Archives for posts with tag: weapon

This Blog “The Philosopher on Politics has been combined with “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking”.  All new Posts will appear on http://gadflyblog.com/ effective 12/12/2016.

Thanks for your interest in these topics.

The Philosopher

Christianity is not an Offensive Weapon Ver. 1.1.2

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/weapon/

The Philosopher

http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/weapon/

4/19/2016

Copyright 2016

Introduction

As of late, there are several incidents in this first quarter of the twenty-first century that involve using Christianity as an offensive weapon.  The Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU) visited planet Earth twenty centuries ago and used parables to teach us that peace on this planet Earth can be obtained by “negotiating a workable compromise.”   This is a negotiating process that results in an agreement between individuals, organizations and nations and that works for all parties concerned.[i]

Case Study 1

The USA sought to oust the dictator of Iraq and did so effectively.  The overthrow of the dictator was justified from the fear that weapons of mass destruction were being constructed.  The driver for this operation was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the USA Armed Forces.  This was someone more knowledgeable of the military might of the USA than of negotiating a workable compromise.  However, the government installed a replacement for this dictatorship and, in turn, ousted the Islamic sect that was previously in power under this dictatorship. This resulted in their being disenfranchised from their home country.

The disenfranchised military members left their homeland with their weapons they possessed as being a part of the dictatorship’s army.  These disenfranchised military members formed their own group now known as ISIS-ISIL.  This new group rightly blamed the USA for their disenfranchisement and made their demands clear in a barbaric fashion. They did not want the USA involved in their objective to establish a home nation for this group in Iraq and Syria.

While under public pressure, the leadership of the USA retaliated against ISIS-ISIL with military air forces.  The USA leadership had an opportunity to negotiate a workable compromise at this time but instead chose to retaliate with force, and they did so under the label of Christianity.  ISIS-ISIL then retaliated against soft targets in Europe and, using propaganda on the internet, was able to influence USA citizens to retaliate against soft targets in the USA.  As they see the USA as a Christian nation, all citizens of the USA qualify as a soft target.

This progression of the USA targeting hard targets and ISIS-ISIL targeting soft targets has now escalated past the point of the present leadership of the USA to be able to negotiate a workable compromise with ISIS-ISIL.  A change in leadership with another leader not capable or experienced in negotiating workable compromises would effectively just be a change in the face of the leadership and would not result in a policy change from military action to negotiating a workable compromise. The RoCoU taught us during His visit twenty centuries ago to live in peace with our neighboring nations.  This leaves the only solution to peace as impeachment or resignation of the President of the USA, which would send a clear message to ISIS-ISSL that the USA is ready to negotiate a workable compromise.

Case Study 2

The leadership of a small local independent church was following the examples given in the New Testament of the Bible to guide and organize their church.  When their New Testament theology was threatened by the discovery of a scientific explanation of the events that were reported in the four Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles of this New Testament, the leadership chose to take offensive action to protect their religious tradition.

What could be the possible reasoning behind this aggressive offense by church and state?

  • The USA leadership was pressured by public opinion to take military action against ISIS-ISIL because of their barbaric method of sending a message to the USA to stay out of their fight.
  • The leadership of the USA mistakenly thought that an aggressive military action was consistent with Christian values.
  • The Commander-in-Chief’s responsibility is given to the President, when instead it should be delegated to a much wiser panel of mature statesmen (not the Joints Chiefs of Staff, as they have a conflict of interest, which was demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq).
  • Christian leadership in the church has become a professional Christian role. Professional Christians have a conflict of interest in their churches (Protestant), as they must maintain continued funding by a fickle membership to ensure the continuity of their salary.  The use of laypersons to perform leadership duties in the church mitigates this conflict of interest and would lead the way for debate on the Gospel in the church.  In another major non-Protestant denomination, this conflict of interest is mitigated by a corporate style of leadership.  In this case, it is a follow-the-leader style of church with a hierarchy of church leaders.  For this reason, the idea of open debate is unheard of in this denomination of the Christian church, as final authority rests with their chosen leader.
  • Debate in the church has been discouraged dating back to the Apostle Paul. Paul knew he was right even if he was not[ii] and the other orators were declared unreliable by Paul. [iii] Any interpretation of the Gospel other than that defined by the Apostle Paul was and is an imposter.
  • The RoCoU, on the other hand, stressed the use of negotiating a workable compromise to resolve differences of opinion in the church, in society microscopically and between nations macroscopically. [iv] Certainly he would have supported open debate in the church over the closed church doctrine that now exists in most present day churches.
  • A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it,” – Max Planck. [v] So it must also be true of a “New Paradigm in Christian Thinking.”

QED

 

 

[i]  Luke 12:58, http://biblehub.com/niv/luke/12-58.htm,  Luke 14:31-32,  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14:31-32&version=NIV

[ii] http://drleman.com, “The Firstborn Advantage”, Revell Pub. 2008, p69 “The Firstborn Personality”

[iii] 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11%3A13-15&version=NIV

[iv] Ibid i

[v] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html