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?"

[Dilettante]

Christianity, after an initial pacifist stage motivated by the belief in the imminence of the end of the world, elaborated a doctrine of Just War, and had no problem with violence as long as it was seen as justified. After all, Jesus himself is quoted as saying: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

[Lotan]

So what about the scholars who think that this is metaphor?

What about them? What evidence do they present?

There are even some who believe that the word 'sword ' is a later interpolation. Now that should surely appeal to you.

Why?

So what is your view on Christian violence?

I think that those who profess to be Christian are capable of interpreting what Jesus 'meant' in whatever way necessary in order to justify their actions.

Or do you post against Tilia on principle!

No. I post against intellectually dishonest fallacies like "If we consider this statement in context, we see that Jesus must have been speaking metaphorically." on principle.

[1John2_26]

Some scholars think many things in the Bible are metaphor and many just think the whole thing is a make believe story. I think Lotan, who is an atheist, could be much nicer to you and still make a good point, but he does have a good point about the Bible being argued for ages. Atheists should always be listened to because they usually have a decent (though sometimes disrespectful) perspective. There is indeed much good research on it. Christians, believe it or not, live in the real world.

There seems to be absolutely no violence allowed when persecuted for the Gospel. It will be interesting to see what happens in large Christian communities in the western world when Mulsims move into them in large numbers. Ausrtalia is showing signs that violence is going to happen. Bosnia/Craotia showed that killing and murdering others religiously, is wrong and I believe that it was the Muslims being killed by a sort of Christian populace doing horrendous things. The world put that down with of course the leadership of a Christian President Bill Clinton. I would think that in places like Nigeria where Muslims are slaughtering Christians quite often that the world will go up against these Islamic bad guys in the same way.

Christian violence is a paradox of great magnitude because of the way the culture is laid out in the Gospel and New Testament. But, the fact that many people care little for others and will kill them even, necsessitates a common sense appraoch to dealing with perpetrator. That is probably why the death penalty makes little sense in the Christian minset because the perpetrator can no longer hurt anyone when locked up. But, if that same person was shot and killed while committing his/her crime, oh well. Everyone has the right to self defense. We're back to the real issue and that is when is enough enough? I could never become a Muslim and have no desire to do anything but talk and debate religion, but if Muslims do not work their violent tendencies out of their religion then the world is going to get to the point of enough is enough. Even Germany right now, is fed up with Iran's Muslim leader and his stand on the holocaust and Israel and there is exactly an "enough is enough" attitude being bantered about. Matter of fact Israel as a nantion and as a religious peopel are a good example to study for this thread topic.

[Lotan]

After all, Jesus himself is quoted as saying: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Hi Dilettante,

If we consider this statement in context, we see that Jesus must have been speaking metaphorically.

[Tilia]

quote="Lotan"

So what about the scholars who think that this is metaphor?

What about them?

So you know they exist. We don't want solid scholarship just lying around going to waste, do we!

What evidence do they present?

You don't know? Dear me.

There are even some who believe that the word 'sword ' is a later interpolation. Now that should surely appeal to you.

Why?

What if it's an interpolation?

So what is your view on Christian violence?

I think that those who profess to be Christian are capable of interpreting what Jesus 'meant' in whatever way necessary in order to justify their actions.

You allow for violence. What sort of violence would require 'interpretation' of what Jesus 'meant'?

Or do you post against Tilia on principle!

No. I post against intellectually dishonest fallacies like "If we consider this statement in context, we see that Jesus must have been speaking metaphorically." on principle.

Perhaps!

[Lotan]

What if it's an interpolation?

Grasping at straws now? Have you changed your views on interpolations since you wrote this...

"Let us see even one proven interpolation to a Biblical autograph. I don't believe that anyone has ever discovered such a thing.

How convenient.

What sort of violence would require 'interpretation' of what Jesus 'meant'?

Ask Paul Hill.

[youngborean]

I think that even if Jesus is not speaking as a metaphor that the context does not represent him advocating violence but rather him recognizing that men are violent and this would be the end of some of the diciples who would be persecuted. This is the context. Peter says, "I will die for you" and Jesus says, "there will be plenty of time to die later". If you really look at this passage in context it is a thematic continuation of the issue of persecution. This seen earlier in Chap 21.

Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

[Tilia]

What if it's an interpolation?

Grasping at straws now?

We'll see if I am, if you can stand the heat, but I reckon you'll duck out before long. I can see the signs already. I take it you haven't read more about this than that absurd fellow you quoted, as is your wont. I've warned you before about reading that trash, but you're a glutton for punishment.

Have you changed your views on interpolations since you wrote this...

"Let us see even one proven interpolation to a Biblical autograph. I don't believe that anyone has ever discovered such a thing.

How convenient.

You are so right! You saved me the job of copy 'n paste. Now I don't think that the word 'sword' is an interpolation. But you believe in such things. Now why do you apply one rule in one place, but do a '180' and deny the same rule in another?

Still there?

Lotan? Come back!!!!

What sort of violence would require 'interpretation' of what Jesus 'meant'?

Ask Paul Hill.

I'm asking you, Lotan. Don't duck the issue, please. Don't spoil my fun.

[Cathar1950]

It is possible that when Jesus said that(if he did) that he was in reference to taking and holding the temple. Many of his followers seem to have Zealot backgrounds. There seems to be traces of discontent in the NT about the temple cult. When he was eating and picking grain on the sabbath he might have been running for his life with his group which would justify the act as it did with David. Now when Matthew quotes Jesus as saying those that live by the sword die by the sword he(the Author of Matthew) may have been just giving a message and good advice. considering the Gospel might have been written in Alexandria after the Jewish war and the destruction of the temple. In 73 CE the Romans destroyed the temple in Alexandria just in case there were any more ideas of revolt for the kingdom. There were Zealots that tried to get the Jews of Alexandria to join the fight as they fled from Jerusalem but were turned away. It is very possible that the later Christians or Jewish messianic followers of Jesus learned something about hitting Rome head on.

[Lotan]

... I reckon you'll duck out before long. I can see the signs already.

Well, I am getting bored. If you actually have any evidence, please present it.

I take it you haven't read more about this than that absurd fellow you quoted, as is your wont.

Hinton's a nutjob, to be sure, but he knows his Greek.

I've warned you before about reading that trash, but you're a glutton for punishment.

The New Testament?

You are so right!

Of course!

Now I don't think that the word 'sword' is an interpolation.

Then why did you raise the issue? Can you stay on topic?

Now why do you apply one rule in one place, but do a '180' and deny the same rule in another?

Manuscript evidence for starters. Besides, you would have to demonstrate that all Bible texts are equally authentic before you raise an objection to not treating them as if they were.

Lotan? Come back!!!!

Is it impossible for you to just admit your error and move on?

What sort of violence would require 'interpretation' of what Jesus 'meant'?

I'm asking you, Lotan. Don't duck the issue, please. Don't spoil my fun.

Any and all sorts. How about spanking? There, that's two examples now.