Christian Violence

[McCulloch]

Is that why Christians since St. Augustine have not ever really agreed with each other about Jesus' teachings about violence?

... t is probably because of frustration for evil and violence within so many. But if you use the words of Jesus, there seems to be little fighting one can do in his name. Actually I can't see any. In that I think that the Quakers got it right. You seem to be saying that some Muslims and some atheists are quite as good as other Muslims and atheists. Seems like every human has the same weakness to me. I hope the good ones keep pointing out how to be nice to the bad ones. We Christians do it as a matter of fact, day in and day out. Look at Bush's loudest enemies in the US. Most claim they want their Christianity back. Wierd but true. But there is no jihad in the New Testament anywhere and c'mon jihad does mean war on infidels. That is a fact. [Are] there any wars attributed to Christians fighting to spread Christianity in the last hundred or so years? Islam is still at it.

Which is the correct Christian position? Jesus taught very plainly about violence and the correct reaction to it. Some Christian sects reject violence as a solution to interpersonal or international problems.
On the other hand the practice of many calling themselves Christian involve the practice of war. Augustine and many Christian theologians since have justified violence under certain circumstances. His restrictions are largely ignored by modern Christian soldiers. The same God that the Christians worship appears to have ordered genocide in order that his chosen people could have a homeland.

Question for debate, "Which is the authentic Christian teaching? Just war or Turn the other cheek?"

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Probably you are desperate to make Christianity look as good as possible, but I've been Christian and I saw the misery behind every supposed good action. So, excuse me, but I'm skeptic. I admit good deeds from individuals, but it is hard to see any inherent goodness in a religion that aims to destroy the human spirit for the benefit of its own endurance.

I'm not sure what church you came from, but I don't think it is very accurate to assume you speak for all of them. My church, for one, visibly empowers the spirit of all involved. Most denizens come from modest backgrounds, and many have undergone great trauma and tragedy, both past and present. Any outsider, however, would never be able to tell of their troubles, seeing them in church.

Motives are important. Charity is not a Christian virtue, it is a human virtue. If charity is made for the superstition of saving your own soul or the fear of Hell, or just because an invisible deity orders it, or for spreading certain religion, charity is demeaned.

Were it not for ulterior motives, charity in ALL forms by ALL varieties of participants would be virtually non-existant. You've seen the ads; bone-thin children eating scraps off the street, disaster-stricken families huddled on their rooves as flood waters rise. The most successful philanthropic organizations incite guilt in would-be donors. "Look at you, living in upmost luxery while millions starve, you heartless bastard". Charity donations would be a fraction of their current amount were it not for the guilt factor.

This is not to say all humans are completely callous, needing a bribe factor in order to do anything good. It is hard to feel pity for people you do not know, living a life you do not fully comprehend. Here religious incentive comes into play. You try to make religious charity sound solely self-indulgent, but in fact, one of the biggest incentives to evangelize in the first place is concern for the souls of the lost.

Where would the world be without faith-based giving? Really, just imagine. Frankly, whatever the motive may be is completely irrelevant anyway. The bottom line is, millions of people are getting the aid they need.

And, anyway, are there enough scripture support for charity after that ominous NT passage of the girl washing Jesus' feet and him declaring "you'll always have the poor"? Yeah, contradictions, that's what I was talking about.

You can't be serious...? "You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me." Jesus is gone, is he not? So apparently, now we can concert all of our available effort to the poor (as Jesus commands). Right?

Not enough scriptural support for charity? I don't feel like posting my entire list, but here are a few exerpts:

1 John 3:17
Now, suppose a person has enough to live on and notices another believer in need. How can God's love be in that person if he doesn't bother to help the other believer? Dear children, we must show love through actions that are sincere, not through empty words.

Luk 3:11
He answered them, "Whoever has two shirts should share with the person who doesn't have any. Whoever has food should share it too."

Act 2:44-46
All the believers kept meeting together, and they shared everything with each other. From time to time, they sold their property and other possessions and distributed the money to anyone who needed it. The believers had a single purpose and went to the temple every day. They were joyful and humble as they ate at each other's homes and shared their food.

Act 4:32-35
The whole group of believers lived in harmony. No one called any of his possessions his own. Instead, they shared everything. None of them needed anything. From time to time, people sold land or houses and brought the money to the apostles. Then the money was distributed to anyone who needed it.

Rom 12:13
Share what you have with God's people who are in need. Be hospitable.
Phi 2:4
Don't be concerned only about your own interests, but also be concerned about the interests of others.

2Co 9:9
"The righteous person gives freely to the poor. His righteousness continues forever."

Act 20:35
I have given you an example that by working hard like this we should help the weak. We should remember the words that the Lord Jesus said, 'Giving gifts is more satisfying than receiving them.'"



Also consider the list of verses I gave commanding us to be "kind, gentle, and loving". The Bible teaches nothing less than full-fledged socialism. Do you not think that such verses have had any good effect on Christians?

On the contrary, they look pretty much like a doctrine for manipulating the simple and the superstitious.

Manipulating them to love one another and give freely?

Yes. It is you the one claiming metaphores.

I claim metaphors when the scripture in question is in fact visibly metaphorical. The scripture we are currently referring to (the sword as self-defense) is completely LITTERAL.

What I do mean is that the words of this supposed Jesus left the door open for every Christian criminal of the future to claim "Just War". If he were a God, he knew. Then he is responsible for the crimes made in the name of those words.

The question is whether Jesus was a pacifist (nonviolent, irenic, nonbelligerent). Since you now seem to agree that Jesus never never taught aggression or retaliation, what is stopping you from labeling him as a pacifist?

Furthermore, how does a pacifist end up inciting a number of "religious" atrocities? Do you not find it suspicious that a rather conspicuous ulterior motive ALWAYS accompanies any such "religious" atrocity? Land, power, greed, intolerance? Religion was never the cause, merely the (rather convulted) justification.

Do champions of Marx go about advocating free market? If they do, they clearly have another motive. Marx's theories were just as discernable as Jesus' teachings. "Be loving, gentle, and kind" offers no room for exeptions.

[trencacloscas]

Most denizens come from modest backgrounds, and many have undergone great trauma and tragedy, both past and present.

Sure. Christianism is a cancer that uses to feed and predate the vulnerable, the troubled and the insecure. Basically, it gives a deformed scope of reality, like a sort of memetic parasite, to secure its own survival.

Were it not for ulterior motives, charity in ALL forms by ALL varieties of participants would be virtually non-existant.

Sorry, I don't think so. Charity is an universal value in all cultures and all levels. Do not confound motives with propaganda.

You try to make religious charity sound solely self-indulgent, but in fact, one of the biggest incentives to evangelize in the first place is concern for the souls of the lost.

Which is bulls... Er, sorry, bull manure. Soul is non existent. There are individuals, mind and body. So evangelizing is, primarily, self indulgence of organized religion and the individuals that do it under its umbrella.

You can't be serious...? "You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me." Jesus is gone, is he not? So apparently, now we can concert all of our available effort to the poor (as Jesus commands). Right?

Not at all. He clearly dismisses the poor for his own cult of personality. Wasn't the poor of his time worth to be relieved with any charity available?

It is not that he is not into charity, but that the contradictions in the whole text are noticeable enough.

The Bible teaches nothing less than full-fledged socialism.

Then why did Christians helped develop full capitalism?

I claim metaphors when the scripture in question is in fact visibly metaphorical.

Your view, which is the traditionally biased Christian approach.

Furthermore, how does a pacifist end up inciting a number of "religious" atrocities? Do you not find it suspicious that a rather conspicuous ulterior motive ALWAYS accompanies any such "religious" atrocity? Land, power, greed, intolerance? Religion was never the cause, merely the (rather convulted) justification.

Because religion is one of the most perfect tools for manipulating masses. Constantine saw it, therefore he acted.

[MagusYanam]

Sure. Christianism is a cancer that uses to feed and predate the vulnerable, the troubled and the insecure. Basically, it gives a deformed scope of reality, like a sort of memetic parasite, to secure its own survival.

You would say that Walter Rauschenbusch, Edgar S. Brightman or Martin Luther King, Jr. had 'deformed scope[s] of reality' and were 'predat[ing] the vulnerable, the troubled and the insecure'? I'm sorry, but this blanket statement, while it may be relevant to some religious leaders, is not applicable to all Christians.

Which is bulls... Er, sorry, bull manure. Soul is non existent. There are individuals, mind and body.

Then how would you explain sapience in humans? Lower animals are not conscious of self, yet they have individual minds and individual bodies. Is sapience a property of the human brain? If so, I would be tempted to call that property the 'soul'.

Then why did Christians helped develop full capitalism?

Because of a guy named John Calvin, who taught that the 'elect' (a rather frivolous notion, all told) would be rewarded in this life with material prosperity, which led his followers to invest in capitalist ventures with the hope of determining whether or not they were 'elect'. I don't think Christ had much to do with that.

Because religion is one of the most perfect tools for manipulating masses. Constantine saw it, therefore he acted.

Therefore it's bad? When religion leads to things like jihad or the Crusades, yes, the persuasive element of it can be horrendously destructive. But when people feel religiously motivated to band together to fight for noble things like civil rights, environmental consideration and economic justice, I can hardly censure the motivation.

[1John2_26]

trencacloscas
Sage



Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Total posts: 724
Gender: Male
Usergroups: None

4335.41 tokens
[ Donate ]
Post 72: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:24 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Most denizens come from modest backgrounds, and many have undergone great trauma and tragedy, both past and present.

Sure. Christianism is a cancer that uses to feed and predate the vulnerable, the troubled and the insecure. Basically, it gives a deformed scope of reality, like a sort of memetic parasite, to secure its own survival.

This kind of debate rebuttal is a cancer to this website.

It is why I rejected the religion of atheism and hold on firmly to the Truth. Christ Jesus.

[trencacloscas]

Atheism is no religion, John. It's quite the contrary, absense of any particular religious belief.

[trencacloscas]

You would say that Walter Rauschenbusch, Edgar S. Brightman or Martin Luther King, Jr. had 'deformed scope[s] of reality' and were 'predat[ing] the vulnerable, the troubled and the insecure'?

No. Doctor King, for instance, was a magnificent exception to many Christian commonplaces. He actually didn't give Caesar what belonged to Caesar and compromised in a real quest. He was not a normal Christian at all. I may retort his "deformed scope of reality" but definitively not his acts or his sense of purpose.

Anyway, as I mentioned before, I consider Christianity bad as a whole, but you'll always find good individuals in every creed.

Then how would you explain sapience in humans? Lower animals are not conscious of self, yet they have individual minds and individual bodies. Is sapience a property of the human brain? If so, I would be tempted to call that property the 'soul'.

Though philosophically interesting, the question is irrelevant. Please prove the existence of the soul and its relationship with a divine entity and then we could actually decide. Since then, no "salvation of the soul" gimmick has any meaning outside religion.

Because of a guy named John Calvin, who taught that the 'elect' (a rather frivolous notion, all told) would be rewarded in this life with material prosperity, which led his followers to invest in capitalist ventures with the hope of determining whether or not they were 'elect'. I don't think Christ had much to do with that.

Probably capitalism started much earlier, but, anyway, since Christian religion was dominant (er.. exclusively, in fact) in the West, it could be expected that its supposedly huge "socialist" influence determined a certainly different economic form. On the contrary, it helped to make the rich richer and the poor poorer in every stage of its history.

trencacloscas wrote:
Because religion is one of the most perfect tools for manipulating masses. Constantine saw it, therefore he acted.


Therefore it's bad? When religion leads to things like jihad or the Crusades, yes, the persuasive element of it can be horrendously destructive. But when people feel religiously motivated to band together to fight for noble things like civil rights, environmental consideration and economic justice, I can hardly censure the motivation.

Sorry, I'm curious... When did Christians feel motivated to environmental consideration and economic justice? About civil rights, you can mention a couple of examples, mostly helping to liberate people that was oppressed by other Christians (wasn't the Ku Klux Klan a Christian association?). Of course, it can happen that the masses sometimes are led towards a good cause, but that is extremely rare and manipulation is never a good thing; in my point of view, at least.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Sure. Christianism is a cancer that uses to feed and predate the vulnerable, the troubled and the insecure. Basically, it gives a deformed scope of reality, like a sort of memetic parasite, to secure its own survival.

Apparently you missed it when I mentioned that Christianity brings such people joy and meaning in their otherwise pitiful lives. But really, "cancer", "predation", "parasitisation"... call it what you want.

Sorry, I don't think so. Charity is an universal value in all cultures and all levels. Do not confound motives with propaganda.

Charity may be a universal value (of sorts), but mushrooms under influence of the proper propaganda.

The Bible itself is this such propaganda, inspiring millions of people who submit to it to aid those in need.

Which is bulls... Er, sorry, bull manure. Soul is non existent. There are individuals, mind and body. So evangelizing is, primarily, self indulgence of organized religion and the individuals that do it under its umbrella.

Whether the soul actually exists or not is beyond the point. It is genuine concern for the well-being of others (more specifically, where they will go in the afterlife) that drives Christians to evangelize.

What does the benefactor gain from evangelization? The benefit is intended for the reciever of the message. Many churches and organizations will commit massive amounts of funds, material, and manpower to evangelization. How is that self-indulgence?

Not at all. He clearly dismisses the poor for his own cult of personality. Wasn't the poor of his time worth to be relieved with any charity available?

It is not that he is not into charity, but that the contradictions in the whole text are noticeable enough.

You admit that he is into charity, yet still call this a contradiction?

A contradiction would be "thou shalt think only of yourself". Can you think of any verse that displays that sort of message?

You are missing the entire point of this verse. He is not writing off the poor, rather judging intentions. The Pharisee's who suggest that the perfume could have been given to the poor are not genuinely concerned for the less fortunate, they merely want to incriminate Jesus. The verse suggests that under normal circumstances the Pharisees would not have bothered to donate the expensive perfume. The woman who pours it on his feet does it out of reverence and thanksgiving; her intentions are just.

You get one messiah. One man, appearing in a mininscule blip of time to lead an entire religious sect on the path of righteousness. Meanwhile, the poor have been around since the beginning of time, and no one until the messiah in question has really made much of an effort to help.

Then why did Christians helped develop full capitalism?

Because the theory behind capitalism is a general greater well-being for all. But obviously, theory and reality not always congruent.

Your view, which is the traditionally biased Christian approach.

Then give me your (presumably) unbiased interpretation. Explain how the verse I labeled a metaphor is not a metaphor, or how the one I labeled litteral is not so.

This really shouldn't be such an issue, we have both taken basic elementary school english. I know I do my best to cite what I genuinely see. You, on the other hand, always seem to try and force a verse into the interpretation that is most incriminating of Christianity. Forgive me then, when I see your view biased in and of itself.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Because religion is one of the most perfect tools for manipulating masses. Constantine saw it, therefore he acted.

And this is a trait exclusive to religon? I couldn't manipulate someone with, oh say, money, power, or an alternate worldview?

Is this manipulation fault of the religion, or the manipulator? All this talk about the social injustices that come about as result of religion. The only injustice is how the religion (which usually condems the behavior it is used to exploit) recieves the blame for the power-hungry wacko's who twist the teachings in order to advocate their ulterior agenda.

Pick a religious atrocity, any religious atrocity. Now, remove the veil of religion. What are you left with? Greed and/or intolerance (the heart of EVERY war, religious or otherwise).

So supposedly, the absense of religion would result in a more peaceful world? The manipulators couldn't just use another cause to do their bidding? Greed and intolerance will exist with or without Christianity. Why is this so hard to see for many people? Are they afraid of losing their scapegoat? Nevermind the selfish ambition and human nature that have been around even BEFORE the concept of God.

Let's imagine a world void of religion. To do this, we must abolish the unsung benefits religion offers society the world over. Amoung these, hope, a greater well being (the religious are statistically much happier than athiests), and religious inspired good works and charity (which compromise the vast majority of the global aggregation). Is this your utopia?

[trencacloscas]

Apparently you missed it when I mentioned that Christianity brings such people joy and meaning in their otherwise pitiful lives.

Allow me a little crude irony here. Are you saying that these people need an excuse to live? Don't they find joy in their life without the crutch of some spiritual fantasy? If these people you mention so desperately need meaning for their life, and any lie is enough to fulfill their need, well... probably their life is worthless anyway, or at least as important as the lie they use to cover up their needs. It may sound harsh, but a lie is always a lie, and Christianism is in fact an enormous lie. In your terms, just a magic drug to make their pitiful life tolerable. As Bernard Shaw once said, it is like suggesting that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

Peter would have attempted to attack the High Priest?

That's one possible interpretation. Peter is portrayed as an impulsive person, and he might have tried to defend his master by any means necessary.

Maybe that's a fiction.

Maybe. It's hard to separate fact from fiction in the Gospels. What we know with relative certainty is what is confirmed by external sources, i.e., that there was a man called Jesus whose followers were seen as troublemakers by the Romans, and that he was executed by Pilate.

So maybe there were no soldiers at all, there was no-one to retaliate to Peter's attack, and the whole thing is not a fabrication. (John has been dated by specialists to before 70, btw.)

As I said, it's hard to tell. There isn't much we can be sure of, so your guess is as good as mine. Then again, according to your own standards John wouldn't have mentioned soldiers if no soldiers were present, right?

If we examine what the texts say, we see that Temple guards were used (improperly, by his own standards, and possibly illegally, by Roman law) by the High Priest.

You could be right. Not all Gospel accounts mention soldiers. And that would be the first of the irregularities in the whole process.

But even Romans would have noted the healing of the servant and would, I think, have been too amazed to do anything to Peter.

You are taking the miracle of the healed ear at face value. John's Gospel never mentions it.

John claimed to have known the high priest personally, and it's a bit unlikely that he would have made that claim, and written that detail, if it had not been true. In fact that goes for just about everything in the gospels.

Not necessarily. Surprising claims and precise details are not always indicative of historical truth.

You have a reason for stating this?

Several authors of different tendencies, including Paul Winter, Jean Paul Roux and Rafael Aguirre, have written that the trial of Jesus was not done according to custom.

Can you provide evidence for this? The only hard and fast rules were in the Biblical books, and they said nothing much about trials.

The best reference is probably Paul Winter's book "On the Trial of Jesus", Berlin 1961. Jean Paul Roux says in his book "Jsus"( Librairie Fayard, Paris 1989) that the trial was rushed because Passover was near, so the timing must have been irregular also.

The servant was healed

Not according to John's Gospel.