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]

Quote:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.

-Matthew 10:34 (KJV)

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

-Luke 22:36 (KJV)


But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

-Luke 19:27 (KJV)


No scholars required. No context, no metaphores. Call it by the real name: EXCUSES. No word from God should be contradictory. These are.

Is it impossible for you to take verses within their context?

Matt 10:34 signifies the personal/family/social feuds which will result from the revealing of the new docrine. Look at the verses before and after.

Luke 22:38 we have all ready discussed. The swords are necissary as defense from the fundamentalist Jews who will likely retort the new message with violence. Any Biblical/Greek scholar will tell you that. Have you ever read about the disciples using violence in an effort to convert?

Luke 19:27 is a parable. "Bring them and slay them before me" refers to punishment in the afterlife. Look at the CONTEXT of the verse before it.



I am sure that there are many reasons to reject Christian doctrine. However, this supposed endorsement of violence is not one of them. I have plenty more verses to quote, if you wish.[/b]

[McCulloch]

We cannot say explicitly that Jesus is against self-defence (he recognizes it as a reality of man).

It certainly looks to me as if Jesus is against self-defence. The quotes cited by Platypus, read simply and in context, do seem to teach unambiguously against violent self-defence.

We can say that he promotes peaceful resistance [...] because there is much to gain spiritually from it. Jesus came to preach the Kingdom of Heaven, which is not of this world. He is not giving a simple ethical manual according to man's standards to create a perfect society. He is attempting to show people how to attain salvation through repentence, since most people will inherently respond with the realities of men and subsequent greater evils.

Repentance, a turning away from sin, implies a way of knowing which actions are and are not sin. The question for debate, restated, is, "Is interpersonal violence a sin as defined by authentic Christian doctrine?" You seem to include interpersonal violence as one of those things which should be repented of for spiritual growth and one of the subsequent greater evils. So I must conclude that you would answer "Yes" to the question.

[youngborean]

I would say that interpersonal violence is not always a sin. The teachings cited do not teach against defending yourself. They teach for peaceful resistance. If someone blindsides you and you violently struggle to get away this could hardly be considered sin. The context Jesus is talking about in Matthew is associating Violence to Justice. He is saying that in the context of the law of Torah "eye for an eye" there is an opportunity for sin by expecting and acting that violence is equal to divine justice. He promotes this teaching (pacifism) to restrain that urge. But I don't believe that this would extend calling the action sin, but rather the expectation of what the individual would get out of it. Simply put, revenge presents the opportunity for sin. He is not calling the "eye for an eye" law sin, because he established earlier in the speech that "not one dot of the law would disappear", he is warning men not to become evil in their search for justice. The immediacy of someone breaking into your house to kill your children (an extreme example) and you stopping them with violent force seems to be a seperate issue. This would be similar to the Luke passage where I believe Jesus would see the whole thing how it is, just one of the big messes that men create, and not applying judgement (i.e sin) for the sometimes harsh realities of life.

[McCulloch]

To use some less extreme examples: If someone were to strike you on the cheek, what is the correct response? If someone were to force you to march a mile, what is the Christian response? If someone were who mistreat you and persecute you? Jesus seems to go way beyond associating violence to justice. He seems to be saying, "Not only should you not seek justice, you should submit to whatever evil the wrongdoers may try. For by doing so, you demonstrate that you are children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." Where is self-defence in Jesus' teachings? I just don't see it.

[trencacloscas]

I am sure that there are many reasons to reject Christian doctrine. However, this supposed endorsement of violence is not one of them. I have plenty more verses to quote, if you wish

You can quote all you like, but the verses I quote were used by every Christian criminal and dictator, so violence is pretty clear. If Christ were God and the NT were an inspired book, no contradiction could be possible, context or no context. Interpretations vary a lot, but the words are crystal clear. Those ominous words are not from a God but from a hateful preacher, and come supposedly from the same guy that condemns the whole mankind to eternal fire. Logic follows.

Jesus is not a pacifist, for he condones open war with exacts words that contradicts supposed peaceful teachings. When Christians compares this lousy character with Gandhi, for instance, it makes me puke. Gandhi showed two main differences: 1)He was a real pacifist, far bigger than such insolent and pointless Jewish preacher 2)He was a real person facing real conflicts.

[youngborean]

I have maintained that Jesus advocates active pacifism throughout. He also recognizes that there are instances that people unfortunately have to defend themselves. The context of the turning the other cheek passage is retribution, and retribution is the only teaching christians should glean from it. Otherwise, if we were to come across someone being violently attacked, the christian response would be to yell to the victim "turn the other cheek" which seems as inconsistent with the whole of scripture and the teachings of Jesus as active seeking to violent persecute people does.

[McCulloch]

I have maintained that Jesus advocates active pacifism throughout. He also recognizes that there are instances that people unfortunately have to defend themselves. The context of the turning the other cheek passage is retribution, and retribution is the only teaching christians should glean from it. Otherwise, if we were to come across someone being violently attacked, the christian response would be to yell to the victim "turn the other cheek" which seems as inconsistent with the whole of scripture and the teachings of Jesus as active seeking to violent persecute people does.

Specifically which teachings of Jesus would those be?

[youngborean]

The teaching that he didn't "come to destroy the law" first and foremost. I have already used the example from Luke where Jesus acknowledges that some believers will have to take up the sword. Both would reflect an understanding of the violence of man and neither commits all seemingly violent acts to sin. I think the basis of my stance is on the reality for the believer that sin is in the heart. I believe that logic compels us to realize that there are potential times to act with force for compassion, which takes greater precedence over an intellectual adherence to pacificsm. Jesus speaks out against violence in context to those that are prone to sin in their heart connected with violent acts. The defence of one's livelyhood in unpunished under the law of Moses, which is also the law of Jesus. Revenge was an individuals right in chapter 5, but Jesus teaches that just because something is your right, there may still be a way of reconciliation. That does not make it sin to fufill the right of judgement, it only makes it less spiritually profitable. Paul continues this logic.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Presumably some of those laws, like killing in self-defence not being a crime, fit under this presumption. Such laws have been in existance for a long time. Becuase without them there would still be killing, but all killing should not be considered sin and has never been in the old or new testament.

[McCulloch]

The teaching that he didn't "come to destroy the law" first and foremost.

I get it. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, therefore there are times when violence is appropriate behaviour.

I have already used the example from Luke where Jesus acknowledges that some believers will have to take up the sword.

I don't think that either of these examples negate the very plain repeated unambiguous teachings of the rest of the New Testament.

Both would reflect an understanding of the violence of man and neither commits all seemingly violent acts to sin. I think the basis of my stance is on the reality for the believer that sin is in the heart.

I asked for specific teaching. You give me interpretation.

I believe that logic compels us to realize that there are potential times to act with force for compassion, which takes greater precedence over an intellectual adherence to pacificsm.

I happen to agree with you. However, I can read. Jesus apparently does not agree with you.

Jesus speaks out against violence in context to those that are prone to sin in their heart connected with violent acts. The defence of one's livelyhood in unpunished under the law of Moses, which is also the law of Jesus. Revenge was an individuals right in chapter 5, but Jesus teaches that just because something is your right, there may still be a way of reconciliation. That does not make it sin to fufill the right of judgement, it only makes it less spiritually profitable. Paul continues this logic.

The actual statements made by Jesus are not restricted by the context. The statements themselves are rather broad sweeping statements. He does not say turn to him the other cheek also if your heart is full of anger and you are prone to sin.

Rom 13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

So if the government tells you do do something contrary to what Jesus plainly teaches you to do, then it is OK. Thanks, I got it.

Presumably some of those laws, like killing in self-defence not being a crime, fit under this presumption.

If it is not a crime, then it is not a sin??

Such laws have been in existance for a long time. Becuase without them there would still be killing, but all killing should not be considered sin and has never been in the old or new testament.

As far as I can read, the plain repeated unambiguous teaching of the New Testament is that interpersonal violence is wrong. You have claimed that this is not so but you have failed to show me specifically which teachings my understanding of the NT contravenes.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You can quote all you like, but the verses I quote were used by every Christian criminal and dictator, so violence is pretty clear.

Used by every propagator of every Christian atrocity. Used wrongly. I can easily understand the Jesus' stance on violence, and I am a mere high schooler. How then, can a Hebrew/Greek scholar and Biblical expert (such as the leaders during the Inquisition) interpret such verses to instigate aggression? How developed a brain does one need to see that this blatantly contradicts the many teachings instructing us to "gently correct those who do not submit to my will"? Is this not the first clue that Biblical accuracy was the least of the Inquisitor's worries?

If Christ were God and the NT were an inspired book, no contradiction could be possible, context or no context.

This statement operates under the assumption that we are indeed dealing with so called "contradictions". Show me how these verses are contradictory.

I think God knew some people would eventually go wild with his doctrine. He even warns us of such 'false prophets'. Jesus could have commanded "thou shalt never kill any Muslim, especially if they come to occupy your former lands" and the Crusades would have probably still come about.

You can't really blame God if someone decides to take one verse (such as Luke 19:27), rip it out of context, twist the meaning, and somehow use it to negate hundreds of contradictory messages throughout the Bible.

Jesus is not a pacifist, for he condones open war with exacts words that contradicts supposed peaceful teachings.

I must have missed the passages in the Bible where Jesus does ANYTHING that is NOT completely pacifist in every sense of the word.

I don't suppose you have any scriptural examples depicting this violent Jesus? Personally I don't find healing the sick, giving to the poor, and teaching peaceful doctrine to be very inflammatory.

If Ghandi had decided to use a metaphor including the word "sword", would he suddenly cease to be a pacifist in your eyes?