Protestantism

» Brother_Jones - Thought

In response to Thought posted by Migisi:

Ya gotta know that, in war, ~all~ roads lead to somebody's destruction.

Kinda cynical just to throw that line in there, don't you think. All wars? I remember somewhere back there in the past, one of the wars freed a bunch of black slaves. I bet if you asked an African American about that War, most would say, 'Thank God for that War.' And the South wasn't destroyed. Not really. Just changed for the better. And those of us who have fathers who fought in WW2...well, war was pretty important to fix things then. I guess War can be a pretty good thing at times. What say you?

the oldtimer

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - Thought

In response to Thought posted by Brother_Jones:

.
http://www.parabola.org/
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Thought

In response to Thought posted by Brother_Jones:
.
I wrote: Ya gotta know that, in war, ~all~ roads lead to somebody's destruction.
.
Kinda cynical just to throw that line in there, don't you think. All wars?
.
Yes, in EVERY and ALL wars, somebody always loses something. Regardless of the reason for or result of the war, both sides lose. I think in terms of total losses to both sides (and those caught in the middle) in any conflict, not just those suffered by the 'winner'.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - No Peace without Justice

I will agree with Migisi that all wars are terrible, and all wars involve somebody's loss. Some people lose more than others. In that sense, Migisi is right. And, I say that with all sincerity (no pandering intended), thank God for people who have that kind of sensitivity. In Migisi's compassion, I see the benevolence and fervency of so many worthwhile efforts out there to alleviate pain and suffering. We need that. God knows we need that.

But...

Brother Jones is right!

It is naive and completely and totally unrealistic to think that we can call just be at peace - because, well, we should be. That's what I meant with my comment about Migisi, Cindy Sheehan, and others who hold up "peace signs." (I still don't believe I said anything outrageous or reprehensible there, but whatever). It's fine to call for "peace," but Jimmy Carter (can I name him without getting attacked?) naivete won't get the job done.

There can be no peace without JUSTICE!

And sometimes (tragically, I will grant), it takes violence to achieve justice. Migisi, as a former police officer, you should know this.

Brother Jones is right. And, I think I'm right, including my critical comments of today's peace activists including a certain woman who lost a son in Iraq. But many families have lost loved ones in war over the centuries, including our just wars.

What about the 60,000 men General Grant lost in the Wilderness campaign of 1864-65? And all the peace activists (yes, there were quite a few!) calling for an end to the war? All the families who had lost loved ones crying out for the war to END - and end now? Should Lincoln have listened to them?

I could ask that question of ANY of our wars, including World War II, the American Revolution, and so on.

Some wars need to be fought. That's the tragic reality. We may disagree on what wars need to be fought. But let's make no mistake. Some wars DO need to be fought, and that means lives will be lost.

There can be no peace without justice!

» Brian Tubbs - Brian

In response to Brian posted by pink101:

Phil, you all but called me a 'jerk preacher' and compared me to Fred Phelps. That's what hurt. Your other comments, including about the veteran's hospital, I had no problem with. They are valid.

Believe it or not, I agree with you and Migisi that the United States should NOT engage in any wars simply to perpetuate greed, fatten the wallets of selected (privileged) businessmen, or bolster someone's power base. I agree! I agree! I agree!

Our difference is that I don't think the war in Iraq is about that. But, we (not just here - but America overall) are so divided, that we're not listening anymore.

If George W. Bush sat down with some of his fiercest critics, they aren't interested in truly LISTENING to him or trying to UNDERSTAND where he's coming from. No. They just want to hurt him, take him down, score points against him, vent at him, whatever.

That's the climate we are living in right now - and it's a recipe for social unrest, even violent anarchy. Truly disturbing times.

And when I see that here, it upsets me.

All I did was associate Cindy Sheehan with Migisi and "peace signs" - that's it! - but I got hammered as if I'd desecrated the Virgin Mary! Small exaggeration, but you get my point.

Anyway, I consider you an online friend. You too, Migisi. And, so, sometimes the barbs hurt. Perhaps it works the other way, so I'll try to do better on my end too.

» Migisi - No Peace without Justice

In response to No Peace without Justice posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I'm right. Jones is right. Pink's right. Brian's right. If we could only get our world leaders to agree like this, we could have peace.
.
"Imagine! It's easy if you try." (John Lennon)

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - everybody's right?

In response to No Peace without Justice posted by Migisi:

I am sure there are elements of being right in what all are saying and doing, including political leaders...if we search deep enough. But who was it who said: "You can be right or you can be happy."

Brian's reference to no peace without justice also suggests to me that some who believe they are right, may not like the justice they need. And that a happy peace is too big an ask.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - everybody's right?

In response to everybody's right? posted by redback:

.
The problem with "no peace without justice" is that we do not have a clearly defined understanding of justice.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Question of Justice

In response to everybody's right? posted by pink101:

.
The question of justice is one of the oldest quandaries in the history of civilization.
.
What's your definition?
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - everybody's right?

In response to everybody's right? posted by pink101:

You're right...or more correctly, I agree.

If the definition of 'justice' cannot be applied to any one specific task, then any umbrella definition won't stop the rain. The phrase seems to call for global peace and global justice. Maybe individuals and individual nations need to suffer ongoing "minor" injustices for the greater good.

Maybe the sacred cow of it needs retiring.

-- posted by redback