More From The Religion Of Peace!

[Darth Executor]

Jim had made the point about limiting justification to Christ's own words in comparing Christian and Islamic violence.

If you think Jesus explicitly mandates non-violence then you should agree with him that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity.

He's now operating outside of that scope. Which is fine, so long as he squares the circle.

Outside of that scope early Christians served in the Roman military (and presumably aided their conquests) so either way it seems to me that you're the one who has a pretty serious circle to square.

[rogue06]

How did the early Christians respond to lethal violence against friends and family? Where did Jesus sanction lethal violence against those who would kill even one's family? Where did Paul sanction such violence outside of government action?

The "rogue actions of terrorists" and the "necessary actions of the peoples attacked" end up getting pretty muddled depending on which side one finds himself on and how broad a scope he's allowed. I'm not claiming that acts of terror are justified in any way, of course, but you're operating inside of a very narrow scope with a preexisting bias to come to a conclusion about the causal relationship between violence and a particular religion. If you allow a broader scope, I think you'll agree that the situation can't be so cut-and-dry.

Toward the end of his ministry in Luke 22 Christ tells his disciples to purchase a sword even if they have to sell their cloak to do so. I was taught that He was preparing them to go out and start teaching the Gospel message after He was gone. And since they wouldn't be travelling in the relatively large groups that usually accompanied Jesus as he moved about that they would be more prone to attack from bandits that were notorious for inhabiting the roads and would therefore need something to defend themselves with.

[Darth Executor]

The best biblical arguments for violence are Matthew 22:36-40:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

And John 15:13:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

They both explicitly elevate "your neighbour" and "friends" above some lowlifes trying to murder you or your family.

[Sam]

Toward the end of his ministry in Luke 22 Christ tells his disciples to purchase a sword even if they have to sell their cloak to do so. I was taught that He was preparing them to go out and start teaching the Gospel message after He was gone. And since they wouldn't be travelling in the relatively large groups that usually accompanied Jesus as he moved about that they would be more prone to attack from bandits that were notorious for inhabiting the roads and would therefore need something to defend themselves with.

We discussed this recently in an earlier thread. Luke 22:27 (the subsequent verse) indicates Jesus' motive for telling the disciples to arm themselves: so that the prophesy in Isaiah that He be "counted among the transgressors" would be fulfilled. The disciples respond, saying that they have two swords and Jesus says "it is enough."

If His intent had been for all the disciples to arm themselves against attackers in the future, the text seems to argue against that interpretation and the disciples, by all accounts, did a poor job of following that intent after Jesus' death.

[rogue06]

We discussed this recently in an earlier thread. Luke 22:27 (the subsequent verse) indicates Jesus' motive for telling the disciples to arm themselves: so that the prophesy in Isaiah that He be "counted among the transgressors" would be fulfilled. The disciples respond, saying that they have two swords and Jesus says "it is enough."

If His intent had been for all the disciples to arm themselves against attackers in the future, the text seems to argue against that interpretation and the disciples, by all accounts, did a poor job of following that intent after Jesus' death.

While it does fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 53 it is also very practical advice. A man armed with a sword has always been seen as more intimidating to potential attackers than a man armed with a staff (which in Mark 6:8 he tells his disciples to take on their travels but not food or money) and can therefore prevent violence. Further the fact that Peter did in fact have a sword reveals that it was more than just fulfilling of a prophecy.

And if it was meant to ward off bandits then I don't see how you can claim that "the disciples, by all accounts, did a poor job of following that intent after Jesus' death." The fact that he said two swords would suffice demonstrates that he wasn't building a military force and that they should resist governmental authority. He meant for them to be capable of warding off bandits not the government. That Christ chastised Peter for using his sword against legal authorities tends to corroborate this.

[Sam]

While it does fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 53 it is also very practical advice. A man armed with a sword has always been seen as more intimidating to potential attackers than a man armed with a staff (which in Mark 6:8 he tells his disciples to take on their travels but not food or money) and can therefore prevent violence. Further the fact that Peter did in fact have a sword reveals that it was more than just fulfilling of a prophecy.

And if it was meant to ward off bandits then I don't see how you can claim that "the disciples, by all accounts, did a poor job of following that intent after Jesus' death." The fact that he said two swords would suffice demonstrates that he wasn't building a military force and that they should resist governmental authority. He meant for them to be capable of warding off bandits not the government. That Christ chastised Peter for using his sword against legal authorities tends to corroborate this.

That exegesis simply assumes your conclusion. That it might be practical advice to carry a sword for lethal defense does not suggest that Christ told His disciples to get swords for this reason. Indeed, if we agree that Christ explained His command as necessary to fulfill Isaiah's prophesy, we've reached a sufficient explanation for the passage.

We have no accounts of Jesus' disciples (or any ante-Nicean Christians, for that matter) acting in lethal self-defense after His death. We do have accounts of Jesus' disciples (and ante-Nicean Christians) refusing to act in lethal defense, either for themselves or for others.

If Christians want to justify lethal violence, even in self-defense, they have to look somewhere else than Jesus. He just didn't give that option.

[Darth Executor]

That exegesis simply assumes your conclusion. That it might be practical advice to carry a sword for lethal defense does not suggest that Christ told His disciples to get swords for this reason. Indeed, if we agree that Christ explained His command as necessary to fulfill Isaiah's prophesy, we've reached a sufficient explanation for the passage.

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.

What we get out of this passage is:

1. The apostles already had swords, since they presented two of them to Him upon request.
2. Jesus assumed that some might already have them and had no quarrel with it (hence "if you don't" rather than "since you don't" like one would expect if it had been forbidden).

Christ is clearly quite comfortable with His followers being armed, regardless of why He told them to make sure they have them in verse 37.

We have no accounts of Jesus' disciples (or any ante-Nicean Christians, for that matter) acting in lethal self-defense after His death. We do have accounts of Jesus' disciples (and ante-Nicean Christians) refusing to act in lethal defense, either for themselves or for others.

If Christians want to justify lethal violence, even in self-defense, they have to look somewhere else than Jesus. He just didn't give that option.

The option was already given by His Father and never retracted. Your post relies on Christ-Myther type logic (if not worse, as you require explicit reference to mundane activity).

[rogue06]

That exegesis simply assumes your conclusion. That it might be practical advice to carry a sword for lethal defense does not suggest that Christ told His disciples to get swords for this reason. Indeed, if we agree that Christ explained His command as necessary to fulfill Isaiah's prophesy, we've reached a sufficient explanation for the passage.

We have no accounts of Jesus' disciples (or any ante-Nicean Christians, for that matter) acting in lethal self-defense after His death. We do have accounts of Jesus' disciples (and ante-Nicean Christians) refusing to act in lethal defense, either for themselves or for others.

If Christians want to justify lethal violence, even in self-defense, they have to look somewhere else than Jesus. He just didn't give that option.

You are hand waving away all the things that corroborate it such as the fact that Jesus had no problem with the disciples arming themselves with staves (even telling them at one point that the only thing they needed to take was a staff -- not even food). A staff is a formidable weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use one. In fact it may well be that the disciples would have been more capable of dealing out deadly attacks with a staff than a sword -- something that they may not have been accustomed to handling. But someone armed with a sword is more likely to dissuade bandits from attacking them making violence less likely.

Further, the text demonstrates that the disciples had swords and carried them as well. This did not seem to upset Jesus much if at all. In fact, when Peter used his in the Garden of Gethsemane when Christ was arrested, He didn't chastise Peter for having a sword but for using it at an inappropriate time. He told Peter to re-sheath it not dispose of it.

As for the accounts of the disciples not acting in self-defense but accepting martyrdom this was in response to legal, government actions not marauding bandits. I know that at times they may seem hard to distinguish one from another () but there is a profound difference.

[Adrift]

Let's stick with any scholars who use the New Testament and/or the specific teachings of Christ to excuse or justify terrorism.

This is a tricky question to ask, because when we're talking about the largest religion in this great big world of ours, I think its possible, likely even, that someplace, somewhere, someone may have committed an act that we would certainly view as terrorism based on the work of some Biblical scholar they read. Not more than 70 years ago there were Bible scholars/Christian theologians who were Nazi sympathizers who wrote academic works that were anti-Semitic in nature (Gerhard Kittel for example). Obviously, any Christian scholarship that would conclude or incite one to terrorist violence is very likely to be fringe garbage, but it just goes to show that any good ideology can be warped in the wrong hands...and I think that's Sam's point.

[Sam]

You are hand waving away all the things that corroborate it such as the fact that Jesus had no problem with the disciples arming themselves with staves (even telling them at one point that the only thing they needed to take was a staff -- not even food). A staff is a formidable weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use one. In fact it may well be that the disciples would have been more capable of dealing out deadly attacks with a staff than a sword -- something that they may not have been accustomed to handling. But someone armed with a sword is more likely to dissuade bandits from attacking them making violence less likely.

Further, the text demonstrates that the disciples had swords and carried them as well. This did not seem to upset Jesus much if at all. In fact, when Peter used his in the Garden of Gethsemane when Christ was arrested, He didn't chastise Peter for having a sword but for using it at an inappropriate time. He told Peter to re-sheath it not dispose of it.

As for the accounts of the disciples not acting in self-defense but accepting martyrdom this was in response to legal, government actions not marauding bandits. I know that at times they may seem hard to distinguish one from another () but there is a profound difference.

It's not hand-waving any of these things away to note that alternate explanations track better with Christ's explicit teachings and, moreover, the arc of His teaching in general. You want to make inferences from the text that may or may not be supported — but your interpretation of Luke 22:26 grows weaker with every inference that's required. While we have the teachings of Christ and the early Church indicating no support for lethal violence even in self-defense, you are assuming that the presence of defensive weapons justifies such violence. That's a hard inference to justify, especially when one can easily interpret it with alternate explanations. Swords and staves, for example, could have been required for defense against wild animals. And while you distinguish between lethal violence in defense from government vs. bandits, this is, again, simply an inference that you're making that is not based on any of Christ's explicit teachings.

The point of all of this being that Jim was, on the one hand, criticizing Islam for what its religion allows based on Mohammed's teaching. So far as he agreed that Christ's teaching was radical pacifism, the argument could progress along the lines were taking. But now Jim wants Christianity to incorporate justified violence in what seems to be pretty clear contradiction to Christ's teaching. So either we can "work around" problematic teachings without invalidating the religion or we can't. If we can, Jim's criticism of Islam fails on his own logic. If we can't, then the violence y'all are justifying through extra-Gospel means isn't legitimate.

[Darth Executor]

Christ never explicitly taught pacifism, it's inferred by pacifists. I don't even see how a discussion on this topic can progress if something that obvious can't be agreed upon.

[Cow Poke]

This is a tricky question to ask, because when we're talking about the largest religion in this great big world of ours, I think its possible, likely even, that someplace, somewhere, someone may have committed an act that we would certainly view as terrorism based on the work of some Biblical scholar they read.

And IF that someplace somewhere someone incident took place, pretty much the entire other portion of Christianity would renounce it, and explain how faulty the "scholarship" is.

Not more than 70 years ago there were Bible scholars/Christian theologians who were Nazi sympathizers who wrote academic works that were anti-Semitic in nature (Gerhard Kittel for example). Obviously, any Christian scholarship that would conclude or incite one to terrorist violence is very likely to be fringe garbage, but it just goes to show that any good ideology can be warped in the wrong hands...and I think that's Sam's point.

And, again, even in your example, you seem to see that this is wacko, and would be condemned by Christianity pretty much universally.

Just out of curiosity, though, if Sam is so eloquent and knowledgeable, why do you feel compelled to try to make his points for him?

[Cow Poke]

Christ never explicitly taught pacifism, it's inferred by pacifists. I don't even see how a discussion on this topic can progress if something that obvious can't be agreed upon.

His 'discussion' with the moneychangers in the Temple wasn't so pacifist.

[Sam]

And IF that someplace somewhere someone incident took place, pretty much the entire other portion of Christianity would renounce it, and explain how faulty the "scholarship" is.



And, again, even in your example, you seem to see that this is wacko, and would be condemned by Christianity pretty much universally.

Just out of curiosity, though, if Sam is so eloquent and knowledgeable, why do you feel compelled to try to make his points for him?

McAllister1.jpg

[Cow Poke]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5827[/ATTACH]

Thank you, Sam, for that pretty picture representing a point that has NOTHING to do with my post.

That graphic is about the support for torture against TERRORISTS, Sam -- it is NOT about Christians supporting TERRORISTIC ACTS.

But....

I'll wait patiently for the Adriftian translation so I can understand it better.