tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post1542151054984792239..comments2023-06-16T07:01:52.541-07:00Comments on The Blog of Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb: Theology, Ethics & "Rambo"TMWHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06807155020816222182noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-49774394264796156982008-02-11T16:44:00.000-08:002008-02-11T16:44:00.000-08:00Daniel,You are spot on! The problem comes when Ch...Daniel,<br><br>You are spot on! The problem comes when Christians fashion a soteriology that is "militocentric" (did I just coin a word?) instead of Christocentric. Sadly, this happens way too often.T. Michael W. Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-57958406869419861942008-02-11T15:04:00.000-08:002008-02-11T15:04:00.000-08:00Michael--thanks for the link.You're right that...Michael--thanks for the link.<br>You're right that Jason's comments are quite problematic from a Christian perspective.<br><br>Both in the just war and pacifist traditions, Christians have believed that in some situations, innocents will have to suffer for our convictions. In pacifism, this happens when (at least according to the wisdom of the world) only violence can prevent more violence. In just war, this happens when only unjust violence (e.g. an A-bomb which will kill innocent civilians) is the only way to prevent more violence.<br><br>Christians throughout the centuries have affirmed the fact that God reigns and we do not. And that therefore we are called to be faithful before we are called to be 'effective' (in reducing violence, solving this or that world problem, etc.). I have trouble believing that picking up the sword is in any way faithful to the God who flexes his omnipotent muscles by dying for his enemies...<br><br>Peace.<br>-Daniel-Daniel D. Farmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12299546100915305118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-52636439139855101842008-02-11T13:19:00.000-08:002008-02-11T13:19:00.000-08:00Jason,If I might say so myself, your comments are ...Jason,<br><br>If I might say so myself, your comments are quite disturbing at points as military acts as your salvation, not the peaceful Christ. Not to say that you aren't a Christian, I know you are, but what you dub "reality" is in fact, not the way "reality" has to be. As long as people keep substituting weapons with THE WAY, nothing will change and the "reality" you all make, will always be hell. Sorry, I'm not for that.<br><br>Your statement that we cannot be pacificsts is wrong. You misunderstand pacifism. Pacifism doesn't mean not standing up for what's right. In fact, it is standing up for what's right in a non-violent way. It is the Christian way. It is the Jesus way. It is the way that says my life is never more valuable than anyone elses; I don't think of myself more highly than I ought. It is the way that says, I will lay down my life and not take the life of the tyrannical Burmese soldier--I know Christ; I can die. He does not know Christ and he needs to live so he can. I think your values are mixed up. Again, misunderstanding pacifism and the way of Jesus as a peacemaker only clouds that even more. No, the right decision wasn't made in the movie. The missionaries were ignorant, so were the American soliders (including Rambo) and so were the Burmese tyrants. But of all of them, the missionaries were the last people who needed to be saved.<br><br>The reason you didn't associate Asia with hell is because you're not Asian and because you're not trying to see it from their perspective. If this was Rambo comign into any place in America doing this, you'd have been highly ticked off and offended, I know you would have. Five stars for a movie filled to the brim or overflowing with violence and hate? Not so much.<br><br>By the way, I didn't know you were in the military! Also, you're feeling better, I take it? See ya.T. Michael W. Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-74518508416380406622008-02-11T11:13:00.000-08:002008-02-11T11:13:00.000-08:00I, too, saw the film recently and loved it. I hav...I, too, saw the film recently and loved it. I have since recommended everyone to go see it. The Rambo in this movie is so much truer to the Rambo created in the initial novel by David Morrell. <br>Mr. Morrell has a good article on his website about the movie - http://www.davidmorrell.net/whatsnew/dsp.whatsnew.cfm I also enjoyed the ending; maybe the missinaries didnt make a difference in Burma but they did seem to make a difference in the life of the main character as apparent of his returning home. But to address some of your quotes:<br><br>1. I dont think anyone would/should hate America because of the movie. He isnt just wiping out Burmese people but cruel, unethical, senseless tyranical soldiers. They were not innocent civilians going to the local Wal Mart who just happened to be in the cross fire.<br><br>2. Missionaries should go wherever they feel led. In places that are "hot" the people are so receptive to a message of hope. But...military reinforcement isnt a bad idea either.<br><br>3. It is more loving to free the victims. It was once said, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." We cannot be pacifist and allow things like this to happen. If we were unloving and didnt care we would do nothing and therefore be no different than the evil person.<br><br>4. The question in the movie is whose life is more valuable, the Christian missionary or the aforementioned soldier. Obviously, the right decision was made in the movie. I especially liked the confrontation with the pirate boat during the trip in.<br><br>5. I thought the film was great and true to how things really are. Someone stepping on mine isnt a pretty sight so I thought Stallone did an excellent job; and the Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle was "dead" on. It isnt unethical, it's the truth.<br><br>6. I dont think the end portrayed that at all. I think if anything it portrayed a change in the character perhaps brought on by the missionaries. We see alot behind the character in this film and realize Rambo hates himself because of what he is. Having been in the military I love our soldiers and give them the utmost respect. They do serve as savior at times - not savior in the context of Christ but savior by other means.<br><br>7. I dont think so - I, for one, did not associate hell with Asia however someone who was in Vietnam, Korea, Japan, etc. might because to them it was hell. Again, with the true life events in Burma I thought Stallone did excellent. <br><br>Ok, enough for now. I loved the movie, give Stallone and Rambo five stars. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." It was peaceful by the river at the end of the movie after Rambo finished, I guess he heeded Jesus' words.Jason M. Gaineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03788818072920851007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-67473050237836043622008-02-11T10:34:00.000-08:002008-02-11T10:34:00.000-08:00Mike, thanks for pointing out my confusion. You&#...Mike, thanks for pointing out my confusion. You're right that Burma & Thailand are not the same; they only border one another. This is actually why Rambo must pass the border by boat in the middle of the night. Currently there are millions of Burmese people migrating into Thailand. So, I guess it wasn't Thai soldiers but Burmese ones that were being killed by Rambo. Sometimes I can be geographically inept. Good thing others are more keen on location than I often am!T. Michael W. Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-23228522546188815442008-02-11T07:25:00.000-08:002008-02-11T07:25:00.000-08:00are you sure it Thailand? Thailand's former na...are you sure it Thailand? Thailand's former name was Siam, not Burma. Modern Burma is Myanmar.mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10559770859514205969noreply@blogger.com