Nonviolence

[Ransom]

I cannot understand the tendency of Christians to defend the use of redemptive violence, war, and even self defense. When then presidential candidate Barack Obama said that small town Pennsylvanians are "clinging to their guns and religion," I was more upset at the insinuation that the two are somehow connected than anything else. Jesus led a life of nonviolence that led to His death at the hands of men He could easily have defended Himself against, and then He asked us to follow in his footsteps. He rebuked Peter for attacking Malchus, cutting off his ear, and told him "those who live by the sword die by the sword." He promised us that it was the meek and defenseless who were blessed. He warned us not to resist an evil man. Where is the basis for the support of a just war, for any war, for any kind of violence?

The old testament is full of war, death, and violence, it is true. And it is also true that Christ came to fulfill the law and not change it. But what if the law is the same and the consequences have changed, just as the eternal consequences of sin have since Jesus' death? That would mean that the old testament laws are still infallible, but that the coming of Christ has changed the way we redeem ourselves to each other, just as it changed the way we redeem ourselves to the Lord.

Any further thoughts?

[bernee51]

I cannot understand the tendency of Christians to defend the use of redemptive violence, war, and even self defense. When then presidential candidate Barack Obama said that small town Pennsylvanians are "clinging to their guns and religion," I was more upset at the insinuation that the two are somehow connected than anything else. Jesus led a life of nonviolence that led to His death at the hands of men He could easily have defended Himself against, and then He asked us to follow in his footsteps. He rebuked Peter for attacking Malchus, cutting off his ear, and told him "those who live by the sword die by the sword." He promised us that it was the meek and defenseless who were blessed. He warned us not to resist an evil man. Where is the basis for the support of a just war, for any war, for any kind of violence?

The old testament is full of war, death, and violence, it is true. And it is also true that Christ came to fulfill the law and not change it. But what if the law is the same and the consequences have changed, just as the eternal consequences of sin have since Jesus' death? That would mean that the old testament laws are still infallible, but that the coming of Christ has changed the way we redeem ourselves to each other, just as it changed the way we redeem ourselves to the Lord.

]

Welcome to the forum...

Do you have a question for debate?

Any further thoughts?

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

[Ransom]

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Honestly, to my understanding, this verse talks of Christianity dividing families and loved ones, rather than actual violence. I have my doubts that Jesus actually condoned a man acting with violence against his loved ones. In my opinion, this verse warns us that a devotion to Christ could lead one's family and friends to desert or even persecute one for his or her faith. My entire extended family and one member of my immediate family are not believers (I am, however, blessed with much Christian support) and I know that a dedication to Jesus alienates you from your loved ones, causing one's allegiances to be tested.

So yes, if this verse literally means that Christ (the Prince of Peace) came desiring to create violence and animosity amongst loved ones, then your point holds true. On the contrary, if this verse is a warning of the divides between saved and unsaved family members, than it fails to contradict my logic.