The discussion continues: Gene Redlin has another post about war and heroics, and I have another comment.
UPDATE: And Garrett has a comment on my comment.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to Sojourner's Lite
- Aaron
- I'm a clumsy Christian on a journey of discipline and discovery with Jesus. As a recovering Pharisee, I'm learning to trust God's grace over my goodness. I love the world, and I'm excited about learning what it means to be salt and light in a Post-Christian culture. This is where I write about living the sojourn.
Blogroll
- Ben Witherington
- Caedmon's Call
- Cerulean Sanctum
- Common Christianity
- In Pursuit of Truth - A Journal of Christian Scholarship
- Internet Monk
- Just A Leaf
- Kingdom People
- Letters from Kamp Krusty
- Me & Mira
- MercatorNet
- Michael Yon
- Mises Institute
- Random Reflections - Greg Boyd
- Sojourner's Song
- The Ivory Doghouse
- What Susan Said
- Works and Days
- WORLD Magazine
Blog Archive
1 comment:
I guess your his only "pacifist" reader? Seems no one else responded.
Your answer seemed adequate to me. I would only disagree on the conclusions around the movie. I probably won't see it either, but, contextually, I would say the movie is justified. Justified in a similar way that LotR is justified in its violence. It is another world.
"300" depicts a war in 700bc. God's people in those days might have done the same thing (albeit, probably at God's command). My conclusion would be that the art of depicting this war can be justified and esteemed in it's proper context... like most other things.
I would also contend that the appreciation of valor and self-sacrifice in the defense of beloved is nothing to be put down. While these virtues take place most commonly (or should) in the spiritual life of the Christian, it should be noted that, even in the Bible, these virtues were born, primarily through war... and physical war as it pertains to humans.
Post a Comment