What does all this mean? “At a national level, the Christian voice has a chance to pursue and encourage a form of peace that does not rely on being armed to the teeth (whilst still allowing the state the right to defense) but rather encourages diplomacy and deep international relations”

We aren’t to arm ourselves too much, but we are supposed to defend ourselves? How do you propose we go about that? Secretly stockpile weapons so that other countries do not get the wrong impression?

Your ideas leave no room for substantial action that might be helpful or reasonable. All you’re asking is that people stop building weapons because someone else might get upset.

Sorry, no deal.

I completely and utterly think that turning the other cheek is an act of peacemaking… one act amongst many. I think the term noted is much broader than simply one act but denotes the pursuit and implementation of a whole way of life that leads to wholeness, restoration and in contrast to a peace that is simply an absence of violence, it necessarily reduces fear and tension.
I think you have wrongfully (probably due to my own lack of explanation) understood me to be saying that the state has no place seeking to defend its citizens. I don’t think that. What I am questioning and challenging is a state of peace driven by fear where peace exists simply because everyone is to scared to “press the button”. I was encouraging a sense of peace that drives much deeper than that and challenging us as Christians to pursue that deeper sense of peace… both at an individual and a collective level. The noting of the arming of the state was simply offered up as a contrast to the deeper, more whole sense of peace. With that in mind, I don’t think you and I disagree as much on this as we may be thinking.

In saying that, let me offer my thoughts on something you said earlier:

Building bombs is not an “act of hostility”. Dropping them is.

I understand your point here. It’s the same thought as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” At its most basic, this is true. But it is also true that increased supply and acquisition of guns increases the potential for people to kill using those guns.

Nation states seem to interpret that building of potential as acts of hostility… or at least as acts that can lead to hostility and they react accordingly. For example, Iraq wasn’t invaded because of a violent act of hostility against the US, it was invaded under the pretext of WMD’s and the threat those weapons posed.

The 1967 war in the Middle East was fueled by acts of aggression, but the spark was a move of the Egyptian army to strengthen itself on the borders of Israel because of threats made against Syria. Because of that, Israel hit out.

The US and Israel openly speak about aggression against Iran if it acquires the potential to build nuclear weapons. Such a move is seen as aggressive. Russia is responding to greater NATO presence on its borders because it sees such a thing as aggressive.

I’ve got no problems with a nation state seeking to defend itself, but it doesn’t take long to see the issue and the rather tentative situation the world sits in.

Jesus was speaking at an individual level and encouraging peacemaking, part of which involves turning the other cheek. As Christians we have a responsibility to pursue that at all levels, both individually and collectively. We have a chance, as individuals (who form a collective body) to have influence in our families, our communities and our nations. At a national level, the Christian voice has a chance to pursue and encourage a form of peace that does not rely on being armed to the teeth (whilst still allowing the state the right to defense) but rather encourages diplomacy and deep international relations.

I am not making a statement about justifications for war (that’s a whole other topic), I am encouraging an active pursuit and engagement of peace that goes deep and is not driven by fear.
Hopefully that makes a little more sense and fattens out the post

There might well be more to the term than we know, but, given no evidence for or against, it is pointless discussing it.

Seems to me that if you’re really interested in testing the implications of your article you’re going to have to look at the problems raised with it rather than looking to defend your presumed definition of the terms you’ve used.

Grant, I am appreciating your thoughts, but you didn’t really answer my last question, instead you are making assumptions about what I have said that are off the mark.

I really would love your thoughts on the last question (all assumptions aside), when Jesus said blessed be the peacemaker, what exactly was he saying and what sort of peacemaking was he referring to?

Once I’ve had the privilege of hearing your thoughts around that, I’ll delve into the issue of “making bombs” and “turning the other cheek”… the latter being something I did not go into for good reason.

I think freinds are by far more important than being able to read your bible. If you have good felowship with other belivers thin you will have more chance of reaching the world than if you know the bible inside out. Cause as you know the devil knows it well.

LAdies and gentlemen I have, at long last, found a fan. I had such difficulty finding someone because my mother doesn’t know how to submit a comment.

Normal service can continue now as long as Bruce doesn’t get too carried away with his newfound ability to submit messages :noid: