Pharisee Nation

[Phatmasser777]

Pharisee Nation

American Nation Brainwashed

by John Dear

02/17/05 "CommonDreams" - - Last September, I spoke to some 2,000 students during their annual lecture at a Baptist college in Pennsylvania. After a short prayer service for peace centered on the Beatitudes, I took the stage and got right to the point. “Now let me get this straight,” I said. “Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ which means he does not say, ‘Blessed are the warmakers,’ which means, the warmakers are not blessed, which means warmakers are cursed, which means, if you want to follow the nonviolent Jesus you have to work for peace, which means, we all have to resist this horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq.”

With that, the place exploded, and 500 students stormed out. The rest of them then started chanting, “Bush! Bush! Bush!”

So much for my speech. Not to mention the Beatitudes.

[url="http://207.44.245.159/article8113.htm"]http://207.44.245.159/article8113.htm[/url]

[Phatmasser777]

btw, written by a Jesuit priest.

[Crusader_4]

There is truth to that. I think we need to be critical of war and remember the Vatican does say Pacifism is a stance that can be taken by Catholics (although not for me) it is a valid response.

[MichaelFilo]

The priest was wrong in condemning the war and expecting people to agree with him. Even the Pope knows that as Catholics we don't have to agree wtih him. Blessed are the peacemakers, and the warmakers arne't blessed, that is true. But there is also a time for peace and a time for war.

[quote]For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, And a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
[b]A time for war, and a time for peace.[/b]

--Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8[/quote]

*Edit* While we shouldn't be making war, sometimes it's neccessary. So the priest is wrong in this. I don't support the war however, so don't bash me just yet.

God bless,
Mikey

Edited February 20, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[Guest Aluigi]

Without even commenting on the war in Iraq,
where has the Church ever made an allowance for pacifism???!

Church Teaching says that sometimes there is a MORAL OBLIGATION to take up arms. Pacifism is contrary to Church Teaching, and contrary to Christ's teaching.

Saying it was written by a Jesuit frankly doesn't give me much confidence in this day and age. St. Ignatius Loyola pray for us.
Blessed are the Peacemakers, as in avoid war
Adolf Hitler was not a peacemaker. F.D.R. was a peacemaker.

The Jesuit is wrong if he just says "because this is a war, and Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, it is wrong" because he absolutely ignores all Church Teaching and Christ's Teaching which commanded His apostles to make sure they owned a sword just in case, just not to live by the sword.

Edited February 20, 2005 by Aluigi

[Crusader_4]

The church has said that pacifism is a valid response (again i repeat it would not be my response) . I found this from the US Bishops from 1983 in the doccument Challenge of Peace:

118. Two of the passages which were included in the final version of the Pastoral Constitution gave particular encouragement for Catholics in all walks of life to assess their attitudes toward war and military service in the light of Christian pacifism. In paragraph 79 the council fathers called upon governments to enact laws protecting the rights of those who adopted the position of conscientious objection to all war: "Moreover, it seems right that laws make humane provisions for the case of those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms, provided, however, that they accept some other form of service to the human community."[49] This was the first time a call for legal protection of conscientious objection had appeared in a document of such prominence. In addition to its own profound meaning this statement took on even more significance in the light of the praise that the council fathers had given in the preceding section "to those who renounce the use of violence and the vindication of their rights."[50] In Human Life in Our Day (1968) we called for legislative provision to recognize selective conscientious objectors as well."

[Crusader_4]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 20 2005, 12:47 PM']



*Edit* While we shouldn't be making war, sometimes it's neccessary. So the priest is wrong in this. I don't support the war however, so don't bash me just yet.
[/quote]
Im not going to bash you here at all but i think there is a bit of ilogic in this statement. You do not support the war (which is a valid response) then how can you say that there are not warmakers? and thus it is contrary to the beatiutudes? Or if there is a war who are then the warmakers?

[aloha918]

I think that the "Pharisee Nation" thing is really clever

[Paladin D]

I would agree with the "Pharisee Nation" title in this case, especially the way they handled his statement. Though there is a thing called a "Just War", or a just reason to enter into war. However, the debate is whether or not Iraq was or was not just.

Despite all this, I would assume everyone here would agree that war should be the last and final option.

[Mary's Knight, La]

I'd be interested in meeting Fr. John Dear's "nonviolent Jesus" because the Jesus spoken of in the gospels cleared out a temple with a whip, called hypocrites, presumably in a manner suited for public confrontation, a brood of vipers, challenged those in power to kill him, encouraged his followers to have a weapon, and could smart off when he wanted to (why didn't you arrest me when i was in the temple, you're the one who said it, you wouldn't have power if it wasn't given to you) at every turn he smashed through false piety, false intellectualism, and injustices.

the paper is exactly what i would recommend from a religious more concerned with social concerns than with morality and the gospel

[jiyoung]

a just war is a war to preserve peace, no? as weird as that sounds. warmaker implies someone who makes war for the sake of fighting. peacemaker implies someone who will keep the peace at whatever cost. whether or not this applies to iraq, war is sometimes necessary to preserve peace in the bigger picture.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Feb 19 2005, 05:25 AM'] “Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ which means he does not say, ‘Blessed are the warmakers,’ which means, the warmakers are not blessed, which means warmakers are cursed, which means, if you want to follow the nonviolent Jesus you have to work for peace, which means, we all have to resist this horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq.”
[/quote]
Wow, that is about the worst line of reasoning I have ever heard. Logically it is full of holes.
For example, Jesus also did not say, "Blessed are the Jesuits", which means, the Jesuits are not blessed, which means Jesuits are cursed, which means if you want to follow the non-Jesuit Jesus, you ahve to work against the Jesuits, which means we all have to walk out and boo every Jesuit speaker.


To analyze it more precisely, just because Jesus says that A is blessed, doesn't mean that B is not blessed. For example, Jesus doesn't say that his Mother is blessed, but she is. The Beatitudes are not meant to be an exhaustive list of what is and is not blessed in the universe.

Also, "not blessed" and "cursed" are not the same thing. My computer is not blessed. But it is not cursed (that I know of).

Another error is that working for peace excludes any use of force. In fact, as a previous poster mentioned, Augustine said that just war is orderd toward peace. That is, sometimes force is necessary to restore justly ordered peace.

So, error upon error upon error.

[Phatmasser777]

That's an equally if not worse piece of apologetics..lol.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Feb 26 2005, 04:02 AM'] That's an equally if not worse piece of apologetics..lol. [/quote]
Look at Alderran, though they did covertly support the Rebellion, they did not directly fight against the Empire. Alderaan was destroyed by the Empire (Death Star), and they were mostly pacifist in nature.

What would Star Wars be if the Rebels were pacifist? They were fighting for a just cause.

[musturde]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 26 2005, 02:41 AM'] Wow, that is about the worst line of reasoning I have ever heard. Logically it is full of holes.
For example, Jesus also did not say, "Blessed are the Jesuits", which means, the Jesuits are not blessed, which means Jesuits are cursed, which means if you want to follow the non-Jesuit Jesus, you ahve to work against the Jesuits, which means we all have to walk out and boo every Jesuit speaker.


To analyze it more precisely, just because Jesus says that A is blessed, doesn't mean that B is not blessed. For example, Jesus doesn't say that his Mother is blessed, but she is. The Beatitudes are not meant to be an exhaustive list of what is and is not blessed in the universe.

Also, "not blessed" and "cursed" are not the same thing. My computer is not blessed. But it is not cursed (that I know of).

Another error is that working for peace excludes any use of force. In fact, as a previous poster mentioned, Augustine said that just war is orderd toward peace. That is, sometimes force is necessary to restore justly ordered peace.

So, error upon error upon error. [/quote]
Yeah, I think his arguement would still work because you attacked it but not fully. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers". The people who wage war would be the opposite. We have to look at what Jesus means. It makes no sense that he'd condemn every war. I'm personally undecided on the war on Iraq because America took out a terrible dictator but the Government that follows isn't gunna work out either way. Right now there's a great amount of people who are against this new government and they're going out of their way to kill anyone just to threaten us. I don't know if this will end soon or ever. If this was released recently, then the arguement is of no value. Why do people rant on and on about how horrible the war is if it's not going to do anything. People all around the world were laughing at us because we didn't even support our presidents actions. It's time to move on, we should pray for our troops, not go on about how "evil" they are. We're already in the war, we might as well continue to stay to keep the government alive for at least a couple of years.