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]

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.

God is essentially irrelevant full stop. All we need is the principle of love. Even the term Christian is irrelevant.

I tend to think the use of the term "Christian love" is a not so subtle dig at folks who ain't Christian.

Call it whatever you want. But this is a board on Christianity and Apologetics so... it makes sense to qualify the term 'love', right? i.e., we're talking about the way of life taught / shown by Jesus, which is to say Christian love. Not some generic love concept.

Also, I've been saying God is irrelevant from the beginning, but all of a sudden brunumb says it and you're all likes and agreement. What gives?

[JoeyKnothead]

I tend to think the use of the term "Christian love" is a not so subtle dig at folks who ain't Christian.

Call it whatever you want. But this is a board on Christianity and Apologetics so... it makes sense to qualify the term 'love', right? i.e., we're talking about the way of life taught / shown by Jesus, which is to say Christian love. Not some generic love concept.

Just as I think it's important to point out instances of Christian hate.

It's kinda like the notion in art, where to show light, ya gotta show dark.

Also, I've been saying God is irrelevant from the beginning, but all of a sudden brunumb says it and you're all likes and agreement. What gives?

I'm able to adapt my thinking when encountering new data.

I think God is relevant, in that "Christian love" is based on their declaring to exist a "loving God".

[1213]

But, it is true that he didn’t bring peace to world, because what he said causes much violence from those who hate God and Jesus.

Why do you think people hate God and Jesus?

Because he speaks the truth and wants to set people free.

[theophile]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

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

Yes. But it requires judgment of evil. And it is only justified if the violence is towards what is evil.

Well, god didn't hesitate in having oxen, sheep, camels, asses, and even human infants killed.

1 Samuel 15:3
"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’

Were they all evil? Of course. They had to have been to deserve such a fate---- "violence is towards what is evil" and all. And obviously once we get rid of all the evil sheep and evil infants in the world life will be much better.

It's not easy to discern evil, and we need to be careful before taking any ultimate action. We also need to question what others tell us is evil and ought to be destroyed. Christian love can be mistaken or co-opted and itself turned to evil just like anything else. We have every right and responsibility to question these things.

The bible uses extreme stories like this (including overreactions from God to the evil in the world) to shock us into thinking for ourselves, and to build our own capacity to discern good and evil. The point being we are not here to follow some other's (i.e., God's) rules, but to be continuously discerning for ourselves what is good and what is evil, and challenging each other on it. Especially when violence is on the table. (This includes challenging "God", as Abraham does, as Jacob does, as Moses does...)

Christians need to put their big-boy pants on and own up to this responsibility.

That said, pending a closer analysis of the story you cited, I would tend to agree: utter destruction feels wrong here. Samuel / God should be challenged. But like it or not, it nevertheless upholds my point that Christians may be called to violence. It is one of countless examples throughout the bible of such a call (which makes me endlessly surprised why there is so much argument against it here).

Evil suppresses and destroys life,

But considering that god creates evil, that must be a good thing. Right?

Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things."

So what a neat little scenario we have on Earth here.

1. God creates people
2. he also creates evil and . . .
3. Imbues infants and suckling, oxen and sheep, camels and asses with it so . . .
4. We have good reason to kill them all.

Quite a guy, this Christian god of yours. A bit puzzling to be sure, but then he can be as illogical as he pleases and still draw a crowd.
.

I think you are over-indexing on the world being a closed system controlled by God, versus one where we are meaningful participants, can change the shape of things, and nothing is set in stone. It's not that God creates evil only to then turn around and destroy it (which would be illogical or capricious). It's rather that evil comes into being and God must do what is essentially evil (i.e., the destruction of life) to fix it.

Look, my fundamental argument is that God (or any Christian for that matter) acts in accordance with the valuation that life is good, and the associated principle of fostering life of every kind in this world. See Genesis 1. All of the actions that God calls for there (and beyond) are in the service of life: creating the conditions for it, letting it be / achieve its potential, rooting out anything that would oppress or destroy it... We can rightly challenge God's calls for violence but that doesn't change what they are aimed at accomplishing, nor does it make all violence in pursuit of that end wrong. Sometimes it is called for to destroy the very life that God worked to create, when that life becomes irredeemably twisted against other life in the world.

That is what God is saying in Isaiah 45: I bring peace and calamity / evil. Which is the same as what I have been saying of Christians all along: foster life in any way that you can, which sometimes means destroying life so that life can go on.

Again, this is only illogical (or capricious) if you treat the world as an entirely closed system in God's control. Otherwise it's simply God acting in service of life, and making the hard decisions needed to redirect the world to an end where life can prosper.

[theophile]

I think God is relevant, in that "Christian love" is based on their declaring to exist a "loving God".

Christian love is not based on the existence of a loving God. It is based on the personal valuation and fundamental affirmation that life is good, and that life of every kind should be able to flourish in this world. (Hence Christian works of love to achieve this vision and end.)

Why do I need a loving God to exist in order to affirm and live by this value? I really don't get why you keep saying this.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think God is relevant, in that "Christian love" is based on their declaring to exist a "loving God".

Christian love is not based on the existence of a loving God. It is based on the personal valuation and fundamental affirmation that life is good, and that life of every kind should be able to flourish in this world. (Hence Christian works of love to achieve this vision and end.)

Why do I need a loving God to exist in order to affirm and live by this value? I really don't get why you keep saying this.

I would think that "Christian love" is based on Christian teachings and beleifs. Ya know, in a God and all, and how he so loved us all, ol Jesus there had to get him strung up.

Maybe I 'm just funny that way.

[theophile]

I think God is relevant, in that "Christian love" is based on their declaring to exist a "loving God".

Christian love is not based on the existence of a loving God. It is based on the personal valuation and fundamental affirmation that life is good, and that life of every kind should be able to flourish in this world. (Hence Christian works of love to achieve this vision and end.)

Why do I need a loving God to exist in order to affirm and live by this value? I really don't get why you keep saying this.

I would think that "Christian love" is based on Christian teachings and beleifs. Ya know, in a God and all, and how he so loved us all, ol Jesus there had to get him strung up.

Maybe I 'm just funny that way.

It's not Christian love if you simply mimic what you read in a book or were taught.
It's not Christian love if you do it out of some sense of reciprocity or obedience to God. (e.g., "I will love because God loves me", or "I will love because God told me to".)
It's only Christian love if it is based on a fundamental value and care, i.e., love, for life.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it sounds like it fits more in the category of what is not a basis for Christian love.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think God is relevant, in that "Christian love" is based on their declaring to exist a "loving God".

Christian love is not based on the existence of a loving God. It is based on the personal valuation and fundamental affirmation that life is good, and that life of every kind should be able to flourish in this world. (Hence Christian works of love to achieve this vision and end.)

Why do I need a loving God to exist in order to affirm and live by this value? I really don't get why you keep saying this.

I would think that "Christian love" is based on Christian teachings and beleifs. Ya know, in a God and all, and how he so loved us all, ol Jesus there had to get him strung up.

Maybe I 'm just funny that way.

It's not Christian love if you simply mimic what you read in a book or were taught.
It's not Christian love if you do it out of some sense of reciprocity or obedience to God. (e.g., "I will love because God loves me", or "I will love because God told me to".)
It's only Christian love if it is based on a fundamental value and care, i.e., love, for life.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it sounds like it fits more in the category of what is not a basis for Christian love.

Yet you continue to use the term "Christian" when referring to a love you ostensibly declare ain't Christian.

[brunumb]

But, it is true that he didn’t bring peace to world, because what he said causes much violence from those who hate God and Jesus.

Why do you think people hate God and Jesus?

Because he speaks the truth and wants to set people free.

How on earth is that a reason for people to hate God and Jesus?

[brunumb]

Yet you continue to use the term "Christian" when referring to a love you ostensibly declare ain't Christian.

I think what we are seeing here is yet another one of those new flavours of Christianity. It's a common by-product of cherry picking.