Is non-violence a tenet of the teachings of Christ?

[Mark of Zorro]

Did Christ preach violence or non-violence, in part or as a whole?
Are Christians who start or participate in war directly violating the teachings of Christ?
This thread is the continuation of a discussion that began elsewhere and is continued below:
---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:53 ----------

Mike Cash: Ah, the modern pop-psychology self-help feel-good surfer Jesus approach to Christianity. Christianity without God. Gotcha.

Precisely false. I was totally thinking of the early Christians and the behavior and example of Christ himself.

Matthew 10:34
You were saying?
Scroll down to start at Item 1156 if New Testament is all you accept as being relevant.

Cherry picking from the Bible? Yeah, I used to make that fool mistake myself.
Let's quote that:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Explanation from your link:

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

There is some help there with context. Its not a literal war or a literal sword, but rather hate. And so the peace he refers to is not the opposite of actual literal war. So Jesus is not telling anyone to kill anyone. In other words, non-violence. You cherry picked.
You were trying to back up the following quote of yours with that Mike Cash:

After all, you're under some misapprehension that there is something inherently nonviolent about Christianity.

That was a fail, proven by your own link.
Naturally the next question is why Jesus wants to break up families. He was specifically referring to families that deny Christ.
Still that "peace on Earth" thing is a bit thorny isn't it. Really leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Is it a mere exaggeration whose use is limited to making a point within the context of that speech? Its common enough in the Bible.
But then you also simply have lots of problems with the lot of Matthew. He was not there for anything Jesus said and everything he wrote is a second hand account written decades after the fact. In other words, Matthew is just not very reliable.
And remember that I am speaking to you as an agnostic. I have nothing to lose in this fight (figuratively speaking, lest you think I mean a literal fight, m'kay?)

 

[Mike Cash]

I don't separate New Testament Christianity from its Old Testament foundations. Neither did any of the churches I attended while growing up.

If an absolute belief in non-violence were a central tenet of Christianity, I would expect to see more evidence of it from the last couple of thousand years. Not only have Christians been involved in violent acts entirely coincidental to their faith, they have a long and storied career of engaging in violence in the name of Christianity. Everything from the Crusades to killing each other because of disagreements over how to worship the Prince of Peace.

No matter what Christ himself may or may not have said, done, condoned, or forbidden during his time here on earth, whether the religion he left behind with his name on it is violent or non-violent is entirely a function of the behavior of the adherents of the religion. In other words, it doesn't matter much if Christ himself was nonviolent if centuries of his followers are going to engage in violence anyway.

 

[Wardibald]

A great lot of people have used many religions as an excuse to stir up brawls, skirmishes and total wars. Usually that doesn't define the religion used, but rather the provoker.

As far as I remember (I'm a bit rusty), Jesus only uses some minor violence once in his life: when he throws some merchants out of the temple. He even allows himself to be taken captive by the Romans to be tortured to death. When Petrus cuts off a Roman ear in his defense, he even heals that soldier.

Quoting from the bible is dangerous. This is (as the thread starter mentions) because the original source for the gospels has been lost in the ages, and even they have been copied over and over, by people who made their own translations. It's a rather complicated issue. For example:

The Book of Kells, a Celtic illuminated manuscript copy of the Gospels, uses the word "gaudium" meaning "joy" rather than "gladium," which means "sword" -- rendering the verse in translation: "I came not [only] to bring peace, but joy".
(But to bring a sword - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[Mark of Zorro]

No matter what Christ himself may or may not have said, done, condoned, or forbidden during his time here on earth, whether the religion he left behind with his name on it is violent or non-violent is entirely a function of the behavior of the adherents of the religion. In other words, it doesn't matter much if Christ himself was nonviolent if centuries of his followers are going to engage in violence anyway.

There you go. Like I said when this whole thing got started, there are real Christians and there are people who just call themselves Christians. Warring Christians are Christians in name only. They are not the real deal.

I don't separate New Testament Christianity from its Old Testament foundations. Neither did any of the churches I attended while growing up.

How many slaves did they own? Did they wear cloth of separate weaves? Did they make animal sacrifices? Smear lamb's blood on their doors in spring? Refrain from eating pork? I could go on forever.

The Old Testament is more there for Christians to read about what they consider to be history, not so much to apply to today. Unless you start getting into Matthew again...

But hey. Jesus didn't write the Bible did he?

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

"love thy neighbor"

 

[Mike Cash]

It is interesting that you seem not to be as questioning of the provenance, truthfulness, and accuracy of the New Testament as of the old.

Are you equally as accepting that the good words attributed to Christ are as historically reported as are the reports of his divine origin and miracles performed? It seems to me that verses aren't the only things that can be cherry picked from the Bible.

You're basing your faith on historical pronouncements from an individual on self-serving documents written centuries later.....while proclaiming no faith.

I think you're a closet Christian.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I think you're a closet Christian.

Who was this post to Mike?

 

[Blackthorne]

No; the idea that Jesus was a non-violent pacifist is a modernist notion. He clearly wasn't being non-violent when he whipped the moneychangers out of the Father's temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Alecksander]

If anyone reads the bible (new testament or old), which I'm assuming most of you have, then you know violence is a huge theme throughout. Wars, famines, plagues, the destruction of cities. Hell, an entire book in the bible is dedicated to violence (Revelations). Whether or not Jesus preached non-violence or violence... that's not for me to decide. It's really left to the interpretation of whoever is reading his preachings, as with anything else in this world. People can turn the bible into anything they want based on their interpretations. Thus the millions of religions in this world that interpret different teachings their way... including Christianity.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

No; the idea that Jesus was a non-violent pacifist is a modernist notion. He clearly wasn't being non-violent when he whipped the moneychangers out of the Father's temple in Jerusalem.

I think the true cracked modernist notion is that one single instance of violence forever and totally revokes one's status as non-violent. Sometimes it truly does seem as though human intelligence is going backward!

You just took the only recorded instance of Jesus being violent, and then lumped him in with the empire building, throw-them-to-the-lions Romans. That's bullocks.

I am non-violent, and 95 percent of my opinions, words and actions prove that. But I have been violent on occasion, and in certain situations, I can and do condone violence, for example, in self-defense.

Since Jesus had no authority to punish those dirty money changers with jail or fines, or call upon soldiers, police, or henchmen to throw them out of the temple, his only method of true punishment and removal was to whip them. To just bad mouth them would not have done a damned thing. Jesus made his point, and I think it was a worthwhile point, especially in referring to the money changers as thieves, because they were and many are today. (because they over-charge for their services far beyond what they actually need to live comfortably). And they were disrespectful of the temple and had no place there and they knew or should have known that.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Whether or not Jesus preached non-violence or violence... that's not for me to decide. It's really left to the interpretation of whoever is reading his preachings, as with anything else in this world.

Either its not for you to decide or it is. You can't say its for "whoever is reading" to decide, then opt yourself out.

Besides, I am asking for you to decide, if only for yourself, and state your decision.

People can turn the bible into anything they want based on their interpretations. Thus the millions of religions in this world that interpret different teachings their way... including Christianity.

True, but are the basics among conscientious, serious, and intelligent Christians really so different? I don't think so. And I think most of the BS interpretations can be weeded out through a fair analysis.

 

[BrianLewis]

I probably won't respond too much about this, but I feel like I should point out a few things. First of all, if our Muslim/Christian president declared war against another nation, that does not mean that it's a religious war. The only thing that makes a war a Christian war is if God commanded it. We should also remember that there have been "holy men" throughout history that have declared war of their own accord, and for their own interests.

Another thing to be aware of is that Jesus had a purpose the first time he came. The second time, he will come with a sword for a tongue. If you only consider half of the picture, your going to come to the wrong conclusion.

I also have to disagree that the old and new testament are at odds with each other. If they seem that way to you, you simply need to study it in more detail. I don't intend to insult anyone, but one doesn't learn by assuming they know everything, or only listening to others that act like they know everything.

One last thing I have to address is that people that regard Christianity as a peace movement equivalent to our modern day peace movement, they are sorely mistaken. There would be no Warrior's Prayer, or Gospel Armor, if that were the case. Those of us who are Christian are expected to defend our countries against incursions and protect the freedom of individuals so that they are free to come to their own conclusions about religious matters. Without those that were willing to do that, the world would still be festered with slavery to this day.

You can't universally claim that all war is bad. Some wars serve a profound purpose that liberate society from oppression or imminent oppression.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"One last thing I have to address is that people that regard Christianity as a peace movement equivalent to our modern day peace movement, they are sorely mistaken. There would be no Warrior's Prayer, or Gospel Armor, if that were the case. Those of us who are Christian are expected to defend our countries against incursions and protect the freedom of individuals so that they are free to come to their own conclusions about religious matters. Without those that were willing to do that, the world would still be festered with slavery to this day.

You can't universally claim that all war is bad. Some wars serve a profound purpose that liberate society from oppression or imminent oppression."

Do you have Biblical authority for that?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I also have to disagree that the old and new testament are at odds with each other. If they seem that way to you, you simply need to study it in more detail. I don't intend to insult anyone, but one doesn't learn by assuming they know everything, or only listening to others that act like they know everything.

So Jesus taught and/or believed that adulters should be stoned?

Look, I asked some questions about Old Testament rules that New Testament followers are not obeying. You need to address those directly instead of make blanket statements about there being no conflict.

One last thing I have to address is that people that regard Christianity as a peace movement equivalent to our modern day peace movement, they are sorely mistaken. There would be no Warrior's Prayer, or Gospel Armor, if that were the case.

This assumes that the Christians doing those have interpreted Christ's message correctly, or even care to.

Those of us who are Christian are expected to defend our countries against incursions and protect the freedom of individuals so that they are free to come to their own conclusions about religious matters.

Expected by who? Is that in the Bible?

Without those that were willing to do that, the world would still be festered with slavery to this day.

You must be kidding! I seem to recall a story about ancient Hebrews escaping slavery without lifting a weapon.

You can't universally claim that all war is bad. Some wars serve a profound purpose that liberate society from oppression or imminent oppression.

One side of every war is bad, and sometimes both are. WWI is a good example of how both sides were bad, as the war was fought merely to honor secret pacts, which should have been ignored. Wars that are truly about liberation are rare things, although I do support them.

The defensive side of a defensive war is always in the right, assuming they did not egg the other side on.

However, I think if I were Christian I would call all war bad. After all, even I died I would just go to heaven.

Can you provide any Biblical references or words of Christ that support any kind of war?

 

[BrianLewis]

You must be kidding! I seem to recall a story about ancient Hebrews escaping slavery without lifting a weapon.

In Exodus they were "delivered" it was not a pacifist movement. Thousands of Egyptians died chasing them. Just because exhausted slaves with women and children, food and goods did not fight, does not mean there was no battle.

The defensive side of a defensive war is always in the right, assuming they did not egg the other side on.

You are assuming that all of humanity treats their own in like manner.

However, I think if I were Christian I would call all war bad. After all, even I died I would just go to heaven.

What about others? Is life all about yourself, or would you protect those important to you? Are you bad for defending the weak?

---------- Post added at 16:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:38 ----------
RolandtheHeadless:

God himself commanded Israel to go to war against the Amalek in I Samuel, the Canaanites in Joshua and Judges, and to claim the "promised land" in Deuteronomy. Those books also gave reasons for those wars.

I'm not saying that wars of conquest are a part of our society of today, but they were important back then. Our wars today are to defend personal liberties, or to liberate the oppressed. The Korean conflict defended freedom of religion for South Korea. The Civil War is an example of liberation of person freedom. There is no book of Lincoln in the Bible to reference here; you would have to read about history to come to a conclusion on whether God gave Lincoln a need for such a change in the country.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Ah, the Old Testament. Quite an exciting read. Full of violence, sex, rape, murder, genocide, incest, bestiality, fratricide, human sacrifice, and divine wrath and jealousy by God, the Psychopath Supreme.

By the way, Christ appears in the Gospels of the New Testament. Where is your Christ-based authority?

 

[BrianLewis]

You were not specific.

Now, let me apply the same standards to your remarks: Tell me where God commands rape, murder, beastiality, incest and fratricide in the Bible. Violence is subjective, and there is nothing wrong with sex. I can easily tell you where he had punishments for each, but you seem to be more interested in slander than facts. Where is your basis for that statement?

Christ does say in Matthew that he came as a physical representation of God. Knowing that, how can you separate the two?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I thought you were responding to the thread topic and the context was a given. But on to your last post:

The Old Testament says to execute adulterers by stoning.

Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The two commands aren't compatible.

 

[BrianLewis]

You mean when 3 men were accusing a woman of adultery? Do you remember when He wrote in the sand and the 3 men ran off? He was addressing those 3 men and knew that they were guilty of the same crime, and it was most likely that she was involved with all 3 of them. Why else would they flee? Why she was not stoned is because she had no accuser after they ran off. The message there was that the law is equal to both men and women, not that adultery was perfectly fine.

There's no conflict between the Old and New Testament that careful study can't resolve.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

In Exodus they were "delivered" it was not a pacifist movement. Thousands of Egyptians died chasing them. Just because exhausted slaves with women and children, food and goods did not fight, does not mean there was no battle.

So you are saying there was a battle, but it was not mentioned in the Bible??

You are assuming that all of humanity treats their own in like manner.

I am not sure I understand you. But throwing an occupier out of your own land does not constitute defense for the occupier, if that is what you mean.

What about others? Is life all about yourself, or would you protect those important to you? Are you bad for defending the weak?

If I were Christian I would not raise a hand unless commanded by God or Jesus.

God himself commanded Israel to go to war against the Amalek in I Samuel, the Canaanites in Joshua and Judges, and to claim the "promised land" in Deuteronomy. Those books also gave reasons for those wars.

Exactly. Old Testament. Who were Christians supposed to war against in the New Testament? When and where did Jesus war or suggest or condone war?

"He says: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy'. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." Mt.5:43-45"

Elisa - Verkkokauppa

Is that quote correct?

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

You mean when 3 men were accusing a woman of adultery? Do you remember when He wrote in the sand and the 3 men ran off? He was addressing those 3 men and knew that they were guilty of the same crime, and it was most likely that she was involved with all 3 of them. Why else would they flee? Why she was not stoned is because she had no accuser after they ran off. The message there was that the law is equal to both men and women, not that adultery was perfectly fine.

There's no conflict between the Old and New Testament that careful study can't resolve.

Seems odd that if he supported stoning for adultery, he did not stone the four of them then, but let them all go. I don't think you have actually resolved anything.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Like many Christians, Brian Lewis, you seem to make up stuff to suit yourself that cannot be found in the Bible. Where did these three co-adulterers come from?

"And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them."
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?"

"This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him."

"But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground."

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."

"When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"

"She said, No man, Lord."

"And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:2-11 KJV)

 

[BrianLewis]

You are right, I must have confused the 3 sinners with another story. However, is their number that important? It is clear that someone was involved, yet no accuser remained. Do you think Jesus was writing lottery numbers in the sand? It had to be something profound enough to make both the accusers and tempters to leave without looking like a hypocrite. That's old testament law that requires 2 accusers to condemn someone.

The whole purpose for this situation was an attempt to entrap Jesus, since he said that he came to judge no one. Like I said in my first post, he had a purpose the first time was salvation, the second time is reserved for judgment. You can read in Matthew where Jesus himself states that he did not come to change a single jot of the law. How much more clear can you get?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

So you're saying the Christian thing is to stone adulterers?

I was raised a strict Christian, and that's not what I was taught.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Do you think Jesus was writing lottery numbers in the sand?

Why not?

It had to be something profound enough to make both the accusers and tempters to leave without looking like a hypocrite.

If it was so profound, surely it would have been documented. No. What was profound was him declaring that the first stone be cast by one without sin. The writing in the sand was just so that people could quietly make their escape while feeling that Jesus was not watching and judging them. At least that is my interpretation.

That's old testament law that requires 2 accusers to condemn someone.

And they were there and they did accuse her, right in front of Jesus and everybody.

The whole purpose for this situation was an attempt to entrap Jesus, since he said that he came to judge no one.

What is to judge? The people judged. Jesus had no need of saving the woman. He could have just said "Hey, you be the judge! You know God's law!"

You can read in Matthew where Jesus himself states that he did not come to change a single jot of the law. How much more clear can you get?

I seem to remember explaining why Matthew is not to be trusted earlier.

So Jesus did come to change the law, but he lets an accused adulterer off the hook in violation of the law?

Look, if you are Christian can you tell me the last time you stoned an adulterer?

If never, could you tell if you will the first chance you get? Why or why not?

 

[BrianLewis]

Judges are appointed. Any one that would presume to judge another without any proper authority to do so is in the wrong. Furthermore, those scribes and Pharacies were not following the lawn themselves, and were using it for political power. Furthermore, they set several traps in order to incarcerate Jesus, out of fear of losing their ill gotten power. How could it be fair to apply the law to the woman only? The only way to resolve the situation was to convince the accusers to leave.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I am prepared to accept that the incident of "cast the first stone" is not quite resolvable for either side. That means neither Roland and I, nor you BrianLewis have proven the intent of Jesus with regard to stoning adulterers. Yes, he was trying to extricate himself from a trap, but at the same time he ignored the law of God and further, when he let the adulterer go, he said "Go and sin no more". Sort of sounds like forgiveness, but okay, it might not be. It does irk me that he did not say "Go now, and stone ya later! (wink) if stoning adulterers was still God's law.

So okay, its unresolvable either way. His words might have had real meaning, or they might have just been bullcrap to baffle the crowd.

So should Christians be stoning adulters? Why or why not? Have Christians been sinning all this time by refusing to stone adulters? When Christians whine and complain that every once in a blue moon that a few Muslims in Timbuktu stoned an adulter, are they two-faced nutjobs?