My Theology Paper: WMD and Christianity

[MDLarson]

Hey everybody,

I'm finally getting done with my college education... taking a summer school class to finish up. The class is Christian Theology.

I have to write a 15-17 page paper, something that is very difficult for me to do. ::sleepy::

Anyways, just wanted to reach out into this diverse crowd to dig up some valuable links / books / ideas that might help me out. Here's my paper thesis (which may change):

To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment, and how a Christian should treat the subject. Special emphasis will be given to nuclear bombs and the United States? role in the nuclear age.

If you want, I can email the paper to those interested in what I come up with! Thanks!

-Matt

 

[chevy]

Try to define the main words:
weapons
mass destruction
today's political environment
Christian

Then try to find other situations to understand what is specific to your subject : "usual weapons", "yesterday's political environment - WWII as an example", "non-Christian".

Then try to make the difference between the truth, and the communication of the political leaders, and why they communicate on one part of the truth.

Finally see the evolution of weapons over the ages, the evolution of the communication over the ages and the evolution of politics over the ages.

You will have filled the 17 pages before you end the work !

 

[chabig]

To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment, and how a Christian should treat the subject.

You do realize that this is not a complete sentence?

Beyond that, I really don't understand what you are going to say. It sounds like the thesis is going to be an anti-American rant. If that's what it takes to please your professors, then I guess that's OK. You have to write for your audience.

But what exactly is the "controversy" in "today's political environment"? And why should a Christian care about WMD any more or less than any other deadly weapon? Do you plan to make the case that it's worse to kill 10,000 than it is to kill 100, or even 1? What about the deterrent and defensive uses of WMD, which no doubt can save lives?

Chevy is right. Start writing and the next thing you know, you'll have way more than 17 pages.

Chris

 

[ScottW]

Is the professor a Christian? Nothing like being taught how to cook chineese from someone who grew up in France.

You could take a different approach to this, and obviously this all depends on your beliefs, but food for thought none-the-less.

My understanding on the "paper" is different than my friends on here who have already replied. It appears to me the issue is, "What should be a Christian's stance or viewpoint in light of the WMD issues facing the world and how does this differ (if in fact it does, it may not) from the world view point or non-Christian view point at large."

If I were you, here is what I would research and how I would go about writing the paper.

1) Take a look through the Bible at different stories in history and events that have to do with war, and God's view point on the subject.

2) Review revelations and the book of Daniel and research the possible matches to "future events" in reference to nuclear war. Things to look for are "wormwood" which is the Russian word for Chernobyl (sp??) and things like tourches coming from the sky (resembling possible missles coming down to earth), etc.

3) I would explain that in light of past events and future events in prophecy that may indeed relate to global, thermal, nuclear war that the two subjects, nuclear war and Christianity are really two seperate issues... and the fact that any country has the right to defend itself whether it be having those weapons or stopping others from obtaining them.

Not sure if that made any sense at all, I am trying to take care fo a little girl right now while writing this and not that easy.

 

[chevy]

One thing you have to do before making any affirmation, is to try to understand the point of view of the ones that have a different opinion. A good exercise is to look at a conflict were no Christian is directly involved: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You will see how different cultures considere mass destruction, what is their effect on the war and peace processes.

The next big thing in theology is to look at what happend until now (review your history): this may enlight the strict reading of the written words. The term mass destruction changed its meaning during the time. Look at the war between Christians in Europe (End of middle age, WW I) and how the local church explained the genocides (against evangelists, against catholics) that ended the middle-age, and later the usage of death gas during WW I.

 

[Arden]

To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment, and how a Christian should treat the subject. Special emphasis will be given to nuclear bombs and the United States? role in the nuclear age.

Controversy? What controversy is there? Who should have them? Who shouldn't? Whether they are buried in Iraq or in Syria? Why we went after an Arab country with no apparent weapons instead of an Asian country outwardly brandishing them?

Now for significance: Of course, you always have the possibility of someone using WMD's on another country. But what other significance can you attach to them? That they instill fear in other countries? That they give madmen a feeling of power? That they can kill lots and lots of people at once?

How is today's political environment more important than yesterday's? tomorrow's? What about WMD's from the past? Remember, the only country to nuke another country to date was in WWII. What about that political environment?

Why would a Christian treat the subject differently than anyone else? Do not the Muslims have an opinion? Do not I, as a Jew? Okay, that's not the issue. But why don't you approach this as how people from some of the major religions approach the issue, rather than just Christians? After all, over 2 billion people consider themselves (or are considered) Christian, so there can't be any single way to define a Christian. How do Roman Catholics approach the subject? Mormons? Greek Orthodox? Unitarian Universalists?

Plainly and simply, the United States defined the nuclear age, and of course we are the only nuclear aggressors. If we had not developed nukes first, someone else would have, but we in our "righteousness" have the knowledge and wisdom to know when and on whom to use them. What about other WMD's, though? What about biological agents? chemicals? What about nonphysical weapons, like propaganda? spam? email virii?

I hope this helps you see why your thesis is a bunch of bull—I mean, develop your thesis more fully and completely.

 

[acidtuch10]

I think you should talk about this subject in third party. Look in from the outside, and judge accordingly. There is no right / wrong, but just opinions. The problem is when writing a paper "opinions matter" and can effect your grade. So Do, so from an objective, third point/person of view. Cover the basis and be ready to ask / answer questions, because this is a very controversial subject ( religion and weapons No matter what religion or ethnicity ) are subject to opinion and controversy... But hey this is my opinion Good luck ~ going to be a big paper !! Would you mind posting it when done?


Thx
Acid

 

[MDLarson]

Acid, I'll consider posting it, but I'd rather email or PM it to interested parties.

Chevy, you don't understand the context of this paper. The class is Christian Theology. Everyone in the class is a Christian, including the professor. The definition of a Christian has been defined...

Man, I gotta go to class. I'll be back later today to get more of my thoughts out.

 

[Cat]

"how a christian should treat the subject" seems to suggest an ethical discussion. However, since christians enjoy a divine revelation, no controversy exists, since there is an absolute standard of truth and good. Hence there can be no controversy.

"To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment" is either a political treatise or centered on the role of journalism and the media and not theological (in the strict sense) at all. In a broader view everything is obviously theological for a christian.

"Special emphasis will be given to nuclear bombs and the United States? role in the nuclear age" This points again to a historical treatise, wherein a fact in the past is analyzed and related to other facts. Bad historians tend to give their very own personal opinion about these ...

General advice:
Sort out the various fields of enquiry to make your subject manageable and then start by writing down a scheme of your reasoning. What also always helps is a graphical diagram which shows the various relations between the main subjects. You can keep this as reference while writing the various chapters, so you don't lose sight of the overall view, which helps kkeep your text centered around the relevant issues. If your paper is to be scientific, try to incorporate rivalling views and theories in your paper for comparison and be honest about your assumptions and unverified hypotheses. Avoid quoting only a single source (e.g. only a specfic book of the bible), try show that you really looked around for material. Avoid using only material of one particular historical period (e.g. the first century a.d.), but incorporate recent as well as historical sources and comments.

"Evolutionism degrades you" Religion enslaves you. Better a free monkey than a caged soul.

 

[toast]

*removed by toast, read further to know why*

 

[toast]

*removed by toast, read further to know why*

 

[MDLarson]

Either posing the question like I did was the best or the worst thing I could have done! I didn't expect people to get so worked up over it or be offended by it... sheesh.

I am not going to define what a Christian is in my paper. That definition is understood in my class context.

I am going to define weapons of mass destruction as nuclear bombs, biological and chemical weapons. I don't consider a fighter jet to be a WMD because it doesn't cause mass destruction (unless it's only role is dropping a WMD.)

My thesis may stink, but I'm really still trying to work on it. Perhaps this thread has helped me with that, but I think you guys are reading too much into it (like, how dare I not take into account the muslim's point of view - I mean after all, it's a Christian class!)

Like I hinted at before, I'm not sure this was such a great idea. Maybe you guys could take a step back and give the Christian viewpoint a chance.

 

[MDLarson]

In my signature
Evolutionism degrades you

Originally posted by Cat
Religion enslaves you. Better a free monkey than a caged soul.

All are slave to something, even if it's yourself.

The best evolution can offer is death.

On the contrary, Jesus Christ can set you free from the bondage of sin and give you eternal life. We are created beings of a good God and as such, were designed for much better things than simply a birth>life>death meaningless existence.

Galations 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

 

[toast]

*removed by toast, read further to know why*

 

[Cat]

All are slave to something, even if it's yourself.

Technically, being slave of oneself is the maximum of freedom that can be reached, since it would be self-determination. Freedom is not utter undetermination, but self-determination. Kant already explained how autonomy (literally self-law) is the highest form of freedom man can enjoy.

The best evolution can offer is death.

This is absolutely true. We just differ in the value we place on death. Death arguably is bad for the individual, but very usefull for the species or for Life in general. No death, no evolution. This however does not mean that evolution is progress to the ultimate and perfect lifeform.

On the contrary, Jesus Christ can set you free from the bondage of sin and give you eternal life.

This is true only if you accept the entire notion of inherited primary sin, as I do not. Since I am them without sin, in my opinion, I have no need to be saved. Since I have no bonds, I need not to be freed. Eternal life then, is not what it's all cracked up to be. I would like living a long fisical, human, embodied life, but not for all eternity, maybe a few hundred years or so. I honestly don't think I would enjoy it forever. Everything ultimately will become indifferent and boring to me. I would like to re-incarnate though and have another new and interesting life.

Eternal life in heaven I cannot even begin to imagine, so it has hardly any appeal to me. Happiness, joy, love etc. are all known to me through my body. How can I imagine or appreciate now the possibility of disembodied emotions? They will be completely different and unimaginable to me. I must say, for now I like thme as they are.

Moreover, technically there is no salvation through actions or prayer: you are predestined to be saved or not. Read St. Augustine on this.

We are created beings of a good God and as such, were designed for much better things than simply a birth>life>death meaningless existence.

If we were created in the likeness of god, and hence good, how come the very first generation of humans sinned? Because we had free will, and free will is meaningless without choice. Choice then regards whether to sin and not to sin and statistically should be divided 50% if god and satan don't meddle. If we are designed for heavenly existence, then why do we first get our bdies and our free will? If we are not meant to choose, and thus meant to sin, why were we created good?

birth>life>death is not a meaningless existence. Man is capable of definig his own values and to give meaning to his life by himself. I live a full and rich life, both bodily and intellectually without need for any gods or salvation. Dogmatic beliefs cripple reason and creative thought.

I apologize for any rudeness that may have crept into my posts.

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by Cat
I apologize for any rudeness that may have crept into my posts.

Don't worry about that, all your points were good. You hit a couple of the major topics of Christian theology (predestination and an all-powerful good God existing along with sin.)

I can post more on that, but sorry, I gotta go to class again... This seems to be a pattern for me!

 

[chevy]

Originally posted by MDLarson
All are slave to something, even if it's yourself.

The best evolution can offer is death.

On the contrary, Jesus Christ can set you free from the bondage of sin and give you eternal life. We are created beings of a good God and as such, were designed for much better things than simply a birth>life>death meaningless existence.

Most Christians (or christians) think that
1) There is a life after death, good or bad depending on many things
2) The human body and "mecanics", as well as the rest of the creation's behaviour has been shaped by a long evolution, obeying to the rules of God.

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by chevy
Most Christians (or christians) think that...The human body and "mecanics", as well as the rest of the creation's behaviour has been shaped by a long evolution, obeying to the rules of God.

Some do, but I don't. A lot of other Christians don't and shouldn't. Christians that try to reconcile evolution doctrine with the Bible are puting themselves in an indefensible position. The Bible is very clear about the Creation story and is incompatible with evolution (and I can prove this.)

Cat, so death is necessary for the survival of the fittest, and for the evolutionary process in general. Great, but people still don't want to die (you may be a minority, based on your words.) Nobody's going to be comforted by the idea that they are somehow contributing to the evolution of the human species.

Evolution doctrine teaches that there is no meaning to your life. Any meaning you attach to your life is a result of your evolved brain. For that matter, how can you, as evolutionists, trust your own thoughts, which come from a brain that is a product of a bunch of mistakes?

Millions of kids today are told that they are "important" and "special" in self-esteem classes in school. But who says? The evolution teacher? Little Joey gets out of science class learning that he's nothing but a glorified monkey and goes to self-esteem class to be told he's important. It's ridiculous.

That's evolution for ya, but you mentioned Augustine, who believed that all who would be saved were already chosen by God for salvation (this is called predestination.) This is a major point to Calvanism. This begs the question; "Why should Christians participate in missions, or evangelism, or pray?" Well, the best asnwer is that the Bible tells Christians to do these things. It is a commandment. We are part of the means for others' salvation (God alone grants it.)

The flip-side to Calvanism is Arminianism, which would very strongly disagree with St. Augustine. The Arminian claims that all potentially can be saved. Both Christian views would disagree with the notion that a person can be saved simply by doing nothing, which your statement implies. Indeed, it is pretty clear that Christianity is a very "narrow-minded" doctrine, to use contemporary terms. Guilty as charged.

Well, I'm gonna call it quits here. I gotta go to bed. These weeks are really draining my brain up, trying to work full-time and all. I'll post some on the idea of the all-powerful, all-good God and the existence of sin... that's the best question you can ask of Christians.

-Matt

p.s. Toast, if I sounded a little defensive, I'm sorry; I was mostly frustrated that people didn't really read my original post. ::love::

 

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by chevy
Most Christians (or christians) think that
1) There is a life after death, good or bad depending on many things
2) The human body and "mecanics", as well as the rest of the creation's behaviour has been shaped by a long evolution, obeying to the rules of God.

1) most of the christians (who declare themselves to be that, not only in statistics as me but in practise and as state of mind) are afraid of death. they freak out when someone dies or the death passes close them, or any moment htey realize they are not immorta..

2) the body as mechanics makes me think about the western (as opposed e.g. to traditional indian or chinese) medicine.

 

[Giaguara]

... and back to the original:

i have never understood the priests asking their believers to "pray for our troops" (is used during any war in AFAIK any church) - and then on the same mass to read "thou should not kill". what are the troops doing there? playing card games with the enemy and the card game winner wins the war? :err: so _you_ are not supposed to kill -- unless you are a part of the troops.

so somehow that seems to be the practical case "as supposed to". be a good citizen, respect the law, go to church, _pray_for_your_troops_ ... i just wonder _why_ ? "if someone hits you, turn your cheek" (or something similar).. wasn't it jesus saying that? so for the most political parts of the bible i know the church should be pacifist (=no war at all). but then in practise too much money and political powers have always been involved...

the life past death thing ... i would like to find (i believe it's impossible though!) the parts of the bible that were removed by some roman emperors around 300 after christ. they would add their flavor - and once again, the reason (for the removal of them) was political. (any religious institution should be free from the power and the state).