Response to pages 34-43
Woah, woah, woah now, I have just begun to read the first page and I disagree with Luther's statement: "Whoever wants to be a Christian prince must abandon any intention of lording it over people and using force." If I was a Christian ruler over Iran or Iraq, I believe I would have to use some force to lead people away from the Muslim nature. One can't just love and love and love on people hoping that they may one day convert to Christianity, that seldom, works. Muslims pray to their god and go on suicide missions "serving him", hoping to receive 70 virgins or whatever in their afterlife. That's flat out stupid!!! I think that Christian rulers should have the option of using force when necessary. God disciplines His people, a mother disciplines her child, a ruler disciplines his subjects...why because they all love the other!!! Sometimes it takes a spanking to learn what is right, in the same way it might take a little force to teach the wicked what is right.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Luther and Clavin
Pages 23 - 34
I would first like to say the I agree with Luther on the fact that civil authority has no right to lay down commandments for our soul or have power over our souls. (p.24) I secondly believe that it is God's laws that should regulate matters of the soul and heart, leaving civil laws to regulate man's choices and actions. I know that it is a cliche, but the phrase "listen to your heart" does have some meaning to it. I don't know exactly how to explain how you believe something, but you think, put faith, trust and such in an idea that you think to be true. That thought then stays with you in your memory, and I guess what could be considered you heart. Luther makes an excellent point that thought is free, one cannot force another man to believe (in his heart) what the man is trying to convince him, therefore man has no ability and should not even try to have the power over one's thoughts and soul. It is simply impossible to govern those ideas because one cannot get into one's mind or use telepathy and restrict their thoughts. Only God has the power to do such, if he so desires.
I would first like to say the I agree with Luther on the fact that civil authority has no right to lay down commandments for our soul or have power over our souls. (p.24) I secondly believe that it is God's laws that should regulate matters of the soul and heart, leaving civil laws to regulate man's choices and actions. I know that it is a cliche, but the phrase "listen to your heart" does have some meaning to it. I don't know exactly how to explain how you believe something, but you think, put faith, trust and such in an idea that you think to be true. That thought then stays with you in your memory, and I guess what could be considered you heart. Luther makes an excellent point that thought is free, one cannot force another man to believe (in his heart) what the man is trying to convince him, therefore man has no ability and should not even try to have the power over one's thoughts and soul. It is simply impossible to govern those ideas because one cannot get into one's mind or use telepathy and restrict their thoughts. Only God has the power to do such, if he so desires.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Luther and Calvin
Response to pages 3-22:
I agree with Luther's statement that true Christians would need no law and Sword for they would have no use for them, but it is still hard to picture a world with secular laws because true Christian loving and serving all the time. I also belive that Luther kinda make Christians sound like "sissies" because numerous times he mentions the verses "eye for an eye," "turn to him the other cheek," "give him my cloak as well," ect. I know that Christians are called to love our enemies, but where is the balance between giving all that we have away and standing up for what is rightfully ours?
I agree with Luther's statement that true Christians would need no law and Sword for they would have no use for them, but it is still hard to picture a world with secular laws because true Christian loving and serving all the time. I also belive that Luther kinda make Christians sound like "sissies" because numerous times he mentions the verses "eye for an eye," "turn to him the other cheek," "give him my cloak as well," ect. I know that Christians are called to love our enemies, but where is the balance between giving all that we have away and standing up for what is rightfully ours?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Machiavelli Quiz
WOW WHAT A HARD QUESTION!!!
Machiavelli QuizThe Prince is a concise statement of Machiavelli's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic that only power and brute force matter." Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?
I fully agree with Dante Germina that "The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavelli's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power." However I partially agree with the second half of his statement, “It is also implicitly a rejection of nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."
I believe that Germino’s definition of politics is acceptable; that a politician’s job is to exercise their power, for instance, by making and enforcing laws and along the way they struggle to keep their power. Whether a classical, secular or Christian politician, each have difficult decisions to make as to moral matters and debates. Christian leaders should console the Bible when making decisions. They should look at Jesus and the way he presented himself, after all, He was called the King of Kings for a reason. Christian leaders should also look at the Old Testament to compare their “kingdom” and learn from Israel’s mistakes and righteous deeds. Hosea 8:2-3 states, “Israel will cry to Me, ‘My God, we know You!’ 3 Israel has rejected the good; the enemy will pursue him.” This is a prime example of how Israel rejected God’s plan and God allowed their nation to be attacked. No leader wants their followers or kingdom to be attacked. It is a leader’s duty to defend and fight for the freedom and safety of his people. Otherwise he would be over throne by his subjects.
Luke 12:48 states, “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.” Christians in a leadership role are required to keep to God’s commandments and not follow the sinful, brutal ways of man. In the present time there are leaders such as congressmen and senators that lie, cheat, and steal to maintain their leadership role. All one has to do is read the daily newspaper or watch CNN and one is flashed with headlines such as, “City Hall lobbying scandal reached L.I. state Senate race,” “Senate Democrats Fault U.S. in Iraq Oil Scandal,” “Senate subpoenas Bush Administration over NSA spying scandal” ect. Christians should not participate in such actions to maintain a leadership role. Rather they should be honest, hardworking, and loyal to uphold their positions. It is therefore obvious that the Christian political theory of being an honest man ect. is unworkable in a world that defines politics as a constant exercise of power. Secular politicians will go to extreme lengths, committing numerous sin and immoral deeds to keep their rank.
Dante Germina believes that Machiavelli rejects the idea that only brute force and power matters. I agree with this statement to some extent because Machiavelli put the most emphasis on the force that prince has rather than the qualities or morals that he should appear to possess. It appears that Machiavelli's main thesis is a prince must do what is necessary for him to sustain his throne. If that means killing the neighboring kingdoms for no reason, but to show that he has strength, Machiavelli would applaud this decision. It is also possible that Machiavelli would find no fault with Saddam Hussein’s desire to acquire invade Kuwait, or produce weapons of mass destruction.
However Machiavelli mentions throughout his book Prince that a prince must be more than a man consumed in brute force if he wants to maintain his throne. For instance, in chapter 21, he states, “a prince should show himself a patron of merit,” and in chapter 15 he describes qualities in which he labels good for a prince, “generous, tenderhearted, true to his word, high spirited, and courageous ect.” There are multiple other instances that give evidence that character does matter to Machiavelli and therefore force is not the only key component.
My personal opinion is that in Machiavelli’s Prince, Maciavelli puts a great amount of emphasis on the force that a prince must have in order to be a leader. His underlying theme is that a prince must do whatever is necessary to stay in power, actions that mostly consist of war and fighting. It is also apparent that Christian politicians cannot abide by this theme of strenuous implement of power, because Christians are called to obey God’s demands.
Machiavelli QuizThe Prince is a concise statement of Machiavelli's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic that only power and brute force matter." Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?
I fully agree with Dante Germina that "The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavelli's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power." However I partially agree with the second half of his statement, “It is also implicitly a rejection of nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."
I believe that Germino’s definition of politics is acceptable; that a politician’s job is to exercise their power, for instance, by making and enforcing laws and along the way they struggle to keep their power. Whether a classical, secular or Christian politician, each have difficult decisions to make as to moral matters and debates. Christian leaders should console the Bible when making decisions. They should look at Jesus and the way he presented himself, after all, He was called the King of Kings for a reason. Christian leaders should also look at the Old Testament to compare their “kingdom” and learn from Israel’s mistakes and righteous deeds. Hosea 8:2-3 states, “Israel will cry to Me, ‘My God, we know You!’ 3 Israel has rejected the good; the enemy will pursue him.” This is a prime example of how Israel rejected God’s plan and God allowed their nation to be attacked. No leader wants their followers or kingdom to be attacked. It is a leader’s duty to defend and fight for the freedom and safety of his people. Otherwise he would be over throne by his subjects.
Luke 12:48 states, “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.” Christians in a leadership role are required to keep to God’s commandments and not follow the sinful, brutal ways of man. In the present time there are leaders such as congressmen and senators that lie, cheat, and steal to maintain their leadership role. All one has to do is read the daily newspaper or watch CNN and one is flashed with headlines such as, “City Hall lobbying scandal reached L.I. state Senate race,” “Senate Democrats Fault U.S. in Iraq Oil Scandal,” “Senate subpoenas Bush Administration over NSA spying scandal” ect. Christians should not participate in such actions to maintain a leadership role. Rather they should be honest, hardworking, and loyal to uphold their positions. It is therefore obvious that the Christian political theory of being an honest man ect. is unworkable in a world that defines politics as a constant exercise of power. Secular politicians will go to extreme lengths, committing numerous sin and immoral deeds to keep their rank.
Dante Germina believes that Machiavelli rejects the idea that only brute force and power matters. I agree with this statement to some extent because Machiavelli put the most emphasis on the force that prince has rather than the qualities or morals that he should appear to possess. It appears that Machiavelli's main thesis is a prince must do what is necessary for him to sustain his throne. If that means killing the neighboring kingdoms for no reason, but to show that he has strength, Machiavelli would applaud this decision. It is also possible that Machiavelli would find no fault with Saddam Hussein’s desire to acquire invade Kuwait, or produce weapons of mass destruction.
However Machiavelli mentions throughout his book Prince that a prince must be more than a man consumed in brute force if he wants to maintain his throne. For instance, in chapter 21, he states, “a prince should show himself a patron of merit,” and in chapter 15 he describes qualities in which he labels good for a prince, “generous, tenderhearted, true to his word, high spirited, and courageous ect.” There are multiple other instances that give evidence that character does matter to Machiavelli and therefore force is not the only key component.
My personal opinion is that in Machiavelli’s Prince, Maciavelli puts a great amount of emphasis on the force that a prince must have in order to be a leader. His underlying theme is that a prince must do whatever is necessary to stay in power, actions that mostly consist of war and fighting. It is also apparent that Christian politicians cannot abide by this theme of strenuous implement of power, because Christians are called to obey God’s demands.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)