The end was justice. The means was armed rebellion. So I would rather say she was founded on justice.
We are certainly not required to turn the other cheek.
I guess that would depend on whether you consider yourself a Christian, and whether you, in your own words, follow Jesus':
..how-to guide on attaining salvation.
Again, Jesus did not indend to change the law. The law had even said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." (Which means, as I understand it, that if somebody attacks you or infringes on your property, you may bloody well defend yourself.)
And Jesus did not say, "From now on, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' shall be superseded by 'Thou shalst turn the other cheek.'" Yet again, he said he did not intend to change the law in any way whatsoever. "An eye for an eye" is still in force; the right to self-defense has never been questioned by anyone I call a real Christian.
What Jesus said is that there is no obligation of forceful self-defense. When you can turn your adversary into a friend, why not do it. Practical guidelines for everyday interaction, you see?
And indeed, your colonial forefathers did not resort to armed rebellion until they were convinced of the futility of trying to be friends with King George. "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies..." So they acted just like Christians are supposed to!
Smile-n-Win: The end was justice. The means was armed rebellion. So I would rather say she was founded on justice.
Yeah, just the kind of justice Jesus preached: "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!" (Jesus to his Apostles, as the Roman soldiers closed in, in the Garden of Gethsemane.)
The law had even said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." (Which means, as I understand it, that if somebody attacks you or infringes on your property, you may bloody well defend yourself.)
How in the world do you get "infringes on your property" out of that statement? And what about Jesus' teaching to give the shirt off your back?
And Jesus did not say, "From now on, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' shall be superseded by 'Thou shalst turn the other cheek.'" Yet again, he said he did not intend to change the law in any way whatsoever.
So Christians should follow all the Jewish laws? Eat only kosher foods?
When you can turn your adversary into a friend, why not do it. Practical guidelines for everyday interaction, you see?
I thought (you wrote) they were guidelines for getting into heaven? When did they change to being guidelines for "everyday interaction?"
An eye for an eye" is still in force; the right to self-defense has never been questioned by anyone I call a real Christian.
My understanding is that Quakers will not kill another human being. There were quite a lot of British soldiers (not to mention Hessians! see below..) killed during the Revolutionary War. Would Quakers then fall short of your definition of a "real Christian"?
And indeed, your colonial forefathers did not resort to armed rebellion until they were convinced of the futility of trying to be friends with King George.
*My* colonial forefather was a Hessian soldier...a POW. Perhaps YOUR colonial forefather was shooting at him, simply because he was trying to do his job? ;-) (He was a corporal, so he may have been impressed into service.)