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?"

[1John2_26]

That passage in Luke seems quite clear is to be applied to defending yourself if attacked. Jesus was sending them out in very dangerous times. Contradictions in the Bible or different situations dealt with accordingly?

[trencacloscas]

I guess Ghandi was just another sell-out as well. He certainly was not the first person to practice passive resistance.

Yeah, I receive this kind of reply from Christians a lot. They are so full of jealousy and envy because the figure of Jesus looks like a dwarf before him. Probably Gandhi wasn't the first person, but he was indeed the first that used "passive resistance" (he actually hated this term, for there is nothing passive in resistance) as a methodic program. You know, some Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela could have existed without the antecedent of Jesus, but not without the precedent of Gandhi.

[trencacloscas]

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

-Matthew 10:34 (KJV)

Context, context, context. No unbiased reader could possibly translate the following verse as referring to a litteral sword after reading the surrounding scripture. "Sword" used here generally refers to the conflict (albiet not necissarily violent) that will arise between believers and unbelievers, obedient and sinners.

Once again, you guys gotta make up your mind. If you use "sword" as a metaphore, then Jesus himself could be just a metaphore. Is he?
Does he speak right or not? If he really meant "conflict" why didn't he say "conflict". A sword is a weapon, not used for hunting or for anything else but killing other human beings. Then, a sword cannot mean "non violent conflict", it means war, that's clear beyond any twisted and biased Christian interpretation. Just read: "NOT... PEACE, BUT A SWORD" Upon those ominous words, any context is futile.

Quote:
A large compilation of biblical atrocities can be found here; www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

None of which have anything to do with Jesus.

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

Quote:
You certainly did. The moneychangers episode, the insulting and threatening to their neighbours, the disrespect to his mother... Hey, the guy even whips a fig-tree for not giving fruits out of season; he probably should have been straightjacketed and put into a bedlam!

Specific verses, please.

Get any NT, I'm sure all versions include these more than famous episodes. John 2:4, Matthew 23:33, Matthew 23:17, John 8:44, Matthew 12:34, Luke 11:39, Mark 11:15.... to point out a few.

I gave you my explanations for the verses in question. You should discount them before pointing back to your own conclusions.

You gave apologetics, Christian traditionally biased interpretations. Those verses can be interpreted otherwise. Therefore, they are ambiguous. You say that the inconvenient verses are metaphores within the context. Why should a God would use metaphores of swords and war that would surely poison the understanding of his teachings? Isn't a God perfect? Cannot he even make a coherent speech?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Yeah, I receive this kind of reply from Christians a lot. They are so full of jealousy and envy because the figure of Jesus looks like a dwarf before him. Probably Gandhi wasn't the first person, but he was indeed the first that used "passive resistance" (he actually hated this term, for there is nothing passive in resistance) as a methodic program.

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

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.

Gandhi, great as he was, can't even begin to compare to Christ in terms of influence. Christianity has been the world's largest religion for centuries, and now encompasses roughly a third of the globe. Unfortunately, all the good influence Jesus has cast is often trumped by "Christian" atrocities of past years, all of which had often ambiguous ulterior motives.

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!

Once again, you guys gotta make up your mind. If you use "sword" as a metaphore, then Jesus himself could be just a metaphore. Is he?

More conservative Christians might quail at that suggestion, but I accept the possibility. Jesus as a metaphor might fill a lot of empty gaps. I often theorize the entire Bible as one big metaphor. However, regardless of your view, the message would remain consistant and applicable.

A sword is a weapon, not used for hunting or for anything else but killing other human beings. Then, a sword cannot mean "non violent conflict", it means war, that's clear beyond any twisted and biased Christian interpretation. Just read: "NOT... PEACE, BUT A SWORD" Upon those ominous words, any context is futile.

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.

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.

"You have died to the laws of Moses' teachings"

You gave apologetics, Christian traditionally biased interpretations. Those verses can be interpreted otherwise. Therefore, they are ambiguous. You say that the inconvenient verses are metaphores within the context. Why should a God would use metaphores of swords and war that would surely poison the understanding of his teachings? Isn't a God perfect? Cannot he even make a coherent speech?

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

Be kind. Be gentle. Give to the poor. Love one another. Those who use the sword will die by the sword.

Plain enough for my 10 year old sister to comprehend. Surely is must be clear enough for a Christian leader/Greek expert contemplating the invasion of a Muslim territory, right?




I will have to look at the other verses you mentioned when I have access to a Bible.

[micatala]

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!

Reminds me of a quote I ran across in my Day Planner

The deepest rivers flow with the least sound.

[Dilettante]

Jesus' followers are depicted in the NT as mostly peaceful, although we can't exclude that some (perhaps Judas Iscariot) might have been zealots. In the scene of Jesus' arrest Peter is supposed to have used a sword to cut off a soldier's ear, which was then miraculously restored by Jesus himself, together with an admonition to Peter. But of course the whole scene is probably fiction, since the soldiers would certainly have retaliated, killing Peter on the spot.

"Sword" used here generally refers to the conflict (albiet not necissarily violent) that will arise between believers and unbelievers, obedient and sinners.

Conflict, in most senses, presupposes violence. Perhaps not always aggression, though. I guess you are referring to non-aggressive conflict.

[Tilia]

Jesus' followers are depicted in the NT as mostly peaceful, although we can't exclude that some (perhaps Judas Iscariot) might have been zealots. In the scene of Jesus' arrest Peter is supposed to have used a sword to cut off a soldier's ear, which was then miraculously restored by Jesus himself, together with an admonition to Peter. But of course the whole scene is probably fiction, since the soldiers would certainly have retaliated, killing Peter on the spot.

That's fiction. Peter did not attack a soldier, but a servant of a Jew, albeit an important one.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

That's fiction. Peter did not attack a soldier, but a servant of a Jew, albeit an important one.

You're right, according to John's Gospel it was a High Priest servant or slave that Peter attacked, or perhaps he meant to attack the Temple authority and the servant stepped in to defend him. In any case, John does mention soldiers (Roman soldiers, even a cohort in some translations) being present at the scene. Of course, John's account may well be mainly fiction, only loosely based on actual facts. The whole story of Jesus' arrest and trial is fraught with improbable details (like the night trial).
Anyway, my point was that Peter reacted aggressively, but for some unexplained reason was not even arrested by the soldiers or Temple police. That's rather surprising.

[Tilia]

Tilia wrote:

That's fiction. Peter did not attack a soldier, but a servant of a Jew, albeit an important one.

You're right, according to John's Gospel it was a High Priest servant or slave that Peter attacked, or perhaps he meant to attack the Temple authority and the servant stepped in to defend him.

The Temple authority? What are you talking about?

John does mention soldiers (Roman soldiers, even a cohort in some translations) being present at the scene.

Maybe that's a fiction.

Of course, John's account may well be mainly fiction, only loosely based on actual facts.

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.

The whole story of Jesus' arrest and trial is fraught with improbable details (like the night trial).

You have a reason for stating this?

Anyway, my point was that Peter reacted aggressively, but for some unexplained reason was not even arrested by the soldiers or Temple police.

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

[MagusYanam]

Yeah, I receive this kind of reply from Christians a lot. They are so full of jealousy and envy because the figure of Jesus looks like a dwarf before him. Probably Gandhi wasn't the first person, but he was indeed the first that used "passive resistance" (he actually hated this term, for there is nothing passive in resistance) as a methodic program.

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

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.

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.

Once again, you guys gotta make up your mind. If you use "sword" as a metaphore, then Jesus himself could be just a metaphore. Is he?

Does he speak right or not? If he really meant "conflict" why didn't he say "conflict". A sword is a weapon, not used for hunting or for anything else but killing other human beings. Then, a sword cannot mean "non violent conflict", it means war, that's clear beyond any twisted and biased Christian interpretation. Just read: "NOT... PEACE, BUT A SWORD" Upon those ominous words, any context is futile.

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.

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.

Why should a God would use metaphores of swords and war that would surely poison the understanding of his teachings? Isn't a God perfect? Cannot he even make a coherent speech?

You have to understand (as fundamentalists do) that 'divinely inspired' does not mean and has never meant 'dictated by God'. 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.

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).