First of all, I think that I might need to explain what a thought experiment is. It’s an attempt to control circumstances in order to analyze thoughts and ideas … much as a laboratory experiment controls conditions in order to determine scientific facts.
I concocted this particular scenario about five years ago, and posted it on the War Stories forum of Slate magazine’s “The Fray.” It went over just about like a lead balloon, so I’m hoping that readers here will get it a little better.
So, here we go … the hypothetical situation.
The Martian Invasion
The High Council of Mars has decided that conditions in the United States are intolerable. Seeing that abortion is going on with no end in sight, and no particular efforts at protecting the unborn, the Martian fleet has sent a battle group to invade the United States.
The First Question
At this point, given only this information … I ask any pro-lifer what you think of this. (I assume, of course, that pro-choicers would oppose the Martian invasion. If you want to play along, then pretend that they’re invading for some other reason that seems applicable.) Would you fight with the Martian invasion, given that its purpose is to end abortion? or would you defend your country against the foreign invaders?
Collateral Damage
Early attacks were targeted quite precisely at abortion clinics and similar targets. There have been several unfortunate incidents, however. These have included:
- In New York City, a small clinic that performed abortions was destroyed by a particle beam cannon. This killed the doctor in the office, three nurses, and an office worker. There were also three women, clients of the facility, killed in the attack. One was pregnant and considering an abortion; the other two are believed to have been present for other services.
- In Portsmouth, NH, the local Planned Parenthood office was destroyed with no patients inside. The attack did kill two nurses and three office workers. The explosion also damaged the nearby art supply store, killing a high school student who was shopping for an easel.
So, here we are … although their original and stated target is the abortion industry, the Martians are killing the innocent, too. Now, how are we going to react?
- In Dover, NH, a Martian attack ship destroyed Options for Women, a Christian-based crisis pregnancy center offering alternatives to abortion for women. Commander Snarggle of the Martian Fleet explained to local reporters that since in Martian there is only one word covering “option” and “choice,” and “choice” is a common euphemism for abortion, they translated the name of the facility as “Choice for Women,” and took it to be an abortion clinic. While some argue that this kind of error is unacceptable, Commander Snarggle responded to the criticism by arguing that it’s not his fault, but rather that of the abortion forces, who have consistently used misleading labels and hidden their agenda behind legitimate-sounding ideas. The fault,
in fact, lies with the abortionists for their misuse of language and where they put their facilities.
So … how do we feel about it, now?
I have heard from many different people that Iraqis should accept civilian deaths in their country, simply because we’re there to stop terrorism. It was that kind of comment that prompted me to throw out this “US is attacked for a good reason” scenario. I find that very few people see it the same way.
However, is it not true that the US regime presides over the killing of millions of children per year? Why aren’t we subject to regime change?
I think that too often we hide behind cute euphemisms such as “collateral damage” when talking about war, and ignore the fact that that means real, innocent people died or were maimed for no crime worse than being subject to a government that we don’t like.
As with any thought experiment, the point is to take your answers and then see how they apply to real-life situations. If the principles you identify don’t reconcile, then why not?
I would love to see people’s thoughts on these questions … even if you don’t have positive answers. This is a philosophical exercise … so, what are you thinking?
July 7, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Aren’t those the same?
I say fight those Martian bast*rds!
July 8, 2008 at 12:01 am
Wickle, if I understand your little exercise here, I think folks calling themselves Christian don’t understand the word ‘intent.’
Let me see if I can answer your analogy with another analogy. Let’s say a local gang have pillaged, raped and murdered throughout the neighborhood for years, three times carrying their dastardly deeds to adjoining neighborhoods. In addition, they boast they will kill the police chief, gas the adjoining neighborhood, offer a $25K reward to anybody that kills a policeman, and documented proof has been found confirming they have indeed done this. In addition, they continually shoot at police driving on the nearby highway. But for the moment, their crimes are contained within their own neighborhood and they’re such bad shots, the shooting at cops is almost ignored. It is suspected that the gang has stored thousands of pounds of ammonium nitrate. Even the adversarial opponents from other gangs have confirmed this.
After 12 years of warning and intense negotiation, the swat team decides that the threat is real and many could be killed unless they act quickly. In doing so, they attack and kill every thug but two unlucky neighbors get caught in the crossfire and die. One is a child.
So am I to assume in God’s eyes, the swat team members who killed the innocent parties are equally guilty of murder as the thugs?
And if you really meant this…US is attacked for a good reason” scenario. I find that very few people see it the same way then you’re every bit as confused as those who call unborn children a choice and no better in my eyes.
P.S. – you did see this article, did you not? So much for the “theory” Saddam not have the ability to develop and/or distribute material to construct WMDs:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5316183
Funny how that news seems to be quietly squelched by most of the MSM. This should have been headline news…I heard nary a peep today.
July 8, 2008 at 12:23 am
Yes, ChenZhen, those are the same … let me fix the wording.
The first choice was supposed to be to fight with the Martians.
July 8, 2008 at 12:38 am
Actually, Tex, I haven’t answered the questions yet. It is therefore inappropriate to speculate as to what my answers are.
That being said … sigh …
I’m not sure that “intent” is a Biblical concept. You’re referring, of course, to the legal idea that what you’re trying to do is more important than what actually happens. I’m asking people to consider the idea that both matter.
How do you weigh them?
If I’m looking at your answer, clearly you’re indicating that you weigh intent more heavily. So, would you be kind enough to answer the question? Are you with the Martians, or not?
For my own part, I’m not sure. I’m revisiting this as part of a much-more-thorough examination of all of my thoughts about war, peace, faith, justice, and my place as a Christian.
By jumping straight to the accusation that I’m equating SWAT teams with gangs, you’re trying to absolve yourself of the need to make moral evaluations.
I have, in fact, not equated the two. Would you say that the SWAT team members who killed a child are, perhaps, as innocent as Mother Theresa?
Let’s not pursue false equivalences, here. There is a lot of room between being on the same level with the gang and being saintly, right? Let’s not put words in each other’s mouths, either.
By the way, yes, I saw that article — which has absolutely nothing to do with my philosophical point. I’m not sure what you mean about it being squelched by the media — your link is to ABC, which is pretty mainstream. I heard it covered on NPR and saw it on the Wall Street Journal online. Since I don’t have cable, I don’t know about the TV coverage, so I’ll take your word that it hasn’t been played as much. I can only assume that they needed to cover the “man” giving birth, and so were too busy to cover actual world events.
July 8, 2008 at 10:04 am
Wickle, your question touches on one of my favorite topics, which is the means by which humans divide themselves into warring factions. My “bible” on this subject is “The Sneetches” by Dr. Seuss. For those not familiar, the sneetches were creatures who divided themselves into two groups. Those who have stars on their bellies and those who do not. They clearly did not get along (despite being similar in every other way). When a savvy entrepreneur offered a solution by giving the bare sneetches stars, the original star-bellied sneetches declared it was no longer cool to have stars and requested that they be removed.
This is all by way of saying, my theory is that any group of people will find some reason to either divide or unite against some other group. My guess is that the pro-life folks, when presented with their greater kinship to pro-choice folks than to Martians, would fight against the Martians. Their moral indignation about abortion would take a back seat to their fear and loathing of the “OTHER”.
Not to mess with your scenario, but I think a more subtle question might be if the government started taking military action against abortion clinics, would pro-life people applaud the move, despite any casualties involved? This I think is harder to answer than the Martian scenario.
By the way, collateral damage is just one of the many reasons why war is just plain wrong. In the words of the famous 60’s song, “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.”
July 8, 2008 at 11:13 am
I would gladly welcome my Martian overlords. ;)
July 8, 2008 at 11:46 am
I’m not sure that “intent” is a Biblical concept. You’re referring, of course, to the legal idea that what you’re trying to do is more important than what actually happens. I’m asking people to consider the idea that both matter.
Then you and I read two very different Bibles. Whether you pick the King James Version, the New American Standard, or anything between, “intent” is talked about from Genesis thru Paul’s teachings. For instance,
Proverbs 21:27
The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable— how much more so when brought with evil intent!
or New Testament
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
If you don’t think intent is biblical Wickle, perhaps you can explain this disconnect then between your reasoning and God’s Word?
Exodus 21
12 “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
I have, in fact, not equated the two. Would you say that the SWAT team members who killed a child are, perhaps, as innocent as Mother Theresa?
??? What is this? The question makes little sense and I can’t see how it is relevant to the topic at hand. But I will say this. The soldiers who have laid down their lives in the name of freedom, goodwill and for their fellow man are every bit as saintly as Mother Theresa. Absolutely they are!
Let’s not pursue false equivalences, here. There is a lot of room between being on the same level with the gang and being saintly, right? Let’s not put words in each other’s mouths, either.
Is that not exactly what you are insinuating from the entire premise of your question? That we are no different in killing “innocent Iraqis” than Saddam was – collateral damage, if you will? If you’re are simply posing a question then I would say this, “we are as different as night and day.”
Tell me Wickle. For all of your criticisms, and there have been many I have read of both Bush and the war, let me ask you three questions: (1) Is there ever a time that putting men to death is justified?; (2) Is there ever a justified war? (3) What exactly is not noble about giving 48MM people a chance at a freedom they would have never found had we not intervened?
July 8, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Wickle,
Sorry about the double post…this is conjunction with my last question from the previous post.
(4) Do you feel George Bush is evil? And not that in the biblical sense that we’re all evil – I’m talking about the measurement of one man to another; not our Creator. Do you think George Bush a bad man?
July 8, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Tex,
You enjoy word games. I get that. Since I’m not trying to play that game, I’m not really into it, but here goes …
Yes, “intent” is mentioned in the Bible. The word is used in lots of different ways. You said that not understanding intent as you see it lumps me into the group of “folks calling themselves Christians,” which seems more than a little extreme. I don’t think that it rates with grace and an understanding of my utter sinfulness before God.
Now, moving on …
“What is this? The question makes little sense and I can’t see how it is relevant to the topic at hand.”
Then we’re in agreement. I never said that your SWAT shooter who killed a child was as culpable as a gang member — an evaluation I can’t make, because you gave no specifics. How did the incident happen? You see, unlike a thought experiment, you are pursuing sloganism. You offer me the choice between supporting our troops, no matter what they’re doing, or being a terrorist. I’m trying to isolate actual principles and work them out, then apply them.
But since you don’t want to work within that context, I’ll answer your silly questions instead.
(1) Is there ever a time that putting men to death is justified?;
Yes, of course there is.
(2) Is there ever a justified war?
Yes. You’d get a longer answer, but I’ve been working on a post dealing with more of that issue, and I’m not posting it here as an answer to your question.
(3) What exactly is not noble about giving 48MM people a chance at a freedom they would have never found had we not intervened
Nothing, since you worded it that way. Of course, someone else might ask the question, “What is noble about killing 85,000 Iraqi civilians?” By asking a leading question, you’re trying to lock me into a corner into which I refuse to be trapped, Tex. I’m not into cute little slogans and banner-waving. I like thoughtful positions.
There is good and bad … I’m trying to figure out where the lines are and at what point we should be taken aback and rethink the ethics.
4) Do you feel George Bush is evil? And not that in the biblical sense that we’re all evil – I’m talking about the measurement of one man to another; not our Creator. Do you think George Bush a bad man?
As people go, no. I think that he’s badly misguided in a lot of ways and marginally competent at best as executives go, but the fact is that he and I have very different principles. Having said that — he and I are both Christians. One of us has a lot of things wrong in the application of that faith. Obviously, I think it’s him. If he were in on this conversation, he’d say that it’s me. I guess we’ll find out on the streets of gold sometime.
But if we’re playing this game …
1) At what point do you cringe at “collateral damage”?
2) Do you think that there are actions which are unjustified, even if a war itself is just?
3) Out of curiosity, having absolutely nothing to do with this post, really … do you really think that the Bush administration has handled this war competently?
July 8, 2008 at 11:56 pm
@RutherfordL,
Ah, yes, the Sneetches. Dr. Seuss was a very wise man in a lot of ways, wasn’t he? I don’t actually agree with all of his politics, but I think that he did some wonderful things in his writing, and the story of the Sneetches is no exception.
@Econ Grad Student,
The verb conjugations are brutal, though! There’s less redundancy in adjectives and nouns than in English, though, so at least you’ll have that going for you.
As my wife and I were discussing this scenario this evening, she said that one of the problems I hit with the Options for Women incident is that if Christians did support the Martians, then they would be able to help prevent incidents like that, as long as the Martians were willing to have humans involved in target selection.
I found myself both agreeing with her and remembering the days of debating variations of the “Trolley Problem.” I had a roommate who couldn’t get past the idea of throwing the switch halfway and making the trolley jump the track.
Ah, well …
July 9, 2008 at 1:32 am
You enjoy word games. I get that. Since I’m not trying to play that game, I’m not really into it,
I wasn’t aware using scripture clearly showing your statement from above clearly wrong was playing word games I’m not sure that “intent” is a Biblical concept. I believe not only did I show that intent was a biblical concept but a basic tenet in judging guilt.
Neither was I aware that using scripture to justify my reasoning sloganism as you suggest. Do you not profess the Bible is the core belief in your decision making? Your blog suggests as much.
Then we’re in agreement. I never said that your SWAT shooter who killed a child was as culpable as a gang member No, but your initial question does suggest that the U.S. is as guilty as Saddam in killing innocent civilians. I disagree and used what I believe to be most relevant as proof. Now either I misinterpreted the scripture, applied it incorrectly, or the scripture is meaningless. Which is it?
Nothing, since you worded it that way. Of course, someone else might ask the question, “What is noble about killing 85,000 Iraqi civilians?” By asking a leading question, you’re trying to lock me into a corner into which I refuse to be trapped, Tex. I’m not into cute little slogans and banner-waving. I like thoughtful positions.
There was nothing leading about the question nor is that banner waving, unless that was a tacit white flag waving on your part. The question was again simply to point out that the importance of intent. In addition, just to show how unfair your judgement, one must assume that we have been ultimately responsible for the 85,000 Iraqi deaths. If that is so, why haven’t the Iraqis turned on us instead of Al-Qaeda this last year?
Now, on to your questions:
At what point do you cringe at “collateral damage”?
When any innocent who dies I cringe. But unlike you, I am also pragmatic enough to understand that innocents die in any war. I call our soldiers innocent. Can you name me a war no matter how justified where innocents didn’t die Wickle?
Do you think that there are actions which are unjustified, even if a war itself is just?
Sure. Abu Ghraib being the most famous of the Iraqi war, though it was so exploited by the MSM and the left to become comical. The Bataan Death march it wasn’t. Can you honestly tell me that you think our military, when taken as a collective, haven’t conducted themselves in a professional and compassionate manner perhaps never seen in a war?
Out of curiosity, having absolutely nothing to do with this post, really … do you really think that the Bush administration has handled this war competently?
Yes and no, but my reasoning might surprise you. The first three weeks and the last year were excellent. In between, I think it was handled poorly. I think the Bush Administration guilty of holding their finger in the air and listening to people like you Wickle. They pay heed when they shouldn’t. You go to war to win. You don’t waver, you don’t question your motive during battle, you don’t take polls, you don’t allow your domestic enemy to frame the debate.
If I blame George Bush for incompetence it is this. That he was naive enough to believe that he could work with the left and gain their support. And I think George Bush has made the mistake of both allowing lies to propagate without challenge and trying to please everyone. He shouldn’t and that was his biggest mistake. It’s his biggest mistake on every issue being debated, from the economy, to the war, to education, ad nauseum…
I think you are going to be very surprised how this turns out Wickle, though I don’t think you will have the character to admit it if you’re wrong. In fact, I don’t know if you will even recognize if your wrong. History isn’t written for many years. And if I right about the ultimate purpose of this war, beyond what you and I can totally comprehend, I don’t think America will be condemned. I think she will be blessed.
Genesis 12:2
I will bless those that bless you and those that curse you I will curse.
You would do well as a Christian to remember that verse Wickle. It will become most important in the coming days.
July 9, 2008 at 7:28 am
Tex,
This is why I charge you with pointless sloganism –
“Now either I misinterpreted the scripture, applied it incorrectly, or the scripture is meaningless. Which is it?”
None of the above. You’re fixed on a word. I explained my position. If you don’t like it, troll elsewhere.
“your initial question does suggest that the U.S. is as guilty as Saddam in killing innocent civilians”
Actually, my question doesn’t suggest any such thing. If your answer to it does, then perhaps you should spend some time exploring those issues instead of locking yourself into the idea that that answer is liberal, liberals are bad, and so you don’t think that. It appears that, perhaps, you do think such a thing.
That would also explain why you refuse to engage with the question and persist in the false charge that I am trying to force an equivalent position. How many times am I going to have to say that that is not the case before you drop it?
“Can you name me a war no matter how justified where innocents didn’t die Wickle?”
Actually, yes. Look back to the Old Testament and see the battles which the Lord actually commanded and how they were run. The ones in which tiny armies beat huge ones without losing a single man. If we happen to believe that the same God is still in charge, then we might want to consider why that kind of thing doesn’t happen anymore.
“Can you honestly tell me that you think our military, when taken as a collective, haven’t conducted themselves in a professional and compassionate manner perhaps never seen in a war?”
And again, you offer me the choice between joining up with you in raving over our troops or being a terrorist sympathizer. I am talking about fundamental principles of war and peace at the spiritual level. Until and unless you can find something that I have actually said (not which you think is implied by some question that I’ve asked) I’m not going to engage with this nonsense anymore.
I am not attacking our troops, I never have, and I’m not interested in letting you play that game with me.
“You go to war to win. You don’t waver, you don’t question your motive during battle, you don’t take polls, you don’t allow your domestic enemy to frame the debate.”
Yeah, that whole democracy thing sucks, doesn’t it?
Actually, reasonable people who believe in strong ethics DO question their motives on an ongoing basis. While you’re referring to it as “in battle,” Washington is not a battle zone. No one in Washington is in any danger from anything happening in Iraq. I expect a greater level of moral thinking.
Tex, despite your usual attacks on my character (and I thought we had hit a point of getting along before … sigh …), it’s worth noting that I do admit when I’m wrong. Of course, you’ve set up an imaginary situation and then attacked me for what you think my reaction to it will be. If that’s how you think reasonable discussion looks, then you’ve got some issues.
Genesis 12:2
I will bless those that bless you and those that curse you I will curse.
Rather than spend a whole lot of time salivating about the potential curses coming on other folks, and especially citing a promise made to one specific person, it might be worth remembering Jesus’ command to us all:
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:28)
On the other hand … have you ever considered the prophet Jonah? You have a lot in common with him, at least in your online persona. I’ll elaborate on that later.
July 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm
None of the above. You’re fixed on a word. I explained my position. If you don’t like it, troll elsewhere.
LOL. Oh, I’m sure I’ve got issues. Don’t we all?
Wickle, I don’t mean to lay a booger on you’re own site as I am sure this will immediately be removed after you’ve read it (you did invite me here), but you’re absolutely afraid to be challenged so you resort to the tired cliche of ‘troll calling’ when you can’t think of a better retort. You really consider this an attack? I would hope as a professed Christian soldier you might be a tad tougher than that.
And since the word ‘intent’ was the entire context of my first post, wouldn’t it follow that I continued on message? You’re fixed on a word. No, I’m not fixated on a word. I’m fixated on a very basic concept. Sorry Wickle, I don’t mean to be harsh but your thinking is shallow if that is what you believe and understand.
You might think me like Jonah (oh, I’m more than familiar with the story); will it be me running the other way when God calls or me whining after Ninevah has been saved? Though I think you a more sound person than many I’ve met on WordPress, reasonably sure a nice guy, and an involved citizen, I still think you a more mannerly version of the useful idiot crowd.
Carry on brother…I’ll bother you no further. But if you ever want to debate theology Wickle, I’m game. Proverbs 27:17, right? Come back over to General Chen’s site, if interested. I don’t care to lambast you on your own site, especially if you feel that I’m trolling. That was not, dare I say it, my ‘intent.’
P.S. Actually, reasonable people who believe in strong ethics DO question their motives on an ongoing basis.
Correct; before a decision has been made and not after. Otherwise, you’re nothing but a waffling fool of little use. Straddling the fence gets one no where…
July 9, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Here are some ways to make the thought experiment more parallel:
First, the U.S. needs to have submitted to an intergalactic authority, that authority needs to have demanded that abortion stop, and the authority needs to have refused to back up its demand, leaving the Martians and others who are the next level down to enforce the commitment of the U.S. to end abortion.
Second, the U.S. needs to have threatened the Martians with terrorism and needs to have had some contact with actual terrorists (whether it’s likely that they would have funded it or not). The abortion issue needs to be connected with this somehow, e.g. maybe the fetal tissue could be used in bio-weapons against the Martians if the sanctions against U.S. for non-compliance weren’t stopping the U.S. from pursuing such programs. The entire intergalactic intelligence community is in agreement that the U.S. might have progressed further in the program than anyone knows, that they have made attempts to progress further, that they’ve made threats to progress further, and that they are resisting attempts to be inspected according to the authority they’ve submitted to (and when they do get inspected, large trucks show up at each site being inspected the night before and drive off with material that never gets to the inspectors). Some, perhaps much, of this intelligence later turns out to be faulty, but there is little disagreement among the various planets about this at the time.
I’m sure I could think of a handful more, but those are pretty important requirements for the situation to be parallel, and if those factors were present then I’d have a lot less hesitation endorsing the invasion than I would the way you set it up.
July 9, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Tex (though I fear that you might have left and won’t see this),
I actually referred to trolling only in the “if/then” comment. The fact that you have admitted that your online personality isn’t real also does play into my charge, though.
Anyway … you are more than welcome, and I very rarely delete comments unless they are actually profane.
As to ongoing moral evaluation, I think that it is important to consider things on an ongoing basis, certainly as situations change. Or, perhaps, as you have to keep making other decisions.
As an example, it would be one thing to decide to enter World War II, but when one has to make a decision about firebombing Dresden, that shouldn’t simply be a foregone conclusion.
Actually, my Jonah reference is to the fact that I think you look forward to seeing people condemned. I have no basis to speculate that you’d run the other way when called, and I’m not sure whether you’d whine about the salvation afterward. But your talk of God is mostly in the “He’s going to get you” style, with very little mention of any hope in Him. Again, of course, that’s just your online personality, so I don’t know how you really view it, but that’s the only persona I know.
July 9, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Jeremy,
Sadly, I’m not trying to talk about Iraq alone. It is the only war that I mentioned, but that was for one reference. I realize that Tex and I got way off-topic and more or less focused on Iraq, but that wasn’t what I was trying to do.
I’m trying to look primarily at “collateral damage” and to the idea of how, ethically, to view those who resist an occupation.
July 10, 2008 at 1:25 am
This has all been very interesting.
Tell ya what: So long as everyone is dressed modestly, I’m good.
KIDDING! I’ve been sitting here thinking about it, and I’m coming up with nothing. Honestly, I don’t know which way I would go. The whole concept of “war” is hard for me, as a Christian. At one time I was totally against it, but I’ve been thinking there are times when it is necessary. And innocent lives WILL be lost in war. Always. No getting around that.
Where is Gen. Chen’s site? Are there other people like Tex debating there? I’d like to see that! A white flag, though…Ouch!
July 15, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Actually, my Jonah reference is to the fact that I think you look forward to seeing people condemned. I have no basis to speculate that you’d run the other way when called, and I’m not sure whether you’d whine about the salvation afterward.
LOL. Well, far be it from me to admit to being pegged correctly (it happens so seldom on line), but you’re mostly right about the condemnation part in your analogy to Jonah – somewhere there’s a worm eating my shade tree as we speak. Consider it a personal fault…trust me, I’m well aware of the “Vengeance is mine part…”
You don’t know how badly Wickle I would love to be there at the end when all of these blathering heathen types who’ve mocked and dissed believers such as yourself get their ultimate comeuppance. Not very Godly like, I know, and I fully expect to be given the proverbial hammer for my troubles but I would love to tip my hat to the heretical crowd and say, “I told you so…”
July 15, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Of course, Jesus Himself wept for the unbelievers … you’d think that if anyone would hold such a grudge, He’d have the right.
I’d refer you to I Corinthians 13:
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.”
My heart breaks to think of the people who don’t know love. I’ve never understood people who claim Christ and don’t love the lost. What is the message of that version of Christ?
July 17, 2008 at 11:35 am
I can’t imagine a majority of US Christians or citizens of other faiths would tolerate an attack no matter the goals.
In a real world real time comparison there is the story of those that supported the Eric Rudolph.
I personally would have to fight the Martians.
July 25, 2008 at 1:38 am
I wasn’t going to make anymore comments here since this post is getting old, but I really feel that I should tell you, Wickle, that you are right about love. There are many instances in the bible where men who loved the Lord, men who we look up to today as being amazing examples, showed love and compassion for their enemies. Jesus is the ulitimate example of that. When I think of Steven being stoned and his response…I want to cry. That’s how I want to be.
January 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm
[...] July, though, was a pretty good month. I was very disappointed with reaction to this post, especially since I allowed the comments to get hijacked, but the post that excited me most was “Martian Invasion: A Thought Experiment.” [...]