How to NOT represent the Spirit of Christ

[middletree]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/22/D8C595H80.html

Short version: Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of the President of Venezuela.

[ICarlson99]

I saw your topic title and knew EXACTLY what you were talking about. Ugh. I wish he'd just go away (no, not in a Hugo Chavez way ;) ). He does more harm than good.

[NotMyOwn]

I think it is high time he was ousted as a leader of this organization.

[coldcupofjoe]

thats something i would prefer not to see Tony...


anywho, i do agree but probably for different reasons, i beleive that if this venezualen (did i spell that right?) dictator was assassinated he would be replaced by another in a few hours making it pointless, there are only a few ways to overthrow a government and most of them are bloody

[middletree]

It's not our place to overthrow govts.

[Greg]

It's not our place to overthrow govts.

I agree.

[ICarlson99]

It's not our place to overthrow govts.

Who's place is it?

[middletree]

Who's place is it?
I didn't say it was anyone's. But if a country isn't a danger to us, it's not our place to decide who's in power there. I am a strong believer in national sovereignty, and that's part of it.

[rossid]

Oh this is just beautiful.

[ICarlson99]

I didn't say it was anyone's. But if a country isn't a danger to us, it's not our place to decide who's in power there. I am a strong believer in national sovereignty, and that's part of it.

What about for humanitarian reasons? Like in the Rwanda, Sudan, etc? They may not be a direct threat to us, but do we have a responsibility at some point when the leader of the country is the reason for genocides or mass starvations?

I'd like to think the UN should take care of stuff like that, but I'm not naive.

I'm not saying I have a good answer, just seems like there is a point at which our own national security isn't the only reason to help people being oppressed and downright exterminated. And obviously words like "oppressed" and "danger" or "threat" can be defined quite differently to different people.

[kiwisongbird]

[QUOTE=ICarlson99]What about for humanitarian reasons? Like in the Rwanda, Sudan, etc? They may not be a direct threat to us, but do we have a responsibility at some point when the leader of the country is the reason for genocides or mass starvations?

Yeah and Burma??

[middletree]

What about for humanitarian reasons? Like in the Rwanda, Sudan, etc? They may not be a direct threat to us, but do we have a responsibility at some point when the leader of the country is the reason for genocides or mass starvations?

I'd like to think the UN should take care of stuff like that, but I'm not naive.

I'm not saying I have a good answer, just seems like there is a point at which our own national security isn't the only reason to help people being oppressed and downright exterminated. And obviously words like "oppressed" and "danger" or "threat" can be defined quite differently to different people.

The last part of your post answers your question of "why not?" As horrible as it is in those countries, we can't go and have our soldiers die just to make life better for them. Another reason that it wouldn't be a good idea to start usurping foreign leaders is that you never know where to stop. You mention Rwanda and Sudan. Then Sharon reminds us of Burma. I could throw in Cuba. There are many others. Can we possibly go into every nation that doesn't meet our standard of freedom and "fix" them? I think not. And I'm especially not willing to see American moms and dads lose their sons for such efforts.

[ICarlson99]

The last part of your post answers your question of "why not?" As horrible as it is in those countries, we can't go and have our soldiers die just to make life better for them. Another reason that it wouldn't be a good idea to start usurping foreign leaders is that you never know where to stop. You mention Rwanda and Sudan. Then Sharon reminds us of Burma. I could throw in Cuba. There are many others. Can we possibly go into every nation that doesn't meet our standard of freedom and "fix" them? I think not. And I'm especially not willing to see American moms and dads lose their sons for such efforts.

I agree the line is blurry, and yes there are many bad places with reasonable candidates for "intervention", but I don't see how isolationism is a very compassionate policy. I don't know where to draw the line (Yes in Iraq, No in Sudan?), but it seems that if no one is willing to help people in Bosnia, Iraq, Sudan, wherever else - when do we have an OBLIGATION to do something? Is there a point at which it's inhumane NOT to intervene? If so, what if the only effective intervention is "regime change" - and what if the only effective regime change is by killing the dictator.

I know it's always terrible to use Hitler as an example for anything - but if Germany wasn't a direct threat to us, why should we have helped other countries in Europe? And what if he hadn't gone into other countries and just exterminated the Jews in his own country? Doesn't great power bring great responsibility? (Which I would presume means protecting those you can no matter where they live in the world) I don't like seeing the US play world police either, and many of those situations can be resolved through economic sanctions or political pressure (so I'm not saying go all places and take out all bad guys). But some can't - especially when they're sitting on large pools of money. I just think there is a point at which the moral thing to do is remove someone by whatever means are necessary.

In countries with legitimate opportunities to elect other leaders, that's a separate situation - but how is it compassionate to say to the people living under a tyrant, "sorry, you'll just have to wait until he dies and then hope for the best"?

[middletree]

I agree the line is blurry,

And that was my only point.

I know it's always terrible to use Hitler as an example for anything -


Your Hitler example is a solid one, and you make a strong case. That's why this thing is so blurry.

In countries with legitimate opportunities to elect other leaders, that's a separate situation

Interestingly, Chavez (the guy that Robertson wants us to take out) was elected democratically, and so was Hitler

- but how is it compassionate to say to the people living under a tyrant, "sorry, you'll just have to wait until he dies and then hope for the best"?

The problem I have with this mindset is that we end up putting in some sort of democracy in place. I love democracy myself. But it isn't perfect, and we have no business forcing an imperfect system on a nation of people who didn't grow up with it. Democracy is counter to the culture of many 3rd-world countries. It is not destined to do well there.

[ICarlson99]

The problem I have with this mindset is that we end up putting in some sort of democracy in place. I love democracy myself. But it isn't perfect, and we have no business forcing an imperfect system on a nation of people who didn't grow up with it. Democracy is counter to the culture of many 3rd-world countries. It is not destined to do well there.

I don't think the only alternative is necessarily democracy. But I think we're mostly in agreement - there are serious problems with how you practically implement regime change - when? where? how? But I do think there are situations where the moral thing to do is remove the leadership. You obviously can't leave a vaccuum, either.

Also, at some point third world countries need to be modernized, and democracy is one way to do that. It's certainly not an easy thing, but they've got to start sometime.

As for Chavez, I think he's horrible - but what Robertson said is only going to make him stronger. He now gets to play the martyr without actually dying.

And while he was elected (like Hitler), what I meant about that was if the people have the ability to CHANGE leadership through elections, we shouldn't get involved (or be far less likely). Just because someone was elected, then removed the opportunity for themselves to be voted out, doesn't qualify for what I was referring to.

In general though, I agree with you - we shouldn't go around trying to fix everyone's problems. But the opposite extreme of turning a blind eye until it directly effects us doesn't seem appropriate either. Of course, someone like Chavez controlling as much of our oil imports as the Middle East does can directly effect us.

[middletree]

remove the leadership. You obviously can't leave a vaccuum, either.

LOL. I just had this vision of us going in and removing a leader of a nation, and leaving a Hoover there, then scooting out. Or maybe a Dirt Devil.


democracy is one way to do that. It's certainly not an easy thing, but they've got to start sometime.

What I'm saying is that in some cultures, democracy will never work. Ever.

As for Chavez, I think he's horrible - but what Robertson said is only going to make him stronger. He now gets to play the martyr without actually dying.

Perfectly put.

And while he was elected (like Hitler), what I meant about that was if the people have the ability to CHANGE leadership through elections, we shouldn't get involved (or be far less likely). Just because someone was elected, then removed the opportunity for themselves to be voted out,

Ah, but Chavez was elected, then they held a recall election, where the voting was supervised by representatives from the US (yes, Jimmy Carter, but still), and he still got elected.

In general though, I agree with you - we shouldn't go around trying to fix everyone's problems. But the opposite extreme of turning a blind eye until it directly effects us doesn't seem appropriate either.

If we could affect those nations without losing young men, then I'd be more open to the idea.

Perhaps we should just send Christians to the borders of places like that, and have prayer teams surrounding the nation, until something good happens.

I would so love to try that!

[ICarlson99]

How about we send prayer teams as well as Pat Robertson armed with a sniper rifle ;)

On a similar, but slightly different note, is it a "good" (for lack of a better word) thing if 1,000 US lives are lost preventing the death of 5,000 non-US lives?

[middletree]

How about we send prayer teams as well as Pat Robertson armed with a sniper rifle ;)

On a similar, but slightly different note, is it a "good" (for lack of a better word) thing if 1,000 US lives are lost preventing the death of 5,000 non-US lives?

Anyone who answers this question with a simple "yes" or "no" doesn't get it.

[ICarlson99]

Anyone who answers this question with a simple "yes" or "no" doesn't get it.

I say "yes".


Probably :D

When would it not be a good thing?

And to clarify - I'm talking about the average regular person, not 1,000 US soldiers giving their lives to save 5,000 Nazis.

[ICarlson99]

Robertson backtracks

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/pl_nm/venezuela_robertson_dc

I hate when people play the phony "out of context" card. Almost as much as I hate the media bias blatantly evident when they label Robertson a 'conservative evangelical', but in the same article Jesse Jackson is just a 'religious leader' :mad:

[Unstereotypical]

To the original point of this thread:

"How NOT to represent Jesus": Talking crap about other Christians, even if you agree with them or not. Who are you to talk crap about other Christian brothers and sisters? Check yourself before you belittle and look down on someone with a long nose. Are you Mr. Perfect? Then why strut yourself like you are?

You claim to follow Jesus so closely, but you critize and run down those that He uses. You are no better than anyone else. If you know it or not, you were in need of Saving one time too just like anyone else. So what's make you so "high and mighty" that you have to treat fellow Christians like dirt?! "Pride goes before a downfall." Proverbs 11:2 says that.

If you say that you are a Christian, then live like one. Live in GOD's Love, and show that Love to others. Let people see that you are the real deal of a True Christian before you just give yourself a little title to yourself just hap-hazardly saying that you are "a christian".

Think about it.

(That is to anyone in general who thinks they are doing GOD a favor by treating others like dirt just b/c they don't agree with them, and who think they are over everyone else just b/c of the school they went to, or the car they drive, or the house they live in, or the creditials they have).

That's all that I have to say on that. Agree with it or not. I don't care. It's the truth.

[middletree]

If you say that you are a Christian, then live like one.
That's all that I have to say on that. Agree with it or not. I don't care. It's the truth.

oookkkkaaaaaayyyyy. . . .

(scratches head)

So what's the truth? It's acceptable to call for the assassination of the president of Venezuela?


Anyway, I stand by what I said. Pat Robertson had no business saying what he did. His comments were not biblically supportable, for sure. And they probably put any Americans in Venezeula, including missionaries, in danger.

[Howlin' Wolf]

"How NOT to represent Jesus": Talking crap about other Christians, even if you agree with them or not. Who are you to talk crap about other Christian brothers and sisters? Check yourself before you belittle and look down on someone with a long nose. Are you Mr. Perfect? Then why strut yourself like you are?

who's to say that pat robertson is a christian?

[coldcupofjoe]

whether or not Mr. Robertson is a Christian is between him and Him

[ICarlson99]

oookkkkaaaaaayyyyy. . . .

(scratches head)


I think he was talking about Jesse Jackson :D

[Glennjamin]

It's not our place to overthrow govts.

Well, not since the 1980s anyway... :p

The US isn't the only guilty party here... the UK as well (think back on the whole 18th and 19th Centuries... :rolleyes: )

Dictators only get replaced by better-funded dictators...

Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Somalia...

[ICarlson99]

Well, not since the 1980s anyway... :p

The US isn't the only guilty party here... the UK as well (think back on the whole 18th and 19th Centuries... :rolleyes: )

Dictators only get replaced by better-funded dictators...

Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Somalia...

Were things better or worse in Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries?

You forgot Soviet, Japanese, German, French, Chinese imperialism.

Is the only acceptable form of "regime change" internal civil wars?

[Glennjamin]

Were things better or worse in Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries?

Better in some... worse in others.... either way, it messed up the 20th Century for a lot of those countries...

You forgot Soviet, Japanese, German, French, Chinese imperialism.

Born in a Pacific British colony (Aust) and raised in an African British colony (Ghana), it seemed convenient to pick on the UK. ;) :p

The Pacific islands that the US took off the Japanese at the end of WWII, when the Allies (US/Australia/UK etc) divided up the old Imperial territories, had in turn been given to Japan after WWI, when Germany's colonies were divided up between the Allies (US/UK/Japan etc)... Germany's African colonies were split between the British, French and South Africans... the east part of Ghana (ex-British) and the entirety of Togo (ex-French) were once joined in one German colony, known as Togoland.

Is the only acceptable form of "regime change" internal civil wars?

Of course not.
Sometimes a dictator will voluntarily make the transition to democracy... I'm thinking here of Jerry Rawlings, who ran a military government in Ghana 1981-1992, before introducing a new constitution, multiparty elections, and limits on presidential terms. He served two terms as democratically-elected president, then stood down, being ineligible. Makes a change from Ghana's first post-colonial president, whose constitutional reforms involved making himself President-For-Life. :rolleyes:
Some civil wars work... an awful lot don't.
Some external regime changes work... an awful lot don't.

Imperialism works sometimes... I mean hey, I'm wearing Levis :)

[kiwimobro]

... I mean hey, I'm wearing Levis :)
I'm wearing a longie

[Glennjamin]

I'm wearing a longie

and just what's a longie?

[kiwimobro]

I didn't say it was anyone's. But if a country isn't a danger to us, it's not our place to decide who's in power there. I am a strong believer in national sovereignty, and that's part of it.
And if a country is a threat (or anyone or thing else is for that matter,) where does it fit in Jesus teaching for us to be making choices about what they do or do not do and inflicting our subjectivism on them? Jesus was born to a Jewish family. He was a friend to the Samaratans, prostitutes, tax collectors ... enemies ???

[kiwimobro]

and just what's a longie?
the article of clothing worn by 95% or more of men in Myanmar. A single piece of cloth wrapped around the waist covering to the ankles .... most comfortable in this climate!

[Glennjamin]

the article of clothing worn by 95% or more of men in Myanmar. A single piece of cloth wrapped around the waist covering to the ankles .... most comfortable in this climate!

Aha. Thanks. Like a Fijian lap-lap...

[kiwimobro]

Aha. Thanks. Like a Fijian lap-lap...
yeah. But (maybe) without the political subtlety that was intended for this thread

[Glennjamin]

yeah. But (maybe) without the political subtlety that was intended for this thread

back on topic... i heard one guy on tv (forget who, sorry) state his opinion that the way to influence change in foreign countries was to do air-drops of parcels containing blue jeans, American magazines, and coca-cola...

I wonder how in the spirit of Christ that is... :rolleyes: