Christianity and violence

[nobspeople]

Does anything within the bible allow Christians to be violent towards non-Christians?

God demanded purity and strict obedience, and idolatry and blasphemy were punishable by death (Exodus 20:3, 5). Killing unbelievers was actually declared by popes Leo IV and John VIII to be spiritually beneficial for Christian soldiers: Their sins could be erased if they killed in defense of the Church. Even the whole 'wives submit to your husbands' can, and has, been used to justify violence.

Thoughts?

[theophile]

Ah yes, the internet tough guy who'd threaten violence on folks in the name of a god they can't show exists.

Ah yes, the internet atheist who turns every debate into the question of whether god exists. Why don't we just make that the subject of every post on this board? ...

[JoeyKnothead]

Ah yes, the internet tough guy who'd threaten violence on folks in the name of a god they can't show exists.

Ah yes, the internet atheist who turns every debate into the question of whether god exists. Why don't we just make that the subject of every post on this board? ...

Twernt me who proposed violence on folks. I mean, I'd like to beat up the pretty thing there for making me eat okra, but she can hog tie me down and fuss it in my mouth like they was biscuits.

But yeah, I do propose that a proper examination of god claims oughta it first start with the trying to figure out on if he exists him there to begin with. But a bit back there, the mods ask3e me not to fuss me too much on it, cause I think my doing so upset the Christians so much they was fit to bust.

But all that there, do you disagree that claims regarding god oughta be em first examined on if he's real?

Or is that too all "doubly standard" for ya?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Does anything within the bible allow Christians to be violent towards non-Christians?

No.

Because a Christian follows and listens to Christ, obeying His commands and following HIS example that He set for us.

This is simple. This is straightforward.

Turn the other cheek.

Bless those who curse you.

Do good to those who persecute you.

Love your enemies (not that all non-Christians are enemies, though some are).

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Be merciful and you will be shown mercy.


Christ did no violence to others, and He rebuked His disciples when they a) asked if He wanted them to call down fire from heaven on some Samaritans who refused to welcome Him (telling them that they knew not what spirit they were of), and b) when Peter struck and injured the servant of the soldiers come to arrest Him. Christ in fact HEALED that servant, as He did many others, out of compassion.


It should not and does not matter to someone who is Christian what happened between God and Israel re: the law. Because the law was in effect as a tutor, until Christ came. Not to mention the fact that Israel had been given certain laws because their hearts were HARD - harder than the stone tablets upon which the law had been written (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5). It is even written that the lying pen of the scribes had mishandled the law (Jeremiah 8:8).

But Christians are not under the law, Christians are under Christ. We receive mercy and forgiveness in and from Him; and that is what we are to show others as well, including our enemies. And the true law from God, from the beginning - which is LOVE, the law of the NEW covenant - is written upon the HEART. Love God with your whole heart, soul, mind. Love your neighbor as yourself. (the two most important commandments) Love your enemies; and love one another as Christ has loved us. Love covers over a multitude of sins (1Peter 4:8). There is no law against love (Galatians 5:22, 23).


So I don't care what religions or religious leaders have to say. For a Christian, what Christ says and the example that He gave us, that is what matters; that is what is TRUE.


May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear so as to get a sense of these things. May anyone who wishes hear as the Spirit (Christ) and the Bride say to you, "Come!" May the one who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"

(which water is holy spirit, poured out from Christ, as has been given to Him without end from His Father)


Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[theophile]

Ah yes, the internet tough guy who'd threaten violence on folks in the name of a god they can't show exists.

Ah yes, the internet atheist who turns every debate into the question of whether god exists. Why don't we just make that the subject of every post on this board? ...

Twernt me who proposed violence on folks. I mean, I'd like to beat up the pretty thing there for making me eat okra, but she can hog tie me down and fuss it in my mouth like they was biscuits.

Pretty sure I didn't propose violence on folks either. I just said (1) there is a time for violence against evil, (2) that it is compelled by Christian love of life, and (3) that Christian's need to open their eyes to this fact (and stop being preoccupied by the peaceful aspects of Jesus' ministry).

But yeah, I do propose that a proper examination of god claims oughta it first start with the trying to figure out on if he exists him there to begin with. But a bit back there, the mods ask3e me not to fuss me too much on it, cause I think my doing so upset the Christians so much they was fit to bust.

But all that there, do you disagree that claims regarding god oughta be em first examined on if he's real?

Or is that too all "doubly standard" for ya?

I don't see how God is relevant to the question at hand. We can start / work from the Christian principle of love, what it implies about evil, and follow that logically through to determine the relationship between Christianity and violence. That is what I am doing. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to that analysis.

I would be more inclined to ask what the Christian principle of love is, and should we hold to it. That is a far more meaningful question than if God exists. (In fact, I would argue that God's existence depends upon us / others holding to that principle, so to ask about God first would be to put the cart before the horse.)

[1213]

Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
..

In this case I think it would be good to notice:

… the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;
Efe. 6:17

For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Heb. 4:12

But, it is an interesting question, is it violence to use word of God that is called sword?

[tam]

[Replying to 1213 in post #16]

And the Word of God (from the verse you posted) = the Truth = Christ. And the language that Christ speaks - and so the sword that comes out of His mouth - is truth.


Peace to you!

[theophile]

Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
..

In this case I think it would be good to notice:

… the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;
Efe. 6:17

For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Heb. 4:12

But, it is an interesting question, is it violence to use word of God that is called sword?

I'm fine with further defining the sword Jesus brings as the word of God. But Jesus is clearly contrasting the ultimate outcome that it brings with peace. That is, if we take Jesus seriously here, then we must accept that the word of God does not always call for or bring peace. It also calls for and brings violence... When the time is right.

That is no different from what I am saying. Sometimes the way of love compels violence. Just like God called for violence against the inhabitants of the promised land: the idea being to purge the world of evil. Christians need to own up to this responsibility.

I feel we are often way too preoccupied by the peaceful aspects of Jesus' ministry (hence comments from Tam to the effect that violence is not Christian). That, or we are way too preoccupied by the violent aspects of the Old Testament (hence endless assaults from atheists on the immorality of the bible). Nobody tries to harmonize the two, but they need to (and can) come together for a truly biblical worldview.

[JoeyKnothead]

Ah yes, the internet tough guy who'd threaten violence on folks in the name of a god they can't show exists.

Ah yes, the internet atheist who turns every debate into the question of whether god exists. Why don't we just make that the subject of every post on this board? ...

Twernt me who proposed violence on folks. I mean, I'd like to beat up the pretty thing there for making me eat okra, but she can hog tie me down and fuss it in my mouth like they was biscuits.

Pretty sure I didn't propose violence on folks either. I just said (1) there is a time for violence against evil, (2) that it is compelled by Christian love of life, and (3) that Christian's need to open their eyes to this fact (and stop being preoccupied by the peaceful aspects of Jesus' ministry).

Good googly moogly, it was just a few posts ago...

theophile, in post 3[/url]]
Yes. But it requires judgment of evil. And it is only justified if the violence is towards what is evil.

So go ahead, tell us all about how you know what a god you can't show exists considers to be evil.

But yeah, I do propose that a proper examination of god claims oughta it first start with the trying to figure out on if he exists him there to begin with. But a bit back there, the mods ask3e me not to fuss me too much on it, cause I think my doing so upset the Christians so much they was fit to bust.

But all that there, do you disagree that claims regarding god oughta be em first examined on if he's real?

Or is that too all "doubly standard" for ya?

I don't see how God is relevant to the question at hand. We can start / work from the Christian principle of love, what it implies about evil, and follow that logically through to determine the relationship between Christianity and violence. That is what I am doing. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to that analysis.

Do as you wish, it ain't on me to get you to support your claims.

When one falls on their Christian belefs, they're falling un the proposition that the Christian god exists.

I would be more inclined to ask what the Christian principle of love is, and should we hold to it. That is a far more meaningful question than if God exists. (In fact, I would argue that God's existence depends upon us / others holding to that principle, so to ask about God first would be to put the cart before the horse.)

I don't doubt many a Christian'd prefer to forego a proper analysis of their claims.

[theophile]

Pretty sure I didn't propose violence on folks either. I just said (1) there is a time for violence against evil, (2) that it is compelled by Christian love of life, and (3) that Christian's need to open their eyes to this fact (and stop being preoccupied by the peaceful aspects of Jesus' ministry).

Good googly moogly, it was just a few posts ago...

If it was only a few posts ago, it should be easy to find right? I looked and saw nothing. So please point out the specific folks I proposed violence against. Indicating the possible need for violence is different from proposing actual violence against people.

theophile, in post 3[/url]]
Yes. But it requires judgment of evil. And it is only justified if the violence is towards what is evil.

So go ahead, tell us all about how you know what a god you can't show exists considers to be evil.

When one falls on their Christian belefs, they're falling un the proposition that the Christian god exists.

Stop injecting your own biases into everything. Why would I tell you what God considers evil? I just finished telling you why God is irrelevant to that question. Challenge that with an argument (which you have yet to do). Again, for like the third time, all we need is the Christian principle of love. That principle can be explored, understood, and affirmed irrespective of God or God's existence. And that principle can give us a notion of evil (which I have already defined 2-3 times in this thread). And the extension of that principle can tell us if violence is consistent with Christianity (back to the OP).

So to your second comment, the only thing I am "falling on" is the Christian principle of love, which is to say an affirmation of life and everything that follows from it. God does not in any way provide a basis for this affirmation. I can value life on my own accord and extrapolate what it means in regards to evil, violence, etc.

Now, you could very well challenge me by saying love of life is not the fundamental Christian principle (as related by Christian source texts, not God). Or you could very well challenge the value of life, and whether love of life (or something else) should be our fundamental principle. Or you could very well challenge what the extension of this principle entails. But what you can't do is tell me that God is in any way necessary for me to affirm it or understand it, or that God is the basis of it, or anything like that. Or else give me a clear argument why (which you have yet to do).

[Tcg]

Indicating the possible need for violence is different from proposing actual violence against people.

Well, don't leave us hanging. What exactly is the difference?


Tcg