Christian Discussion Thread V

[Constantinopolis]

Also, this isn't a holy war. Putin isn't in it for religion regardless of what the Russian Orthodoxy thinks.

I don't think they ever implied that he was in it for religion, or for any altruistic reasons.

Rather, the argument is that whatever the motivations of the warring parties might be, the Russian-Syrian side is fighting a Just War and Christians should support it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's not exciting in that it's a good thing. It's exciting in that it's a terrible thing that I wish more people were aware of. As Westerners, we need to take more responsibility for the effects of our actions.

You have an odd use of the word "Exciting".

Also, this isn't a holy war. Putin isn't in it for religion regardless of what the Russian Orthodoxy thinks.

Actually they have the correct use of the word. We tend to think of exciting as always being positive, but its not necessarily.

[Salus Maior]

You have an odd use of the word "Exciting".

Also, this isn't a holy war. Putin isn't in it for religion regardless of what the Russian Orthodoxy thinks.

Actually they have the correct use of the word. We tend to think of exciting as always being positive, but its not necessarily.

I did say "Odd", not "Wrong".

Also, this isn't a holy war. Putin isn't in it for religion regardless of what the Russian Orthodoxy thinks.

I don't think they ever implied that he was in it for religion, or for any altruistic reasons.

Rather, the argument is that whatever the motivations of the warring parties might be, the Russian-Syrian side is fighting a Just War and Christians should support it.

Ah yes, replacing a new oppressive power with an old oppressive power is quite a noble and just endeavor. Putting Assad back in power is not solving the problem, it's just setting up the circumstances for another revolt and civil war and more deaths further along the road.

[Constantinopolis]

I don't think they ever implied that he was in it for religion, or for any altruistic reasons.

Rather, the argument is that whatever the motivations of the warring parties might be, the Russian-Syrian side is fighting a Just War and Christians should support it.

Ah yes, replacing a new oppressive power with an old oppressive power is quite a noble and just endeavor. Putting Assad back in power is not solving the problem, it's just setting up the circumstances for another revolt and civil war and more deaths further along the road.

Would you prefer an ISIS victory? Because that's the only other possible outcome of this war.

Fighting on the side of an oppressive government that protects Christians and other minorities, against an even more oppressive rebellion that wants to remove them from the country at best or murder them at worst, is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Ah yes, replacing a new oppressive power with an old oppressive power is quite a noble and just endeavor. Putting Assad back in power is not solving the problem, it's just setting up the circumstances for another revolt and civil war and more deaths further along the road.

Would you prefer an ISIS victory? Because that's the only other possible outcome of this war.

Fighting on the side of an oppressive government that protects Christians and other minorities, against an even more oppressive rebellion that wants to remove them from the country at best or murder them at worst, is absolutely the right thing to do.

Assad isn't 'protecting' anyone, everyone, beside his clique of weird Shi'as (a sect that most Shi'as find really freaking weird), is oppressed equally and enjoy the right to be gassed by their own government.

The conflict isn't about supporting one evil to battle another, and we shouldn't condone Mr Putin's attempt to prop up his puppets in Syria.

[Constantinopolis]

Would you prefer an ISIS victory? Because that's the only other possible outcome of this war.

Fighting on the side of an oppressive government that protects Christians and other minorities, against an even more oppressive rebellion that wants to remove them from the country at best or murder them at worst, is absolutely the right thing to do.

Assad isn't 'protecting' anyone, everyone, beside his clique of weird Shi'as (a sect that most Shi'as find really freaking weird), is oppressed equally and enjoy the right to be gassed by their own government.

The conflict isn't about supporting one evil to battle another, and we shouldn't condone Mr Putin's attempt to prop up his puppets in Syria.

Assad is not trying to ethnically cleanse Christians and other minorities from Syria.

ISIS and al-Nusra (the main rebel factions) are trying to ethnically cleanse Christians and other minorities from Syria.

It's as simple as that.

The only other players are the Kurds (who are great, but have neither the interest nor the ability to rule more than the Kurdish part of Syria) and a disorganized mess of tiny Sunni rebel factions that are just going to get crushed by whichever one of the three main players ultimately gains the upper hand.

So, again: It's a matter of survival for the Christians, and Assad represents the ONLY major faction that is willing to allow them to survive in Syria. I have never seen any of you Western liberals who oppose Assad come up with any realistic alternative. You just keep repeating that Assad is a bad guy as if that's supposed to matter somehow, when his chief rival is ISIS.

Oh, and almost every war in human history was precisely about supporting one evil to battle another. I would even call that an inherent aspect of warfare.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Assad is not trying to ethnically cleanse Christians and other minorities from Syria.

ISIS and al-Nusra (the main rebel factions) are trying to ethnically cleanse Christians and other minorities from Syria.

It's as simple as that.

Assad is gassing everybody, so that he may keep power in the hand of his small cliche of weirdo cultic Shi'as. And Russia is only there to prop up their last remaining 'ally' there (we have far more 'allies' there, even if they all hate each other). It is not as simple as "Christians are being killed, we must protect an oppressive but largely secular government", we must neither lend support to an evil regime nor its evil opposition, we must not 'work together' with Russia to reestablish Putin's satellite.

The only other players are the Kurds (who are great, but have neither the interest not the ability to rule more than the Kurdish part of Syria) and a disorganized mess of tiny Sunni rebel factions that are just going to get crushed by whichever one of the three main players ultimately gains the upper hand.

So, again: It's a matter of survival for the Christians, and Assad represents the ONLY major faction that is willing to allow them to survive in Syria. I have never seen any of you Western liberals who oppose Assad come up with any realistic alternative. You just keep repeating that Assad is a bad guy as if that's supposed to matter somehow, when his chief rival is ISIS.

We should neither support ISIS nor Assad, it doesn't matter if they are the 'two main players'. You Eastern Apologist for your Tsar's New Empire (if we are in the name calling game) should perhaps do the moral and Christian, support neither, and acknowledge that this is a complex affair to which there is no simple solution of 'support the guy that we know, definitively, to gas his people, who even came out with his arsenal of chemical' simply because Tsar Putin says so.

Oh, and almost every war in human history was precisely about supporting one evil to battle another. I would even call that an inherent aspect of warfare.

That is why good people throughout history, like Emma Goldberg, Leo Tolstoy, and, I dare say, Jesus Christ, have opposed war generally and advocated for pacifism. But let's see how 'choosing the lesser evil' turnt out with Kropotkin, who, although perhaps a seminal thinker, was rather naïve in his support for the Great War, being under the impression that the lesser, and, in some respect, admirable evil of Great Britain and France (with their liberal bourgeois democracy, freedom of press, religion, etc.) was preferable to the militaristic autocracy of Germany and Kaiser Wilhem.

[Constantinopolis]

his small cliche of weirdo cultic Shi'as.

Way to go insulting religious minorities, by the way. Maybe you should also call the Yezidis devil-worshippers while you're at it.

It is not as simple as "Christians are being killed, we must protect an oppressive but largely secular government", we must neither lend support to an evil regime nor its evil opposition, we must not 'work together' with Russia to reestablish Putin's satellite.

We should neither support ISIS nor Assad, it doesn't matter if they are the 'two main players'. You Eastern Apologist for your Tsar's New Empire (if we are in the name calling game) should perhaps do the moral and Christian, support neither, and acknowledge that this is a complex affair to which there is no simple solution of 'support the guy that we know, definitively, to gas his people, who even came out with his arsenal of chemical' simply because Tsar Putin says so.

So your brilliant plan is to do nothing? Because it's such a "complex affair"?

Then you are condemning the people of Syria to more war, more suffering, and more misery. And you are doing nothing while Christians are being slaughtered.

That is the price for "noble" and "moral" neutrality. You are condemning others to save your own conscience. By refusing to help the lesser evil, you are allowing the greater evil to win, and/or causing the war to drag on longer than it needs to. It's not a moral choice, it's a cowardly choice. The moral and brave thing to do is to stare long and hard into the abyss, realize that many innocent people are going to die no matter what happens, realize that inaction is worse than supporting the lesser evil, and make the hard decision. Help the lesser evil to win in order to at least reduce the suffering, since you cannot stop it completely.

Oh, and almost every war in human history was precisely about supporting one evil to battle another. I would even call that an inherent aspect of warfare.

That is why good people throughout history, like Emma Goldberg, Leo Tolstoy, and, I dare say, Jesus Christ, have opposed war generally and advocated for pacifism.

Absolute pacifism is foolish, naive, and in many cases criminally negligent. Being a pacifist means doing nothing while other people die, because you don't want to get your hands dirty.

Jesus abhorred violence, and so should we. We must never seek it out. But sometimes violence is going to happen anyway, with you or without you. And at those times, you have to pick a side and join the fight. What good is pacifism while the world burns around you?

Even when the various sides fighting a war are precisely equal in their evil (which is extremely rare, but it happens), it might still be a good idea to help one of them, just to get the war over faster and reduce the death and misery that it causes. Oda Nobunaga was an almost cartoonishly evil monster, but he was instrumental in unifying Japan in the 16th century and putting an end to a hundred years of constant civil war, a war of all against all which had devastated the nation and caused untold suffering. In that kind of situation, when society is being torn apart by countless factions that are all pretty much the same, is it better to do nothing, take no sides, and allow the chaos and war to continue? Or is it better to side with the strongest faction - no matter who it happens to be, since they're all equally evil - in the hope that, by defeating their rivals, they will at last bring peace?

And no, I'm not talking about the Syrian conflict here any more, in case you were wondering. I'm talking about issues of general principle. Should Christians really be pacifists? Or should we try to reduce suffering in the world by fighting for the good side, or the lesser evil side if no one is good, or any side that looks able to end the war, if they're all the same?

I say it is our duty to do the latter. Inaction in the face of war is not virtuous, it is cowardly.

[The Archregimancy]

Can I gently point out that there's an active ISIS megathread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=348625

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Can I gently point out that there's an active ISIS megathread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=348625

I think the main substance of the debate is whether or not engaging ISIS constitutes a "Just War" as outlined by our traditions.

[The Archregimancy]

Can I gently point out that there's an active ISIS megathread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=348625

I think the main substance of the debate is whether or not engaging ISIS constitutes a "Just War" as outlined by our traditions.

I'm fully aware of what the substance of the debate consists of, thank you.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I think the main substance of the debate is whether or not engaging ISIS constitutes a "Just War" as outlined by our traditions.

I'm fully aware of what the substance of the debate consists of, thank you.

alright fine

[Dwarfpolis]

I'm a Greek/Eastern/I don't know how they call it in english Catholic and voted "Other Christian". Did I pick the right option?

PS: The thread is a ****storm, as expected, but apparently not about religion vs atheism but about the IS situation. Well, it's something new compared to what I usually see on the web.

[Diopolis]

I'm a Greek/Eastern/I don't know how they call it in english Catholic and voted "Other Christian". Did I pick the right option?

PS: The thread is a ****storm, as expected, but apparently not about religion vs atheism but about the IS situation. Well, it's something new compared to what I usually see on the web.

Eastern Catholic or the specific rite.

[Salus Maior]

I'm a Greek/Eastern/I don't know how they call it in english Catholic and voted "Other Christian". Did I pick the right option?

PS: The thread is a ****storm, as expected, but apparently not about religion vs atheism but about the IS situation. Well, it's something new compared to what I usually see on the web.

We get pretty intense around here, yes.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'm a Greek/Eastern/I don't know how they call it in english Catholic and voted "Other Christian". Did I pick the right option?

PS: The thread is a ****storm, as expected, but apparently not about religion vs atheism but about the IS situation. Well, it's something new compared to what I usually see on the web.

You should have been here 2 weeks ago

[Winnopolis]

Can any of you guys get on TET? My stress levels are going high with these people who mock Jesus. I need to get some Advil.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Can any of you guys get on TET? My stress levels are going high with these people who mock Jesus. I need to get some Advil.

Let it Go. It's okay.

[Grand Calvert]

Can any of you guys get on TET? My stress levels are going high with these people who mock Jesus. I need to get some Advil.

Heh, welcome to NationStates...

[Winnopolis]

Can any of you guys get on TET? My stress levels are going high with these people who mock Jesus. I need to get some Advil.

Let it Go. It's okay.

I have. I guess that's the mature approach. To not deal with these kids. I won't stoop down to their level and use mockery as an argument.

It just hurts me (and makes me teary-eyed) seeing people who mock Jesus.

[Uxupox]

Can any of you guys get on TET? My stress levels are going high with these people who mock Jesus. I need to get some Advil.

It happens man and you just gotta ignore it. It really hurts when somebody talks badly about Jesus but you just gotta ignore them.

[Herskerstad]

Can any of you guys get on TET? My stress levels are going high with these people who mock Jesus. I need to get some Advil.

Critics are allowed on the thread as long as they conduct themselves in a reasonably cordial matter.

As far as yourself is concerned. Don't sweat it too much. I can't recall any serious or at the very least deep ontological challenge being offered in the five threads we've had on the subject by one outside the faith.

[Winnopolis]

Can any of you guys get on TET? My stress levels are going high with these people who mock Jesus. I need to get some Advil.

It happens man and you just gotta ignore it. It really hurts when somebody talks badly about Jesus but you just gotta ignore them.

Okay...

Can any of you guys get on TET? My stress levels are going high with these people who mock Jesus. I need to get some Advil.

Critics are allowed on the thread as long as they conduct themselves in a reasonably cordial matter.

As far as yourself is concerned. Don't sweat it too much. I can't recall any serious or at the very least deep ontological challenge being offered in the five threads we've had on the subject by one outside the faith.

Resonably cordial. Which is not the case here.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Let it Go. It's okay.

I have. I guess that's the mature approach. To not deal with these kids. I won't stoop down to their level and use mockery as an argument.

It just hurts me (and makes me teary-eyed) seeing people who mock Jesus.

Take comfort and know that Jesus is above all that. God is too big to be offended by the edginess.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It happens man and you just gotta ignore it. It really hurts when somebody talks badly about Jesus but you just gotta ignore them.

Okay...

Critics are allowed on the thread as long as they conduct themselves in a reasonably cordial matter.

As far as yourself is concerned. Don't sweat it too much. I can't recall any serious or at the very least deep ontological challenge being offered in the five threads we've had on the subject by one outside the faith.

Resonably cordial. Which is not the case here.

Honestly it wasn't that bad, just some sarcasm, Hispanic Jesus jokes, and old fashioned snark. God is bigger than some internet trolls and getting upset over it only affects really hurts you. So be of good cheer and great courage.