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?"

[trencacloscas]

Okay then, so what would be the reasons for you to do anything, good or not?

And how do you know it's okay to do it?

Best interest? Mutual benefit? Conscience?
Ethics occupy a wide range of cooperation and self-determination.

It's all very well to think for yourself. But you are going to need to listen to the input of others as well.

Who said the contrary? But if a blindman guides another blindman, somebody gotta open his eyes.

[trencacloscas]

Divine or not, describing him as "picayune" is simply an aberration of reality. Sure, he was Jewish hobo..... a Jewish hobo who defied authority, inspired countless masses with revolutionary teachings, and supposedly started the largest religion on earth, known today as Christianity.

You gotta make up your mind, pal. Do you consider this guy God or not? This myth started the largest religion on Earth (due to massacres and infinite crimes, not only preaching), but the character wasn't exactly defying the Roman authority, only was supposed to create some local stir for the priesthood, and his "teachings" lead to no revolution at all.

Whether he was God, and whether he even existed is completely irrelevant. Point is, we have an entire book illustrating his teachings and feats. These teachings and feats have led billions into submission. Certainly worthy of discussion.

Christianity was imposed by force, politics and blood, sanctioned on the wings of a crumbling empire, imposed to the simple and the illiterate without any chance of rebellion. My point is that those "teachings" are no teachings at all. Not original, not intelligent, not organized. The ideas of stoics and previous oriental pacifists are far richer and meaningful. The only reason for taking notice of this fanatic cult is the horrible consequences. Without that, the whole corpus of ideas and acts contained in the NT is limited to an anecdote or a bad joke.

Maybe he was not perfect. So what? All people converge into hypocracy at one point or another. There is no reason to deny the general wisdom of his principles.

What wisdom? This is a tricky word indeed. What does wisdom mean exactly? I think it was Nietszche who said that the only wise man in the whole NT is Pilates, because he is the only one that makes the big question: "What is the truth?"

trencacloscas wrote:
No. The "questionable" are literal, immovable as rocks.

You have not sufficiently shown them as such.

You kidding????
-"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"
-"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword"
-"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me"
How much more literal do you want it?

Why would I acknowledge literal meaning in figurative scriptures?

OK, then it is only a literary text, no sacred value pleaded. Is this correct?

In your undying effort to smear this man's moral credibility you have developed the knack for picking and choosing interpretations that best fit your cause, regardless of contextual accuracy. All Greek/Jewish experts agree that the verses in question are metaphorical. If you were to take an unbiased stance on the issue you would probably agree.

You believe that Jesus is not divine, yet you continue to hold him to an impossible ethical standard. Such is the paradox of your position.

You don't seem to understand. It is not my paradox, it is yours. I don't believe in such character. I didn't even receive proper evidence of the existence of such person. If you consider him only a literary character, I can give my impressions on it, which happen to be not very flattering but in the end is like commenting on the personality of Othello, Tom Sawyer, Captain Picard or any other fiction character, and it only will have some subjective importance, no big deal.

But if you claim that he really existed and he is God, well... things change drastically. For his actions or words don't belong to a God, and that is easily proven.

The character depicted in the NT is definitely not a perfect one, as Christians pretended us to believe during centuries. He contradicts himself, and his "teachings" are pretty flawed. So, under what criteria should we measure his acts and words, as a fictional character or as an incarnated God?

trencacloscas wrote:
As we saw, Jesus himself is portrayed as violent and selfish sometimes, not only in sayings but in acts.

Who of us isn't?

We don't pretend to be gods, do we?

So a religious war is also limited by the gullibility of it's effectuators?

Not limited. But undoubtedly fueled!

Then it is a mere coincidence that religion appeared in direct correlation with the formation of independent thought?

Sorry, I don't think so.This is some big assertion, it requires massive argumentation and evidence. I gladly hear both, of course.

Anyway, no matter what religion represented in the past, now is synonim of massive enslavement.

Instinct. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli. God(s) are an inborn characteristic of all human cultures.

That's pretty relative. The ignorance of the forces that moves around us, generates myths and these myths sometimes defy the definitions of "God", which are drastically different in the diverse cultures. Pantheism, naturalism or reconversion, for instance, are not religious forms that actually fit in the concept. Moreover, the idea of "inborn pattern" would require deeper argumentation. Probably the notion of "atavism" would be more suitable. Since man can actually abandon atavisms, no "inborn pattern" is needed to be claimed for certain structures of behaviour. Some anthropologists would even affirm that the mere existence of atheists is proof of the difference.

Interesting, huh? Why did they never tell me this in catechetical class?

[Ami]

Best interest? Mutual benefit? Conscience?

Doesn't that relate to doing things to reward one self if not in effort to see others satisfied? Or wouldn't they be reasons to want to do things to please others?

Who said the contrary? But if a blindman guides another blindman, somebody gotta open his eyes.

In the land of the blind, what's the point, when opening your eyes doesn't cure blindness? lol

No, people will only see when they "remove the plate from their eyes" as the saying goes. Me included, I guess. It would be stupid of me to presume to think I should lead anyone, since I am a fool.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You gotta make up your mind, pal. Do you consider this guy God or not?

You're a little behind. Check the member title.


Anyway, I am still lost as to how you find justifictation for asserting this as any sort of relevance to the topic.

Do you consider this guy God or not? This myth started the largest religion on Earth (due to massacres and infinite crimes, not only preaching), but the character wasn't exactly defying the Roman authority, only was supposed to create some local stir for the priesthood, and his "teachings" lead to no revolution at all.

I would appreciate any references you can provide for these various claims (preferrably not a thread I have to sift through though, if you don't mind).

You kidding????
-"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"
-"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword"
-"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me"
How much more literal do you want it?

I have answered to those verses over and over, yet you continue to ignore them. I suppose you consider my interpretation of METAPHORICAL literature not viable due to my inherent bigottedness.

The first verse is stated for purposes of self defense.
The second does not refer to physical violence. Examine the contextpreceding the scripture.
The third verse is a parable (and does not even reference the sort of "slaying" you imply).

If you want to argue these explanations (of which I gave in greater detail many pages back), I will be glad to participate. But if you continue to assert that conspicuously METAPHORICAL literature must be taken LITTERALLY, then we will remain in this pointlessly circular exchange.

OK, then it is only a literary text, no sacred value pleaded. Is this correct?

Is there some universal law of logic decreeing all sacred text need be void of anything figurative?

Furthermore (once again), no sacred value is currently being pleaded (and never was, really). I am really getting sick of pointing this out.

You don't seem to understand............ If you consider him only a literary character, I can give my impressions on it, which happen to be not very flattering but in the end is like commenting on the personality of Othello, Tom Sawyer, Captain Picard or any other fiction character, and it only will have some subjective importance, no big deal.

No, you do not understand. This has been the subject since the beginning.

Christian violence. Did Jesus (whether being divine son of God, a literary figure, or some Jewish hobo) support violence? I argue again and again that he did not, and you continuously respond back debating his divinity.

Then it is a mere coincidence that religion appeared in direct correlation with the formation of independent thought?

Sorry, I don't think so.This is some big assertion, it requires massive argumentation and evidence. I gladly hear both, of course.

I'm not sure what you want me to show you. I feel the cave drawings pretty much speak for themselves.

Every independent culture sports their own individual illustration of God, most still in effect up to the present. Religion was a major aspect of early man. Scientists have even revealed a congenitive spiritual trait in humans, a characteristic that fluctuates or recedes depending on the particular individual.

[trencacloscas]

trencacloscas wrote:
Best interest? Mutual benefit? Conscience?

Doesn't that relate to doing things to reward one self if not in effort to see others satisfied? Or wouldn't they be reasons to want to do things to please others?

Ethics are about doing the right thing according to your own conscience first. So, the answer is "no". Decisions may coincide or differ from the aspects you mention, but ethically they not tie to them. Since Christian ethics are based in following commandments in a book, such ethics are probably the lowest in the scale.

In the land of the blind, what's the point, when opening your eyes doesn't cure blindness? lol

I don't know if allegory is the best way to understand this thing...
The point of opening your eyes is have the best chances available to avoid falling.

There are extreme examples, always. For instance, I remember that short story by H.G. Wells where the protagonist reaches the valley of the blindmen, and they finally convince him of ripping off his eyes.

[trencacloscas]

trencacloscas wrote:
but the character wasn't exactly defying the Roman authority, only was supposed to create some local stir for the priesthood, and his "teachings" lead to no revolution at all.

I would appreciate any references you can provide for these various claims (preferrably not a thread I have to sift through though, if you don't mind).

Easy. Did Jesus actually incite revolt against Romans? Whatever action, direct or indirect, stop paying taxes, refuse census, anything? I don't think so, give Caesar what is Caesars.
Did he even resist the intervention of Pilates?
Did he incite people to revolt against the priesthood? He only critiziced not got involved in direct action or incitation.
Then he or his teachings actually didn't cause any revolution against them.

Did Jesus (whether being divine son of God, a literary figure, or some Jewish hobo) support violence? I argue again and again that he did not, and you continuously respond back debating his divinity.

You seem to understand violence as a pure physical activity... Is that so?

I have answered to those verses over and over, yet you continue to ignore them. I suppose you consider my interpretation of METAPHORICAL literature not viable due to my inherent bigottedness.

No, I think your argumentation is very civil and honest. In fact, your interpetation couldn't be considered bigotted unless you claim it is the only possible one or refuse acknowledging other options.

If you want to argue these explanations (of which I gave in greater detail many pages back), I will be glad to participate. But if you continue to assert that conspicuously METAPHORICAL literature must be taken LITTERALLY, then we will remain in this pointlessly circular exchange.

I never said such thing. I never said that metaphorical literature must be taken literally. On the contrary, I told you many times that, if we consider the NT mere literature, there is no conflict at all but the trivial one of diverse interpretation. The subject, though, is "Christian violence", and Christian violence is based on assumptions; one of this assumptions is that the NT is the word of God, that Jesus is a God himself, and that those words are in fact sacred. If they are sacred, litteral value of words increase spectacularly and, on the other hand, anybody can actually base oneself's own acts following the metaphore on the wings of a different interpretation, right or wrong.

Do you want a strict literary analysis from me? OK, I already gave it to you. The main character of the NT, though flawed and incoherent in acts and words, is surely a pacifist in terms of social treatment at personal level, but his opinions about bigger social issues, like war, is not properly defined. He is even not very effective as a pacifist, since he does not expose any organized method of confrontation or define any nitid immediate goal for his actions. Incoherences leave open many doors for oblique interpretations, and literal words contribute to broaden gaps.

[Ami]

Ethics are about doing the right thing according to your own conscience first. So, the answer is "no". Decisions may coincide or differ from the aspects you mention, but ethically they not tie to them.

Don't they? Why not?

Can you explain further?

Are you reffering to selfishness being the root of altruism?

Or would this be more of a case of "following your own conscience instead of the mob", because the latter one would still involve pleasing someone; If say a mob wasn't acting too kindly towards a stranger, but you yourself decide to be different and help him, then you are still in a way pleasing someone; the stranger, maybe because of empathy or some other reason.

There are extreme examples, always. For instance, I remember that short story by H.G. Wells where the protagonist reaches the valley of the blindmen, and they finally convince him of ripping off his eyes.

I haven't read that one, (I think).

So how did they convince the guy to do that?

[McCulloch]

There are extreme examples, always. For instance, I remember that short story by H.G. Wells where the protagonist reaches the valley of the blindmen, and they finally convince him of ripping off his eyes.

I haven't read that one, (I think).
So how did they convince the guy to do that?

Check it out at Project Gutenberg.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Easy. Did Jesus actually incite revolt against Romans? Whatever action, direct or indirect, stop paying taxes, refuse census, anything? I don't think so, give Caesar what is Caesars.
Did he even resist the intervention of Pilates?
Did he incite people to revolt against the priesthood? He only critiziced not got involved in direct action or incitation.
Then he or his teachings actually didn't cause any revolution against them.

Good point, it is a perfect illustration of passive resistance, of which you have now illustrated Jesus heartily took part in. A perfect standard for future revolutionaries such as Ghandi, MLK, and Mandela.

Did he incite people to revolt against the priesthood, or the actions of the Romans? Yes, passively, as I have argued all along. His set of teachings and critical anaylisis of current practices differed greatly from the norm. How can you say that they did not incite any sort of revolution? The Christian uprising is well documented.

You seem to understand violence as a pure physical activity... Is that so?

By the standard definition, yes. "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing." It can be more inclusive, however. What meaning do you allude to?

The subject, though, is "Christian violence", and Christian violence is based on assumptions; one of this assumptions is that the NT is the word of God, that Jesus is a God himself, and that those words are in fact sacred. If they are sacred, litteral value of words increase spectacularly and, on the other hand, anybody can actually base oneself's own acts following the metaphore on the wings of a different interpretation, right or wrong.

But they cannot base their selfish acts on the many verses that plainly advocate otherwise. Such is the importance of considering the Bible as a whole.

Regardless, the interpretation of the said verses as litteral, no matter how justified it seems, does not change the verses' meaning in reality. Essentially, while it is easy for one to be deluded into believing it is all right to kill in the name of God, this does not necissarily mean that their actions are Biblically justified.

The main character of the NT, though flawed and incoherent in acts and words, is surely a pacifist in terms of social treatment at personal level, but his opinions about bigger social issues, like war, is not properly defined.

I agree, for the most part. Have we reached a consensus then?

[trencacloscas]

Good point, it is a perfect illustration of passive resistance, of which you have now illustrated Jesus heartily took part in.

Certainly not, since he had no plan or method.

But they cannot base their selfish acts on the many verses that plainly advocate otherwise. Such is the importance of considering the Bible as a whole.

Are you considering it as a whole? If you plead context, the context is the supposition of Jesus divineness. So...

trencacloscas wrote:
The main character of the NT, though flawed and incoherent in acts and words, is surely a pacifist in terms of social treatment at personal level, but his opinions about bigger social issues, like war, is not properly defined.

I agree, for the most part. Have we reached a consensus then?

Probably, but my above statement is a superficial one, for the core of the context is the divinity of Jesus.