quite so dense as you seem to think. Have you ever even read the Augsburg Confession?


Many times. Even more often I read the Bible. How did/do you reconcile the command against killing with your service as a soldier?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Charles_Austin

Pastor Fienen writes:
I would not support someone who takes the position that all Christians should be pacifists.
I comment:
Doggone it, read carefully. I am not asking you to support anyone with that position. Can you support a Christian who says "My Christian convictions lead me to the conclusion that I cannot take up arms, that I cannot in good conscience accept uniformed military service."
And to the deaconess and others always read to leap to the frenzied defense of the military (even when no one is attacking the military), I will try to say it very clearly.
I have no problem with Christians serving in the armed forces. I have prayed with young men and women on their way to training or being deployed to a war zone. I have prayed at Memorial Day services and Veterans Day services (breaking a rule that some have against "unionism," but what the heck.)
But I have also known pacifists and others who have had a conscientious objection to a particular war.
Can those of you who have worn the uniform recognize their faith, their patriotism, their willingness to suffer for their country or their faith? Can you?
And let us not draw out the old, tired, allegedly "confessional" argument about two kingdoms or the right of the state to call us to arms. The state has a right to do that. Some of us have the moral obligation to say "no" when it does.
And all of us have the moral obligation to consider what our spending on armaments, whether we are too dependent upon military might, whether we desire to impose our will through force of arms and whether we have put all of these things above our trust in God. We need to consider what these things might say about how we view the world and our neighbors.
As noted upstream; I do not believe we have a shortage of people who will take up arms. But...

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk