To allow for this time, I’ll follow in the strain of armed conflict by talking a little about a potential struggle that I found extremely interesting.
In recent years, the warmer climate has resulted in the recession of ice formations in the Arctic Circle. As more land and ocean has been cleared of ice, vast stores of oil, diamonds and other minerals in the region have become accessible.
Technically, the Arctic Circle is international territory, meaning that any nation bordering the region (Russia, Canada, the US, Norway, and Denmark (which owns Greenland)) can drill or mine within 200 miles of their territory.But now Russian President Vladimir Putin and his scientists are claiming that an underwater ridge near the North Pole is actually a part of Russia’s continental shelf. They assert that the 1,220-mile long Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian Continental Platform, is similar in structure, and is therefore under Russian sovereignty. In recent weeks they sent a submarine to the ridge to plant a Russian flag encased in titanium on the ocean floor.
If their claim is determined valid, Russia will have exclusive access to an area five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
The UN maintains that no nation can claim sovereignty over the Arctic Circle and has rejected efforts to do so in the past. But unlike the typically impotent UN, Canada has actually taking action. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently took a trip to the north to reassert Canadian
Sovereignty, the Canadian military performed the largest exercise in the history of the Arctic, and the country has announced plans to build its first deep sea port and military base in the region. In addition, Canada is revamping its navy with a fleet of ice-breaking patrol ships to prevent encroachment on its northern frontier.Canada has also pointed out that they planted a flag at the North Pole in 1999 as part of a mission led by explorer Jack MacKenzie to set up a postal outlet for Santa Claus (seriously).
What will come of all this hullabaloo? A lot of posturing and harsh rhetoric, but ultimately probably nothing more. Still, it’s fascinating to see Canada stepping up to the military plate. I wonder what they will do if Russia uses force to solidify their claims on the Arctic. I wonder if the US will step in even though our military is already spread dangerously thin in Middle Eastern conflicts.
To me, it’s an apt real world example for the pacifism debate. So many of the world’s conflicts boil down to ownership, property. This is often meshed with ideological differences, but wars start over disagreements about which group has the “right” to be there. Israel vs. Palestine, Sunni vs. Shiite, the Union vs. the Confederacy.
My stance is that if we truly believe in God’s dominion, then we can’t call property wars “just.” I realize this contradicts some stories of the Old Testament, but I don’t have a problem with that. This is a whole new post (maybe for the future), but I have major issues with the OT. Namely, there are some 800 rules and for inexplicable reasons we have taken it upon ourselves to pick and choose which to follow. We’re willing to die for some, yet more than willing to completely ignore others. To me, it’s a major source of hypocrisy.
Back to the point, Jesus called on us to love our enemies, to feed them and give them shelter. This is explicit and undeniable. I don’t think loving an enemy includes killing him over a plot of land.
Thanks for reading.
10 comments:
Good for Canada! That I think is the first time I am proud of those Canadians.
However it does sound like it could cause trouble from Russia, I hope not but it could happen.
I am still trying to soak in this Pacifist view and what it means.
Personally I have never been against war all together, because I think there are certain circumstances that we need to defend ourselves and stand up for what we believe is right.
If war is avoidable I believe we should do anything we can to follow that path. Fighting is never pretty and I don't think it makes God happy to see what happens to His people, but at the same time He knows best.
Like pat said, in the Old Test. conflict was usually initiated by God and led by Him and in most cases they were considered Holy Wars.
The New Test. Jesus told us to avoid war and was in favor of peace. "Despite the evil of war, Jesus said it is inevitable that wars will continue until He returns (Mark 13:7-8), and He did not oppose earthly governments or their right to maintain armies (Matthew 8:5-10). Other New Testament passages accept the necessity of maintaining armies and the worthiness of military occupations (Luke 3:14, Acts 10:1-6)" (Taken from "What does the Bible say about war", www.twopaths.com)
Now I think the Bible gives us enough direction to know where a follower of Christ should stand with Pacifism. I do not think that it will spell it out word for word for us, but it gives a good idea of what to beleive.
It is a crazy concept to think about all the oil that is still up there. If only there was a cost efficient way on drilling it.
Oh well maybe I'll discover oil in my back yard and set up a geiser and become rich. Then I'll get Zizzle-Zot his own web space Zizzle-zot.com and market it to the world in a super bowl ad with a hot woman in skimpy clothing jumping all around so her large breasts bounce all over the 60" screens of every male in America.
Instantly Zizzle-Zot becomes a huge hit getting 200 million hits a day making every one of the original Zizzle-zotians filthy stinking rich because we take on jobs such as Zizzle-Zot historian so we can be on the Zizzle-zot payroll and share in the bounty that is American Culture at its finest.
FROTM P Corcs donates all of his share to organize Earth Day II not because he really gives a damn about the earth, but because he already has tons of money from drilling oil out of his back yard but he wants to gain fame from hollywood and he figures what better way to do it than to donate millions of dollars that was made from people logging on to Zizzle-Zot and wasting that much more coal to create the extra 10 minutes of electricity the computer needs to be on so 200 million readers can see Zizzle-zot each day.
Of course this all started from discovering oil in his back yard and thus destroying a neighborhood with a 200 foot tall oil derrick off of his back deck and all the animal life within miles because of the massive oil spills. Okay, I went to far. Just got off on a little tangent there.
PS Yeah for Pacifists!
I've been following this story for a while now. I find it to be incredibly fascinating. It's like a modern day discovery of a "new world" (to a much lesser degree, mind you). Up till now, the entire planet has been dilligently carved out by different nations and powers... but now we get to witness an old school land grab.
It makes me wonder what will happen when we reach the capability to move into space.
Also, for what its worth, I completely agree with you in your criticism of the modern day cherry picking that occurs with the Old Testement. I hope I'm not opening a huge can of worms here, but I never understood why there was so much mobilization against gay marriage from the Evangelical community and hardly a bumper sticker's worth of protest against divorce, ect, ect. That might be an issue more relevant to the times than it is applicable to Gruber's argument, but WHATEVS.
Lastly, to Gruber and those who think like Gruber, does sharply criticising the Old Testement place you on a slippery slope of Christian relativity? Also, if you block those criticisms for precicely that reason...is that not intellectually dishonest?
I need an interpreter for your last statements Mr. Antagonist. I am a 4th grade teacher and those terms are rarely used in my vocabulary during the day. Rephrase your questions then I can respond adequately.
Gladly...
I guess my question is that once someone says that parts of the Old Testement might not be literally accurate, doesn't that send one down a slipperly slope? By Christian relativity, I am refering to a situation where one's faith becomes completely relative to themself, basically creating as many forms of Christianity as there are Christians. I don't think its too bold to say that there are many parts of the Old Testement that are difficult to swallow. If you doubt that woman was created from the rib of man, or that Noah filled an arc with every landlocked species, then what's to stop someone from taking that skepticism as far as say, questioning if Jesus was actually God himself, or could he have been a prophet? Or was he more of a philosipher?
Then again, is it not intellectually dishonest...or simply put...a "cop out" to continuously push those contradictions and unanswered questions out one's mind, to a later date, or chalk everything up to "God's unknowable plant"?
I might have just come out of the closet as an agnostic.
So many things to comment on, yet so little time...I guess I will try to take up this Old Testament issue. I like Mr. Antagonist's indictment on Christians and the slippery slope of choosing what the OT means that works best with their theology of God.
What I think seems to be the problem is not the text itself, but it is most traditions' lack of understanding. It's a failure to contextualize the OT in the Ancient Near Eastern location and time. I hate to be the one to say it, but its a difficult set of books to read if you have no contextual understanding of first, Judaism, second, the cultures of the ANE world, and third ANE literary concepts. Yes, that sounds like a mighty mountain to climb, but if we don't get there, we end up believing things like the world was created in 6 24 hour periods. Its simply not what the text means to say.
In lieu of this, people who cite the contraditions between the OT and the NT have simply not done their homework (I indict myself as well here). What I submit to you oh Mr. Antagonist is that I have been at a point where I listened to so much pop Christian babble (babel (pun!)) that I had to seek for myself. In this ongoing research I keep uncovering truth by listening not to preachers and traditionalists, but to biblical scholars.
In the academic circle of the biblical studies, scholars overwhelmingly agree on many portions of the texts. Why? Because they have delved into the contexts of OT and NT stories. It is (in my opinion) mostly small matters f theology that are disagreed upon. The reason why there are so many interpretations of the biblical text is due to bad theological methods.
Take for instance the sea monsters in the book of Genesis. Yes, it talks about sea monsters! Now were there truly sea monsters in the OT context? Absolutely not. But some readers conclude that "if the Bible talks about sea monsters, there must be sea monsters." The truth is, the text refers to mythological characters of Ancient Near East cultures. Now only through undestanding context could we realize what the text contends to say. Which is, "Monotheism is the truth and our One God triumphs over all evil (the sea symbolized evil in ANE cultures)"
Are y'all seeing my point. Let's not make the Bible our scapegoat because we don't read it correctly. Sorry so long! Joe is cute. Pat start drilling. Peace!
At a boy Cassel. I totaly agree with Cassel. Many of the "supposed" contradictions could be avoided by a simple careful study of the Scripture. The Bible must be read as an organic whole. It cannot seen as just a bunch of books thrown together into one big book. Why, you ask? Becasue the Bible itself does not think of itself that way. Remember that the accusation of the Pharisees against Jesus was that he was twisting the OT for his own use, but Christ was rather trying to show them that he was the fullfilment of the OT.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matt. 5:17-18).
As far the 800 rules of the OT we must remeber that the civil and magisterial rules only applied to nation of Israel, but when Christ came and opened the church up to all the nations he abolished the civil and magisterial rules. What does remain though is the moral Law (i.e. the ten commandments). We see this in the teachings of Christ, when he supports the moral Law in Matthew 5, but shows that he is the end of the signs and shadows of the civil and magesterial laws (Heb. 8) (such as the temple. John 2:19)
I remember something about Canada...
Here's a question/proposition for all Zizzle-Zotians:
Over the past few weeks I have come to know and respect many of you, whether it be on this site or in person. I certainly consider some of you to be new friends of mine. One thing that has excited me is, quite frankly, how different you guys (are there any female Zotzians?) are from the people I usually associate with.
You see, I'm an agnostic...and a pretty devout one at that. I know most of you guys are thoughtful Christians and at least a couple of you are Pastors in the making.
I guess what I'm trying to say in WAY too many words is this: Would anyone be interested if I started a blog that expressed the questions and concerns of a respectful agnostic and you could respond in any way you see fit. I don't know about you guys, but I've LOVED the conversations I've had with a few of you already and I can only imagine how many pages we'd fill up with quality conversation.
So what say you? This blog would really only work if you guys were as enthusiastic about it as I am, or at least 73% as enthusiastic.
A quick response to some of these comments before I have to take off for a meeting:
Good work, Werd, with the extracurricular research and finding those NT passages about war. I still believe, however, that even though these passages accept the inevitability of warfare, Jesus would call on his followers to avoid violence.
P Corcs, loved your post. Way to bring it all back around in the end. I think another Hollywood fueled Earth event is just what the doctor ordered.
All you OT discussion folks, good talk. Originally, I only brought it up because I don't like to use the God of war from the OT as a way to justify modern war. I think this also falls into the understanding the context category (and I don't believe many Ancient war contexts are applicable to modern war contexts.
I'm glad the conversation took on a life of its own, and beyond that I'll refrain from commenting further, for now. If anyone has anything more to add, feel free to keep going. I may or may not post on it in the near future.
baby justin bieber official music video download [url=http://connections.blackboard.com/people/3874b3d09b]justin bieber baby lyrics ft ludacris download [/url] justin bieber baby video download rapidshare
Post a Comment