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]

Tilia wrote:

The Temple authority? What are you talking about?

You mean "who" am I talking about? Well, I meant the religious authority, the High Priest.

Maybe that's a fiction.

I understand that John wrote almost a generation after the facts, so maybe the oral narrative became embellished with details. It's impossible to know for sure. In any case, I don't think that would have been seen as lying, because the overriding purpose of the gospels was certainly religious rather than journalistic or historical.

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.

That would seem to indicate that that John was not one of the twelve. I understand the identity of the author of John's gospel is still unclear today. It could be also that John the Disciple told his story to someone else who put it in writing later under the original name.
Anyway, I don't see why you say that detail is an indication of it being true. True in what sense? Surely the authors believed they were telling the truth, although they may have been mistaken.

You have a reason for stating this?

Apparently such night trials were against the rules, and there were other irregularities also.

What for? There was no damage done, and the guy was only a servant anyway.

True, but resistance to authority was probably not welcome, and the servant had lost an ear, which would count as damage, however small.

[Tilia]

Tilia wrote:

The Temple authority? What are you talking about?

You mean "who" am I talking about? Well, I meant the religious authority, the High Priest.

Peter would have attempted to attack the High Priest?

Maybe that's a fiction.

I understand that John wrote almost a generation after the facts, so maybe the oral narrative became embellished with details.

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.)

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. They were Levites, not Romans, and would have been unlikely to make an vengeful attack on a fellow Jew. But even Romans would have noted the healing of the servant and would, I think, have been too amazed to do anything to Peter. That wasn't why soldiers were there, anyway.

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.

That would seem to indicate that that John was not one of the twelve.

He says he was, seventeen times.

You have a reason for stating this?

Apparently such night trials were against the rules

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

and there were other irregularities also.

Such as?

What for? There was no damage done, and the guy was only a servant anyway.

True, but resistance to authority was probably not welcome, and the servant had lost an ear

Not so. The servant was healed, and the High Priest was probably out of order even being there with armed men, who had no authority to arrest Peter (or Jesus) anyway. Had there been a fracas he could have been as answerable to the Romans as anyone.

[youngborean]

I am finding the discussion of the last few posts a bit confusing. Could the two of you contextualize your points with Scriptural (or other) references? It would simply be for my benefit to follow along. I am seeing a lot of contradictory points so it would be good to see why there are disagreements from the same texts.

[trencacloscas]

I love Ghandi. However, comparing him to Jesus is like apples vs. oranges (and rather irrelevant to boot).

Really? Two humble guys, both supposedly into "passive resistance", both pacifists, both revolutionary... Well, I think Jesus is neither a pacifist nor a revolutionary, but the Christian propaganda put a lot of emphasis in that. Certainly, Gandhi is a historic character and Jesus only a myth; in that sense, oranges and apples apply.

Quote:
You know, some Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela could have existed without the antecedent of Jesus, but not without the precedent of Gandhi.

I can't really imagine this, as King was a minister himself; Christianity was his prime drive. I don't know much about Mandela.

MLK's method was taken entirely from Gandhi, not from Jesus. Same about Mandela.

Gandhi, great as he was, can't even begin to compare to Christ in terms of influence.

We are not discussing influence, we are discussing pacifism.

I would assert that overall, Christianity has had a very good effect on society. I expect many Bible-bashers are now poised to fly up the wall (if they had not all ready), but compare the bulk of blatantly loving and peaceful verses found throughout the NT to the handful of "questionable" ones. It is not always aparrent, but such verses have had a grave effect on many people. No news organization broadcasts reports of Christians doing kind and charitable acts. That kind of stuff has been going on forever; old news. But hey, show us an extremist obliterating an abortion clinic, and THEN we have a story!

Christianity has acted as a corset for ideas, science, freedom and social development. Charity is mere propaganda, since it represents its method of evangelization. But, anyway, rarely any kind and charitable acts both from religious or secular sources become "a story". In more cases, religious ones take the charts, like the fake charity of Mother Theresa.

So if I went out and bought a gun, you would automatically assume I intend to go wreak havoc? Or perhaps I just have a few dangerous enemies? The mere possession of a gun is enough to keep people from messing with me. The same case with a sword. Regardless, we can automatically assume Jesus did not mean the sword to be an offensive weapon. His disciples are never documented as violently asserting the message.

We are talking about symbols. If you put a gun in your banner, is it because you mean you are a pacifist? No, the prime meaning of the symbol is violence. A sword means violence. If defence were the claim and it was indeed a metaphore, why not depicting a shield or any purposedly defensive tool?

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the Old Testament have nothing to do with Jesus????

Jesus the man, yes. I don't see what Old Testament events have to do with the Christian doctrine in question. Jesus consistently negates old teachings and traditions in his doctrine.

He also confirmed a lot of them. And he was supposed to be the announced Messiah. Moreover, any NT comes accompanied by an OT, why is it then?

Is it unreasonable for God to require a Kindergarden level of reading comprehension in his followers?

Yes, it is unreasonable. Because he is not directing to a kindergarden but to full grown men, capable of reason and comprehension. Anyway, if he appointed kindergarden level, why confuse them with words about swords and war???

Even if the verses in question are ambiguous, anyone can look to the blatantly obvious commandments littered throughout the text and determine "hey, that can't mean this, it must be saying something else".

Hey, decide, please! That kind of mental process is not for kindergarden, but the contrary. Do you actually read symbolist poetry to kindergarden kids? No, because they just get the whole thing straight. So, is Christianity for full grown reasonable men or just for kids?

Plain enough for my 10 year old sister to comprehend.

When my nine year old boy heard that passage of 'I come to bring war not peace', he was puzzled. "Ain't Jesus supposed to want peace?", he said.

[trencacloscas]

Actually, what a lot of people don't know about Gandhi was that he did in fact use Jesus as an example of his theory of satyagraha - 'reliance on the truth' through 'passive resistance' and active goodwill. He was a Hindu, of course, but he saw in the religion of the British oppressors the seeds of their own undoing and basically used Jesus-like politics and Jesus-like active goodwill to embarrass the British - a liberal, democratic and largely Christian empire! - out of India.

Of course. Gandhi used to mention the Sermon of the Mountain as one of the loveliest religious passages of all times, and he was seeking such effect with the English. He was a religious man and lived in the West, he knew perfectly.

Believe it or not, but the strategies used by that middle-class, Western-educated Indian reformer that we have all come to admire so much wouldn't have existed without the precedents set down by a working-class Jewish reformer 1,920 years before. Of course

Don't think so. Specially when you talk about strategies. Jesus had no direct purpose, no social goal and certainly no methodic procedures; he was not the first pacifist and the East had a lot of precedents in pacifism.

I think the context very pertinent. Like it or not, Jesus did come to bring peace, but not the same kind of peace his disciples or the nation of Israel was looking for. He may have been the Messiah, but he knew that he would not be throwing off the bonds of Roman oppression and leading Israel into a new Golden Age. When he said that he was bringing a sword, he meant it to prod his followers out of complacency and out of their preconceptions of his calling as Messiah, since the last thing he wanted was for his followers to have a peace that would make them become apathetic and indifferent.

Is this something else than interpretation? If he meant that, why didn't he choose the straight words?

The sword is used as imagery in many portions of the Bible, and not always to mean 'war'. A 'flaming sword which turned every way' was guarding Paradise, which makes it both a symbol of the fall and a symbol of defence. God clearly had not declared war on man by keeping Paradise pristine. The sword is used (for obvious reasons) as an instrument of division - Jesus tells his disciples in the very same passage that his message will, inevitably and regrettably, divide families. It is used sometimes as a symbol of honour, prestige and authority. As you see, the imagery of the sword is not as straightforward as you (or the fundamentalists) would have us believe. If you look at the whole of the Gospel, Jesus is not declaring war. Not on the Romans and not on the religious authorities of Israel.

He's not declaring war, but he textually rejects peace.

The authors of the Gospel, as with the authors of every other book of the Bible, were writing with a specific audience in mind - and believe it or not, that wasn't you or me. No offence.

No offence. This is exactly my point. The Bible should be irrelevant to an audience 1900 years in the future, except for the (dubious) literary value.

That's not to say the Bible isn't relevant - it's just that it is so historically and theologically complex an anthology that scholars (men and women educated in reading it) can spend their entire careers working on just a single book of it, or even a specific set of verses in a book. There are Q-searchers (for the source of Jesus-quotes both St. Matthew and St. Luke used), Marcian scholars, Acts scholars, et cetera. So, unless you can show me a B. A. in Theology and a D. Div. from a reputable school, you'll pardon my scepticism that you know exactly what Jesus had in mind when he said (in Aramaic for a Hebrew audience) 'not peace, but a sword', or what his disciples meant when they wrote it down (in Greek for a Greek audience).

How many of this people would waste their lives if not by the 'belief' factor? Not many. It is complex because it is old, it is incoherent and because it is supposed to bear some mysterious or divine knowledge. Please notice that I don't pretend that I know exactly what Jesus had in mind, mainly because proofs that such an individual ever existed cannot even be presented so far, and about the divinity and atributes of the supposed guy the most advanced scholar of the world does not know anything more than me.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

MLK's method was taken entirely from Gandhi, not from Jesus. Same about Mandela.

Evidence please.

But not knowing much about the subject, common sense tells me people such as this generally would have derived much more inspiration from the character of Jesus. Christ is an internationally recognized figure, one who 99/100 people will tell you symbolizes peace. Ghandi, great as he was, has had limited influence.

I think that whether these men used Ghandi's specific method is rather irrelevant anyway. Such a method was (in part) Christ-inspired in the first place.

We are not discussing influence, we are discussing pacifism.

YOU are the one discussing influence (MLK, Mandela?). No single person in the history of humanity has had even half the influence Jesus has.

Christianity has acted as a corset for ideas, science, freedom and social development. Charity is mere propaganda, since it represents its method of evangelization. But, anyway, rarely any kind and charitable acts both from religious or secular sources become "a story". In more cases, religious ones take the charts, like the fake charity of Mother Theresa.

You know, I (and many other Christians likewise) often get chastised for always pitting an "excuse" against any anti-Christian arguments. But if this isn't an excuse, I don't know what is.

Is it impossible for you to admit that maybe, just maybe Christianity has had some genuine, unadultered beneficial effect upon people and society? Really, you can cede to this one little point without threat of forfeiting the entire argument. Random Christians lending aid to random families (often when the two parties involved never meet face to face) is not propaganda. It is scripturally-inspired kindness... a rather common occurance in areas under the influence of peace-preaching religions.

I accept the fact that Christianity has not had exclusively good effects upon society. Can you accept that it has done, at the very least, some good in certain instances?

I find it rather illogical to label a book encompassing hundreds of peace-loving scriptures and maybe five or six questionable ones to be solely violent.

Hey, decide, please! That kind of mental process is not for kindergarden, but the contrary. Do you actually read symbolist poetry to kindergarden kids? No, because they just get the whole thing straight. So, is Christianity for full grown reasonable men or just for kids?

When my nine year old boy heard that passage of 'I come to bring war not peace', he was puzzled. "Ain't Jesus supposed to want peace?", he said.

You are right, children are generally incapable of correctly identifying such ulterior meanings.

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about elementary children ransacking villages, raping women, or torturing heretics in the name of God. Upon maturing, any cursory glance at the Bible will make them realize that such things are highly discouraged.

We are talking about symbols. If you put a gun in your banner, is it because you mean you are a pacifist? No, the prime meaning of the symbol is violence. A sword means violence. If defence were the claim and it was indeed a metaphore, why not depicting a shield or any purposedly defensive tool?

Symbols? Do litteral meanings not count for anything?

The passage in question is not figurative. In this instance, Jesus tells it like it is. And frankly, a sword is of much greater defensive use than a shield. Who would you rather fight, the guy with the deadly killing tool, or the guy with a block of metal?

Besides, your characterization of guns and swords is not necissarily universally accepted. Show a picture of a gun in my area and the average persons thoughts will automatically revert to hunting. Show a needy family living in a dangerous slum a gun and they see a necissary defensive instrument. Swords are often used to symbolize pride, wisdom, and honor.


On another note, now you seem to agree that the verses in question are not genuinely violent at the core. Yet you still do not view Jesus as a pacifist?

Let's look at it in a different way. Let's say I am posting my views on violence. I write a big long tyrade condemning aggressive retaliation, and call for peace and tolerance. However, I write a couple of sentences that you do not understand, and could possibly be interpreted to mean something else.

What would you say my view on violence is?

He also confirmed a lot of them. And he was supposed to be the announced Messiah. Moreover, any NT comes accompanied by an OT, why is it then?

When did Jesus ever adress the OT wars?

For Christians, the OT provides background information, and establishes the basis for NT teachings. The NT is a fufillment of prophecy. However, the old doctrine is by no means the ultimate standard by which we should live. Many of the teachings evolved since Moses' time. See Romans chapter seven.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Of course. Gandhi used to mention the Sermon of the Mountain as one of the loveliest religious passages of all times, and he was seeking such effect with the English. He was a religious man and lived in the West, he knew perfectly.

Exactly. Ghandi, the very example you pit against him, commends Jesus' docrine. Do you not see the signifigance in this?

Is this something else than interpretation? If he meant that, why didn't he choose the straight words?

I have noticed that you are not necissarily debating Christ's message, but rather his divinity. While this is a good (albiet exhausted) topic, the current question concerns his view on violence.

And all considered, who could possibly not claim his blatant pacifism?

[Tilia]

And all considered, who could possibly not claim his blatant pacifism?

It would not be too surprising if they did not. Even when Jesus was on the earth, people tried to twist his words, or pretended not to understand them.

[trencacloscas]

MLK's method was taken entirely from Gandhi

Evidence please.

A simple comparison of methods and deeds would do. But you also can check MLK's own books, starting with "Strength To Love" (1963)

Ghandi, great as he was, has had limited influence.

Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) showed no method, just disorganized fables and sayings. His supposed teachings were not even new. But, to fair comparison, Gandhi's legacy goes on in half a century, and the myth of Christ more than 1700 years. Any pacific civil rights movement post-Gandhi of the 20th century inevitably uses his method.

Is it impossible for you to admit that maybe, just maybe Christianity has had some genuine, unadultered beneficial effect upon people and society?

If you speak about influence, after seventeen centuries of continuous atrocities and crimes, you have to admit that benefits are relative. 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.

Random Christians lending aid to random families (often when the two parties involved never meet face to face) is not propaganda.

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. You may argue that, in the end, the important thing is the help to be received, but then, why Christian churches never fail to put emphasis in their donations institutionally? 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.

I find it rather illogical to label a book encompassing hundreds of peace-loving scriptures and maybe five or six questionable ones to be solely violent.

That is a definite proof that the NT is not divinely inspired. Peace loving is good, but we all know this. Do you really need a religious book to tell you that peace is a good thing? I beg your pardon, but my problem with the NT is that I cannot see why its supposed teachings are any relevant or wise. On the contrary, they look pretty much like a doctrine for manipulating the simple and the superstitious. If not because of the religious value, those pretended teachings probably would not even be considered as so.

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about elementary children ransacking villages, raping women, or torturing heretics in the name of God. Upon maturing, any cursory glance at the Bible will make them realize that such things are highly discouraged

The Bible? You mean, the OT too?

Do litteral meanings not count for anything?

Yes. It is you the one claiming metaphores.

When did Jesus ever adress the OT wars?

When did he question them?

On another note, now you seem to agree that the verses in question are not genuinely violent at the core. Yet you still do not view Jesus as a pacifist?

I just don't see Jesus as a person, just a myth. 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.

[Dilettante]

youngborean wrote:

I am finding the discussion of the last few posts a bit confusing. Could the two of you contextualize your points with Scriptural (or other) references? It would simply be for my benefit to follow along. I am seeing a lot of contradictory points so it would be good to see why there are disagreements from the same texts.

Sorry, youngborean. We are discussing the scene of the arrest of Jesus, especially as told in the Fourth Gospel (starting with John 18:2-14). That Gospel describes the violent reaction of Simon Peter, who "had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear". No mention of the miraculous cure of Malchus's ear is made, and in some translations, Roman soldiers are mentioned (the NIV mentions a "detachment of soldiers" and the word "cohort" appears at least in one of the translations I have read, which sounds a bit exaggerated since a cohort comprises about 600 men). We are discussing how much of this is fiction.
We are also discussing who the author of John's Gospel is, and the irregularities committed during Jesus' trial. But maybe that merits a separate thread.
On the authorship problem, the following may be useful:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/j ... pter3.html
On the Trial, the source I have consulted Paul Winter, "On the Trial of Jesus", Berlin, 1961.
I hope this helps.