Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Well, I don't know.  But I think there are situations where there
    are very few choices and a limited amount of time in which to make
    a decision.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

...intrinsically evil behavior is inexcusable:

"When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there
are no privileges or exceptions for anyone" (No. 96).  Intrinsically evil
behavior includes murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, contraception,
adultery, sexual perversion, theft, and more (see Nos. 80 & 81).  The pope
speaks powerfully to those who say that intentions or consequences can
excuse such acts:

   Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act
   intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act "subjectively"
   good or defensible as a choice.
   
By "object," the pope means "the proximate end of a deliberate decision,"
(No. 78).

However, there is the concept of a just war.

It has to be defensive, has to be carried out with only the means
necessary to carry out the mission, and has to be limited to ending
the aggression.

/john

    reply .3

    The concept of a "just" or "defensive" war seems rather open ended. The
    terms "just", "necessary means" and "mission" seem to be the very
    subjectivity the Pope warns about.

    Personally, it seem convoluted to consider the killing done in a
    defensive war as not intrinsically evil, but contraception is. However,
    I do believe that some things, like genocide or sexual abuse of
    children, are intrinsically evil. 

    Eric

    By the criteria of a "just war," there has probably never been one.
    
    Richard
    

    What about Jericho?
    

    Jericho would not fit the "just war" model.
    
    Richard
    

"Return evil for evil to no one. Provide fine things in the sight 
 of all men." Romans 12:17 NWT

 Phil.

    
    
    -1
    
     Do you think that scripture applies to individual choice or as broad
    as national choice?
    
    
    David

	David,

	I don't fully understand why you ask this question?, please can you
	clarify.

	Ofcourse, it applies to each individual. But I don't see that
	this principle should change if it is a collective choice (compare
	Romans 12:19).

	Phil.

 

    
    -1
    
     Yes I will clarify. Can our national leader(choke,gag, Pres Clinton)
    decide for us collectively that,err, lets say, not to respond to a
    terrorist action inside the U.S.A. with violence?? Asssume some
    terrorist group set off a bomb and killed a bunch of Americans, could
    a Christiam President respond with violence or would he/she be
    bound to the scripture you quoted earlier??
    
    David  ( thats my best shot at clarity :_) )
    
    
    David

    re:  Note 827.11 by COMET::DYBEN
    
    The response should be non-violent. If the response were violent we
    might end up killing an innocent child.
    
    Do you think the resoponse should be violent? If so, what did Jesus
    teach to make you think so?
    
    Eric

    
    
    > the response should be non-violent
    
     Would a person/persons that chosen to, or even in principal agreed
    to repsond violently, be evil or wrong??
    
    

re .11


	David,

	The question you pose in .11 is not one I would like to answer. 
	Why?,  well from my viewpoint as a Jehovah's Witness, Jesus' 
	disciples are to remain "no part of the world". This would 
	include remaining neutral as regards wordly politics. Hence, one 
	would not get into political debates of what is right or wrong. 

	Someone has pointed out that one should respect the superior 
	authorities. That means being a law abiding citizen, whomsoever,
	is in power at the time. As long as it does not conflict with
	God's standards. And as Jehovah's Witnesses, we are grateful 
	for the freedom we have to serve the Lord, for they have 
	experienced persecution in many different countries during
	different times this century including present.

	Phil.
 

    
    
    -1
    
     I think it was Dante that said the deepest part of hell is reserved
    for those who remain neutral during a moral crisis( not aimed at you
    or anyone in particular). Is there s point where something occurs that
    requires a justifiable/moral violent response???
    
    David

re Note 827.15 by COMET::DYBEN:

>      I think it was Dante that said the deepest part of hell is reserved
>     for those who remain neutral during a moral crisis( not aimed at you
>     or anyone in particular). Is there s point where something occurs that
>     requires a justifiable/moral violent response???
  
        I shouldn't speak for Phil, but for the pacifists I have
        known or read about to remain neutral in certain secular
        crises is anything but to remain neutral in a MORAL sense. 
        In fact it is to take a VERY strong stand for a deeper moral
        issue.

        Bob

re .15

David,

As regards remaining neutral, Jehovah's Witnesses may not get
mixed up in wordly politics but they definitely don't keep
quiet as regards telling people what is the answer to mankind's
ills such as wars, that is God's heavenly kingdom (Matthew 6:9,10).
The different types of world powers are temporary but God's
kingdom is the one that will last (Compare Daniel 2:44). As such
Jehovah's Witnesses advertise the new wine skins (God's kingdom), 
rather than patch up old wine skins (today's worldly political 
powers) that will soon be thrown away.
  
To answer your question, yes, but the response should come from 
God not man (Romans 12:19).

Phil. 

    RE: Note 827.13 by COMET::DYBEN

    The person would not necessarily be evil, but certainly wrong. Seeking
    violent revenge is intrinsically evil... that is the act is evil.

    This, of course, is my opinion. I base it on my understanding of Jesus'
    message and what John Covert has entered earlier. What part of the
    gospel leads you to believe that violent retribution is part of Jesus'
    message? (for the second time).
    
    Eric

    
    
    Eric,
    
     I don't believe that I ever stated it was part of Jesus's message. I 
    personally believe that we are to oppose evil unto death. There are 
    things I would kill a person for. If my country went to war I would 
    do my best to make the other guy die for his country. If someone was
    hurting my son I would kill etc etc etc
    
    
    David

    RE: .19

    > I don't believe that I ever stated it was part of Jesus's message.
      
    In the context of the topic (how does the concept of "necessary evil"
    fit into the teachings of Jesus) took it for granted that your opinions
    were based on your understanding of Jesus' message. I was mistaken. I
    now have now idea where you came up with these rationalizations.

    There are things I too would kill for. This doesn't make it right. I
    simply don't believe that the Gospels support humans killing each other 
    under any circumstances. If my country went to war I would do my best
    to stay alive... and I'd pray that the other guy's family is not left
    without a father/husband/son/brother.

    Eric

    
    
    -1
    
     > I now  have noe idea where you camu up with these rationalizations
    
      I did'nt, I just asked questions, breaths Myers, breathe :-) :-)
    
    
    David  p.s. I think in the O.T. God ordered the Jews to kill human
    beings. 

    
    
    
    
    ...gosh, I really need to start proofing better :-)
    
    
    David

.22    
    
>    p.s. I think in the O.T. God ordered the Jews to kill human
>    beings. 

Sure did, according to the Book.  One instance was the ancient Middle East
version of the more recent "Manifest Destiny" in the so-called "Promised Land,"
sometimes called the "New World."  In both instances, people determined that
God had ordained the "chosen people" to take the land, even if it meant
annihilation of the land's present occupants.

Peace,
Richard

    From 827.19

    > If my country went to war I would  do my best to make the other guy
    > die for his country. If someone was hurting my son I would kill etc
    > etc etc
    
    I read this as your rationalization of necessary evil, or justified
    violence. Is this consistent with the message of Jesus or not? Are you
    saying that the above is good?
    
    Eric

    
    
    Yes. 
    
    
    David

    Eric,
    
    	This is one of those areas where David and I are in polemic
    disagreement.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    
     Polemic (n)  An aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or
    principles of another....
    
    
     ...one of many Richard:-)
    
    David

    I don't have my trusty dictionary handy, but by my remark I simply
    meant "as opposite as North and South."
    
    Mine was not an "attack," David, as you apparently view it.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    Richard,
    
     Words have meaning...
    
    David

    .29  Wrong...meaning is in people, not in words.
    
    Furthermore, I was using the word as an adjective (adj).  You gave
    the definition as a noun (n).  Blame it on your liberal education,
    which failed to properly teach you parts of speech.
    
    Richard
    

    Polemic (n)  A controversy, argument, or refutation
    
    AMerican Heritage Dictionary

    
    
    > parts of speech
    
    > Wrong...meaning is in people,not in words
    
    
     ...and because it was from you I took it as a noun. Meaning is in the
    perception of the reader. I perceive you as hostile.
    
    David

Note 827.26
    
>    	This is one of those areas where David and I are in polemic
>    disagreement.                                            ^
          ^                                               (adjective)
        (noun)

While the foregoing is in a sense true, it's the following I was intending
to say:

>   	This is one of those areas where David and I are polar in our
>    disagreement.

I used the wrong word, because the meaning (which is in me) of "polemic,"
at the time I wrote it, was not entirely congruent with its definition.

Sorry.

Richard