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And Jesus did not say, "From now on, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' shall be superseded by 'Thou shalst turn the other cheek.'"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.)
> How in the world do you get "infringes on your property" out of that statement?
It's clearly a statement in support of the right to self-defense, isn't it?
And what about Jesus' teaching to give the shirt off your back?
Charity is recommended, but not mandatory. To rephrase my oft-repeated statement, Jesus did not legislate.
So Christians should follow all the Jewish laws? Eat only kosher foods?
What Jesus meant by "law" is pretty much what we mean by "honor" nowadays; it had been expressed in the Ten Commandments, and includes the part of the law that needs to be enforced by the government: respect for life and property. It also includes things that need not be enforced by the government, such as "no idols," "no adultery," and so on.
>> 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?"
Getting into Heaven or not is all about everyday interaction! Your morality is expressed in your actions, and your actions are manifested in your everyday interaction. If you learn to turn the other cheek sometimes, you are more likely to have friends and be successful in life. Same for generosity. Cynicism and jealousy, on the other hand, will make you a sore loser, prone to fail to respect your fellow man's property. And then there shall be no place for thee in Heavens above.
My understanding is that Quakers will not kill another human being ... Would Quakers then fall short of your definition of a "real Christian"?
The Quaker tenet that rejects the right to self-defense clearly goes against my sense of Christianity. So the answer is yes.
Note that I'm not saying that all Quakers will go to Hell. Self-defense is permitted, but not mandatory. Preaching against self-defense is not forbidden. Enforcing a ban on self-defense would definitely be evil (in addition to being extremely hypocritical), but the Quakers wouldn't do that.
>> And indeed, your colonial forefathers ...
> *My* colonial forefather was a Hessian soldier...
I used the word "your" because I'm not an American. Turns out I should have said "their" ... :-)