any christians out there? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Matt R.

07-04-2006, 12:45 PM

Chez,
It's been awhile since I've studied specific Bible verses, but I think it is a mistake to take this passage at face value. I believe Jesus is specifically addressing the old teachings within ancient law, and he's trying to give a sharp contrast to what was formerly taught as right ("Eye for an eye.") to what he is teaching ("Turn the other cheek."). Essentially people were misunderstanding the old law and misapplying it for their own motives, and Jesus was trying to combat this.

His message is first and foremost "don't retaliate against those that harm you" (i.e. don't seek revenge simply for the sake of revenge). But he is also saying go a step beyond that and take a positive action. For instance, back then, if someone stole your tunic, he was presumably poor and in need of warm clothing, so Jesus is saying give him your cloak as well.

If I remember correctly, there is also some deeper meaning to the, "if someone strikes you on the right cheek..." comment. After a quick google, I found that a backhanded slap was considered twice as insulting as a slap with the palm (right cheek = backhanded, presumably we're talking about a right-handed person here). So basically Jesus is saying don't retaliate to the insult, but by exposing the left cheek you are making a statement that is somewhat along the lines of "I deserve respect, but I will not stoop to the level of revenge." There are other passages in the new testament where Jesus defends himself against being slapped. Not physically, but he verbally "retaliates" (I use quotes because it is not as revenge, but rather to defend himself and send a message).

Anyway, there is a LOT that could be said about the passage, and you have to look beyond the words to the deeper meaning. Look at the context of the times and what Jesus was responding to when he made that statement. The analysis is actually really complex, and I think it is very misleading to take the statement at face value. I saw some fairly decent material just by googling, but I have no idea how comprehensive it is.

luckyme

07-04-2006, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
.. but I think it is a mistake to take this passage at face value.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially people were misunderstanding the old law and misapplying it for their own motives, and Jesus was trying to combat this.

[/ QUOTE ]

and he cleared up the misunderstanding by stating things we can't take at face value?
Seems like a case of "welcome to the new law, same as the old law."
Seriously, sure there's contextual aspects to almost anything but being able to do free flowing interpretations of verses that were meant to clarify things just leaves christians in a worse mess they were in at the time. Now they have the old misunderstood verses to contend with and the new interpretative ones.
g'luck on getting christians to agree on what really is in the bible.

Sephus

07-04-2006, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and he cleared up the misunderstanding by stating things we can't take at face value?

[/ QUOTE ]

whose misunderstanding was he trying to clear up again?

Matt R.

07-04-2006, 05:47 PM

From what I gather, the people of that period were using the law of "Eye for an eye" to justify getting revenge themself, when the law was meant to DETER that type of violence. The law was in place to allow the judicial committees to use a punishment to fit the crime -- not for individuals to get revenge on their own terms. Apparantly people were using this law as justification to do just that, and were not taking the person to "court" or whatever they had back then.

luckyme,
Back in Jesus' time, it was probably much more clear to the people what he meant. The context was much easier to see. 2000 years later, this isn't the case and people take a few lines from the Bible and intepret it however they want without really taking the time to understand the circumstances. The Bible isn't an ABC guide to morality, and if you really want to get something out of it you often have to read between the lines. If you think about it, this really is how the book MUST be due to length restrictions -- it's already a huge book. The underlying meanings of the parables and whatnot are almost always pretty complex stuff, and you could fill up volumes trying to analyse it all. There really is no "easy" way to write these things down into a compact book, and thus you have to put in some effort if you really want to understand it.

Sephus

07-04-2006, 05:56 PM

was my post not clear or was it matt's fault for taking it too literally?

Matt R.

07-04-2006, 06:05 PM

I thought you were asking someone to clarify the law people were misunderstanding back then. Sorry if you were trying to be sarcastic.

Of course, nowadays it might be easy to misunderstand the teachings of someone 2000 years ago when you don't really know anything about how the people lived or what certain customs were like (e.g. the backhanded slap vs. the palm slap thing I mentioned).

I see what you are getting at now that you pointed out you weren't trying to be literal, but Jesus isn't around anymore to clear up the new misinterpretations.

Sephus

07-04-2006, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if you were trying to be sarcastic. I see what you are getting at now

[/ QUOTE ]

well i wasn't being sarcastic, the question was rhetorical, and i don't think you do because it looks like you're still trying to explain stuff to me and all i've done in this thread is agree with you.

basically it was my concise way of making the same point that you made in the post responding to it.

bunny

07-04-2006, 08:29 PM

I find matthew the clearest gospel in general and this verse in particular. I struggle to see how "Do not resist an evil person" is the best way of saying "Do not seek revenge on your own, but it's ok to be violent if you think someone is about to be violent to your loved ones".

It is possible the internet is correct in its provision of context. It is also possible that the people providing that context are trying to maintain a moral code which is inconsistent - ie simultaneously believing violence can be right, while also believing Jesus's admonition to not resist an evil person is also right.

Can you find any quote from jesus which suggests violence is ever justified?

LadyWrestler

07-04-2006, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I try to - usually it is easy enough (hypothetical scenarios notwithstanding). I agree about it being at the heart of Jesus's teachings - if you balk at this quote I dont think you are living as he said you should.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

Matt R.

07-04-2006, 09:10 PM

Sephus,
OK, I thought you were being ironic by pointing out people didn't understand Jesus either (I assumed you were agreeing with luckyme). And before that I thought you had a legitimate question. oops

bunny,
Nope, nothing specific regarding violence. But I don't know the Bible well enough to spout off specific verses from memory without doing research. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can chime in, as Jesus said some pretty controversial stuff that seemed really counter-intuitive to his overall message sometimes, and it wouldn't really surprise me if something like this was in there.

Matt R.

07-04-2006, 09:18 PM

bunny,
Just did a quick search, and apparently the line "do not resist the evil person" can easily be translated as "do not retaliate against the evil person" which are quite different. It wouldn't surprise me if it is an issue with the translation of an old old language.

BTW, I am Catholic, and although I agree with the "do not seek revenge" aspect of the teaching, to not offer ANY resistance under any circumstances if someone is trying to harm you is just silly. I think it is very very doubtful that Jesus was speaking in absolutes like this, and I am relatively sure there was a lot more to his statement than "never offer resistance to an evil person".

RJT

07-04-2006, 09:46 PM

It isn’t very easy, chez. But, yeah I try my best. Of course I fail at times.

This type of mindset - lifestyle, whatever one wants to call it is (IMO) one of the most important tenets of Christianity. I imagine non-Christians don’t witness this much in us. If it is any consolation to you - neither do I. And by the way, I spend quite a bit of time helping around my parish.

I often facetiously tell my pastor that my volunteer work will either strengthen my faith or make me lose my faith entirely. I often leave the place shaking my head in bewilderment.

RJT

07-04-2006, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
…They wage war against evil men…

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure the Biblical passage and the above quote are in conflict - not sure they relate to the same issues.

[ QUOTE ]
…they advocate violence defense of property…

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I agree that this is a true statement.

[ QUOTE ]
…they defend themselves against the agressor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure Jesus meant to let someone kill you if that is what you are suggesting.

Peter666

07-04-2006, 11:25 PM

Every teaching must be taken in context of the whole. Advocating complete pacifism because of one passage from the Bible would be a misguided error and contrary to the example of Christ.

The same Jesus who told others to turn the other cheek whipped money lenders out of the Temple.

MidGe

07-05-2006, 02:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

…they defend themselves against the agressor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure Jesus meant to let someone kill you if that is what you are suggesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he meant to justify pre-emptive strikes... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

PS: on a different note, good on you bunny! Maybe there are a few true christians out there.

yukoncpa

07-05-2006, 02:46 AM

Hi RJT

This may be a matter of life or death. Please verify this scripturally.

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure Jesus meant to let someone kill you if that is what you are suggesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

So that Surftheiop, or like minded people, don’t die needlessly.

[ QUOTE ]
I would never kill someone in defense of only myself if thats what your asking?

[/ QUOTE ]
Surftheiop

bunny

07-05-2006, 04:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Every teaching must be taken in context of the whole. Advocating complete pacifism because of one passage from the Bible would be a misguided error and contrary to the example of Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true and I wasnt advocating pacifism because of this quote. I was (and do) advocate pacifism as a consequence of christianity because of jesus's teachings as a whole.

I cant find anywhere where he ever advocates violence - to me the defence of violent christianity found by matt on the internet sounds pretty thin given the clear language with which Jesus advocates non violence here and elsewhere.

Do you have any examples of where Jesus suggested it was possible to be both violent and good?

bunny

07-05-2006, 04:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
bunny,
Just did a quick search, and apparently the line "do not resist the evil person" can easily be translated as "do not retaliate against the evil person" which are quite different. It wouldn't surprise me if it is an issue with the translation of an old old language.

[/ QUOTE ]
Translation is clearly an issue - I was using the New International Version which is hardly contentious though. It also seems to me that "Do not retaliate" doesnt make as much sense as the given translation since given it is followed by giving your cloak to someone who sues you for a tunic, walking 2 miles when they ask for 1, etc...

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I am Catholic, and although I agree with the "do not seek revenge" aspect of the teaching, to not offer ANY resistance under any circumstances if someone is trying to harm you is just silly. I think it is very very doubtful that Jesus was speaking in absolutes like this, and I am relatively sure there was a lot more to his statement than "never offer resistance to an evil person".

[/ QUOTE ]
It may be silly to you - to me it is difficult but the right thing to do. I think Jesus often spoke in absolutes, I find the gospels refreshingly easy to read as scripture (certainly moreso than the rest of the bible or other faiths sacred texts which I find tough going) largely because it is simple and straightforward. Jesus teachings are clear and easy to understand imo - I will confess to also being not-well-versed biblically so perhaps there are passages where he outlines where violence is ok - I dont remember any of them though.

To me, any defence resting on the old testament has to be questioned since the quote from matthew that we are discussing specifically says to ignore what was the old law - now there is a new law to follow.

Matt R.

07-05-2006, 09:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I cant find anywhere where he ever advocates violence - to me the defence of violent christianity found by matt on the internet

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anything I've referenced *advocates* violence. I'm just saying there are some circumstances which are not at all impossible where complete pacifism doesn't make any sense. For example, I doubt Jesus would claim that we should have allowed someone like Hitler to do whatever he wants.

[ QUOTE ]
It also seems to me that "Do not retaliate" doesnt make as much sense as the given translation since given it is followed by giving your cloak to someone who sues you for a tunic, walking 2 miles when they ask for 1, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus was not just saying "do not retaliate", but go a step further when the situation warrants it. When someone needs your tunic, give him your cloak, when someone needs you to walk with them for 1 miles, walk with them for 2, etc. Basically do not seek revenge, and don't hold a grudge so that you will still help them when they are in need of it. I think if you interpret it this way you can substitute "do not retaliate" in for "do no resist" and it makes perfect sense.

I'm not sure how accurate the translation issues are, but I've definitely heard this point argued many times before by people who know a lot about Bible interpretations. I don't think it's just an issue with an unreliable internet source.

bunny

07-05-2006, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cant find anywhere where he ever advocates violence - to me the defence of violent christianity found by matt on the internet

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anything I've referenced *advocates* violence. I'm just saying there are some circumstances which are not at all impossible where complete pacifism doesn't make any sense. For example, I doubt Jesus would claim that we should have allowed someone like Hitler to do whatever he wants.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that claiming violence is acceptable in some circumstances(or that pacifism doesnt make sense) is advocating violence. How can it not be?

I think pacifism is consistent with so much of what he said (and, in my view, makes sense). He didnt condone violence against the occupying romans, nor the police when they came to arrest him. I would like to see some kind of argument as to how you could ever commit a violent act whilst following his teachings of love, compassion and forgiveness.

bunny

07-05-2006, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus was not just saying "do not retaliate", but go a step further when the situation warrants it. When someone needs your tunic, give him your cloak, when someone needs you to walk with them for 1 miles, walk with them for 2, etc. Basically do not seek revenge, and don't hold a grudge so that you will still help them when they are in need of it. I think if you interpret it this way you can substitute "do not retaliate" in for "do no resist" and it makes perfect sense.

I'm not sure how accurate the translation issues are, but I've definitely heard this point argued many times before by people who know a lot about Bible interpretations. I don't think it's just an issue with an unreliable internet source.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I didnt mean to imply your source was unreliable, I only mentioned youd found it on the internet to avoid labelling it "your" argument. My main response was that mainstream bible translations use "do not resist" so that seems to provide evidence against the mistranslation claim. After all the NIV wasnt just dashed off - I'm sure every nuance was debated thoroughly.

Peter666

07-06-2006, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every teaching must be taken in context of the whole. Advocating complete pacifism because of one passage from the Bible would be a misguided error and contrary to the example of Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true and I wasnt advocating pacifism because of this quote. I was (and do) advocate pacifism as a consequence of christianity because of jesus's teachings as a whole.

I cant find anywhere where he ever advocates violence - to me the defence of violent christianity found by matt on the internet sounds pretty thin given the clear language with which Jesus advocates non violence here and elsewhere.

Do you have any examples of where Jesus suggested it was possible to be both violent and good?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is true that Jesus never advocated violence to spread his religion. His mission was spiritual, and coercing people into it is kind of pointless, as one cannot be forced to love God or anything for that matter. That would be slavery and not love.

But that one can be violent and good at the same time is common sense. As somebody once pointed out, a man defending his family from armed robbers is an example of being both violent and good. Jesus was violent in the temple and is goodness Himself.

Also, everyone has heard of the famous passage in the Garden when Jesus said, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Some have erroneously concluded that this advocates pacifism, but what they don't consider is why the apostles were carrying swords in the first place? They were obviously doing it around Jesus all the time and He never told them it was wrong. In fact, he told before going to the garden to sell their cloaks and buy swords, and they actually offered two to Him! (Luke 22 36) He also told Peter to put his sword back in its sheath and keep it for another circumstance as this was not the time for it.

Obviously what Jesus teaches against is using violence as an end in itself. But there is a time and a place for it.

bunny

07-06-2006, 12:12 PM

Well thanks for the examples. I'll have to reread as I didnt take the throwing the moneylenders from the temple to be violent. Similarly, I dont remember Jesus telling Peter to use his sword at a later time - just to not use it.

I find it interesting you cite common sense as, to me, common sense says you cannot show love, compassion and forgiveness to someone you are being violent to.

kurto

07-06-2006, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I find it interesting you cite common sense as, to me, common sense says you cannot show love, compassion and forgiveness to someone you are being violent to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... what if you're 'knocking some sense' into someone?

revots33

07-06-2006, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see some kind of argument as to how you could ever commit a violent act whilst following his teachings of love, compassion and forgiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]

If killing Hitler could save 6 million innocent people, isn't that the compassionate and loving thing to do?

And I don't necessarily see the "turn the other cheek" teaching as the heart of Christianity. I'd say many of Jesus' other teachings in the beatitudes are equally important to Christians. It seems to me he was advocating peace ("blessed are the peacemakers") when possible, not pacifism in all situations.

He certainly viewed violence as a last resort, which probably explains his violent overturning of the moneychangers' tables. He likely tried repeatedly to make them respect the temple through his preaching, but finally saw that more drastic action was needed to get his message across.

bunny

07-06-2006, 12:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If killing Hitler could save 6 million innocent people, isn't that the compassionate and loving thing to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
The difficulty I have with thought experiments of this sort is the assumption that it's either murder or death of millions. In life there are usually many options.

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't necessarily see the "turn the other cheek" teaching as the heart of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I more meant the "love your enemy" part - to me most of the rest follows if you can actually achieve this.

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 01:35 PM

I'm admittedly not much of a Bible scholar, but to me the example of Jesus and the moneylenders is almost exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. 'Common sense' would say that knocking over their tables and kicking them out was the non-violent way of solving the problem. He could have just whooped some ass. But he didn't. How can you claim that this is an example of violence being ok as a last resort? He hurt the tables? I don't know that the Last Temptation of Christ version is how it really went down, or at least how it is represented in the Bible.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see some kind of argument as to how you could ever commit a violent act whilst following his teachings of love, compassion and forgiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]

If killing Hitler could save 6 million innocent people, isn't that the compassionate and loving thing to do?

And I don't necessarily see the "turn the other cheek" teaching as the heart of Christianity. I'd say many of Jesus' other teachings in the beatitudes are equally important to Christians. It seems to me he was advocating peace ("blessed are the peacemakers") when possible, not pacifism in all situations.

He certainly viewed violence as a last resort, which probably explains his violent overturning of the moneychangers' tables. He likely tried repeatedly to make them respect the temple through his preaching, but finally saw that more drastic action was needed to get his message across.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm astonished by much of this. 'Do not resist evil' its not ambiguous. There's no get out because evil people do really bad things - that's kinda goes with being evil.

and if someone tries to steal your wallet, let them have it and offer them your watch as well.

If someone hits you then don't hit them back.

Is this how you attempt to live your life?

chez

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 01:49 PM

Hi RJT
[ QUOTE ]
…They wage war against evil men…

I am not sure the Biblical passage and the above quote are in conflict - not sure they relate to the same issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you wage war against evil men without resisting them. When Bush and others talk about war against evil regimes, can that be christian?

[ QUOTE ]
…they advocate violence defense of property…
Not sure I agree that this is a true statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
This whole thread started when peter666 was saying its okay to be violent to burglars. Sadly I think many 'christians' would endorse shooting or beating up a burglar. I'd be happy to be corrected.

[ QUOTE ]
…they defend themselves against the agressor.

Not sure Jesus meant to let someone kill you if that is what you are suggesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that but it is the example he gave isn't it? Folk are deperately trying to justify violence towards people because Jesus beat up a few tables, maybe they should follow his lead on this as well.

chez

revots33

07-06-2006, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The difficulty I have with thought experiments of this sort is the assumption that it's either murder or death of millions. In life there are usually many options.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But surely some sort of violent action would be required to stop Hitler, since he was protected by so many soldiers who shared his ideology. I do not think it would have been possible to stop Hitler without violence of any kind, or without injuring or killing others in the process.

Taken to the extreme, if everyone in the world was a pacifist except Hitler and his troops, the entire world would be under German rule and every Jew on the planet would be wiped out. I don't think Jesus would advocate sitting back and letting that happen.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The difficulty I have with thought experiments of this sort is the assumption that it's either murder or death of millions. In life there are usually many options.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But surely some sort of violent action would be required to stop Hitler, since he was protected by so many soldiers who shared his ideology. I do not think it would have been possible to stop Hitler without violence of any kind, or without injuring or killing others in the process.

Taken to the extreme, if everyone in the world was a pacifist except Hitler and his troops, the entire world would be under German rule and every Jew on the planet would be wiped out. I don't think Jesus would advocate sitting back and letting that happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you need a little faith that that wouldn't happen. That's if you believe of course.

chez

revots33

07-06-2006, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need a little faith that that wouldn't happen. That's if you believe of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally am a lapsed Catholic who would probably define myself as agnostic these days. So no, I don't believe.

But even if I did - I do not think self defense or justified violence would be incompatible with Christianity anyway. If a man breaks into your house with a gun, and is about to kill your children, I'd say good luck hoping your faith will not allow it to happen. And I can't imagine any person, Christian or not, who would denounce the man who protects his children with force in that instance.

Peace is a noble thing to wish for. Pacifism however, is a black and white code of conduct, in a decidedly gray world.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 02:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you need a little faith that that wouldn't happen. That's if you believe of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally am a lapsed Catholic who would probably define myself as agnostic these days. So no, I don't believe.

But even if I did - I do not think self defense or justified violence would be incompatible with Christianity anyway. If a man breaks into your house with a gun, and is about to kill your children, I'd say good luck hoping your faith will not allow it to happen. And I can't imagine any person, Christian or not, who would denounce the man who protects his children with force in that instance.

Peace is a noble thing to wish for. Pacifism however, is a black and white code of conduct, in a decidedly gray world.

[/ QUOTE ]
From a secular point of view your post makes complete sense.
If you believe then its a nonsense.

If you believe that god is good, omniscient etc etc and god says not to resist then it must be right not to resist.

Sure its understandable that people fail to do this, its really tough and no one should condemn someone for failing and for their entirely understandable human weakness but that's not the same as saying its right to resist - the bible couldn't be more clear that resistence isn't right.

chez

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 02:23 PM

Just because you don't think it makes sense or that it seems grossly impractical to you does NOT mean that it isn't exactly what Jesus was talking about. Thats the problem that we secularists have...you don't get to just change what Jesus taught to fit whatever you want to do, and still call yourself a Christian. If you can find some evidence or support for your idea that Jesus advocated violence in some circumstances, then please do. But if you can't, and still want to do violence, you can't just say 'it's common sense' and still call yourself a Christian.

Peter666

07-06-2006, 02:38 PM

"And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen: and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew." John 2:15

It looks like Jesus whipped the hell out of everybody and everything first before dumping the tables of money. And if you walk into a persons store and start trashing the place, that is definitely a violent act that will generally lead to more trouble.

Peter666

07-06-2006, 02:46 PM

It's ok to be violent to anybody when you feel your life or the lives of others are in immediate danger. Anyone who tries to use "Christian" teaching to say otherwise is wrong.

A burglar in your house presents that problem. Now shooting him in the back on the front lawn while he is walking away with your TV is a different matter. There are ethical and moral norms which provide the answer to every scenario.

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen: and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew." John 2:15

It looks like Jesus whipped the hell out of everybody and everything first before dumping the tables of money. And if you walk into a persons store and start trashing the place, that is definitely a violent act that will generally lead to more trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he went about making a ruckus, and yelling at them to "Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!" but he didn't hurt anyone. I will agree with you that this is a gray area, and that this qualifies as violent under some definitions. Any sort of energetic display can be considered violent. But he didn't hit anyone. He didn't do any sort of physical damage to anyone. He poured their coins out and upended their tables, but he didnt destroy anything. Really...he just kicked them out.

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 02:48 PM

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's ok to be violent to anybody when you feel your life or the lives of others are in immediate danger. Anyone who tries to use "Christian" teaching to say otherwise is wrong.

A burglar in your house presents that problem. Now shooting him in the back on the front lawn while he is walking away with your TV is a different matter. There are ethical and moral norms which provide the answer to every scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you say but the bible says not to resist and it says very few things as clearly as it says this.

If you've got a quote saying its okay to resist evil if lives are in danger then go ahead and give it. I wonder just what kind of evil you envisage that doesn't put lives in danger.

what about simple cases. If a burglar demands your wallet would you offer him your watch as well? or you going to deny Jesus on that too.

chez

Peter666

07-06-2006, 04:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's ok to be violent to anybody when you feel your life or the lives of others are in immediate danger. Anyone who tries to use "Christian" teaching to say otherwise is wrong.

A burglar in your house presents that problem. Now shooting him in the back on the front lawn while he is walking away with your TV is a different matter. There are ethical and moral norms which provide the answer to every scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you say but the bible says not to resist and it says very few things as clearly as it says this.

If you've got a quote saying its okay to resist evil if lives are in danger then go ahead and give it. I wonder just what kind of evil you envisage that doesn't put lives in danger.

what about simple cases. If a burglar demands your wallet would you offer him your watch as well? or you going to deny Jesus on that too.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deny Jesus on what? You are just going to take any passage you see fit, put whatever interpretation on as you see fit, and basically follow your own man made religion. But this is not true Christianity which has an objective moral authority in the Catholic Church, is guided by the Holy Spirit and has the deposit of faith contained in the Bible and Tradition.

If you want to interpret "Thou shalt not Kill" as not to step on a bug, well congratulations, you live in a free society and can do so. But it means nothing to those whom God gives the Faith.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's ok to be violent to anybody when you feel your life or the lives of others are in immediate danger. Anyone who tries to use "Christian" teaching to say otherwise is wrong.

A burglar in your house presents that problem. Now shooting him in the back on the front lawn while he is walking away with your TV is a different matter. There are ethical and moral norms which provide the answer to every scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you say but the bible says not to resist and it says very few things as clearly as it says this.

If you've got a quote saying its okay to resist evil if lives are in danger then go ahead and give it. I wonder just what kind of evil you envisage that doesn't put lives in danger.

what about simple cases. If a burglar demands your wallet would you offer him your watch as well? or you going to deny Jesus on that too.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deny Jesus on what? You are just going to take any passage you see fit, put whatever interpretation on as you see fit, and basically follow your own man made religion. But this is not true Christianity which has an objective moral authority in the Catholic Church, is guided by the holy Spirit and has the deposit of faith contained in the Bible and tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]
So nothing.

You claim to believe that Jesus is god but he says do not resist evil and you feel free to ignore it. No justification from jesus, nothing at all. That's man-made religon for you, no faith in jesus there.

No answer to the mugging question either. Nice and simple no defending innocent lives, clear directon from jesus, I take it you ignore that as well.

Claiming to believe and then ignoring whatever doesn't suit. That's not belief that's just self-interest.

chez

Peter666

07-06-2006, 04:45 PM

"Claiming to believe and then ignoring whatever doesn't suit. That's not belief that's just self-interest."

That pretty much sums up your position perfectly.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Claiming to believe and then ignoring whatever doesn't suit. That's not belief that's just self-interest."

That pretty much sums up your position perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I've gone for the perfectly simple logic that if you believe in jesus as god then you would not dismiss what he says.

You wouldn't offer the mugger your watch when he only asks for your wallet. Worse, you would resist violently. Simply, not christian.

chez

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Claiming to believe and then ignoring whatever doesn't suit. That's not belief that's just self-interest."

That pretty much sums up your position perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you pick that part of his post to respond to, and ignore the rest of it, which has been asked of you several times in this thread? How can you choose to ignore something that is obviously fairly clearly and literally decreed by Jesus?

And the early Christians WERE extreme pacifists. It wasnt until Constantine that Christian doctrine began to shy away from the absolute refusal to do violence.

Matt R.

07-06-2006, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nice and simple no defending innocent lives, clear directon from jesus,

[/ QUOTE ]

I still do not know where you are getting this. Do you dismiss the possibility that 2000 year old Aramaic, when translated to modern day English, potentially loses some of its meaning? Do you *really* think Jesus thought we should offer no resistance to a tyrant bent on genocide, for instance? The far, far more likely explanation is that Jesus was referring to the revenge aspect of justice that people were resorting to in his day (this is precisely the inquiry he was responding to in the passage). Not that you should not defend yourself or other innocent people in the face of immediate danger.

Also, all of his examples were very specific, and in none of those situations was an innocent life in danger. In each of his examples from the passage, the "evil person" was simply being a nuisance. The example Jesus gave of "if someone steals your tunic, give him your cloak as well" would only be close to your wallet analogy if say, the person was starving to death and desperately needed money. In my opinion, only THEN would Jesus advocate giving him more than he asks in order to help him out. If the person was just someone who got a kick out of stealing (and you actually needed the money to feed your family), I would imagine Jesus would condone defense of your property. Using the least amount of violence possible of course.

Of course this is all my personal speculation, and you can continue to argue that Jesus meant "Let evil people do whatever they want under any circumstances". Once you realize the context of his quote though, and the fact that he was speaking a language which has multiple translations in modern day English, I think it is borderline absurd to think Jesus, when he actually spoke those words, actually meant you should allow evil people to harm innocents regardless of the circumstance.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice and simple no defending innocent lives, clear directon from jesus,

[/ QUOTE ]

I still do not know where you are getting this. Do you dismiss the possibility that 2000 year old Aramaic, when translated to modern day English, potentially loses some of its meaning? Do you *really* think Jesus thought we should offer no resistance to a tyrant bent on genocide, for instance? The far, far more likely explanation is that Jesus was referring to the revenge aspect of justice that people were resorting to in his day (this is precisely the inquiry he was responding to in the passage). Not that you should not defend yourself or other innocent people in the face of immediate danger.

Also, all of his examples were very specific, and in none of those situations was an innocent life in danger. In each of his examples from the passage, the "evil person" was simply being a nuisance. The example Jesus gave of "if someone steals your tunic, give him your cloak as well" would only be close to your wallet analogy if say, the person was starving to death and desperately needed money. In my opinion, only THEN would Jesus advocate giving him more than he asks in order to help him out. If the person was just someone who got a kick out of stealing (and you actually needed the money to feed your family), I would imagine Jesus would condone defense of your property. Using the least amount of violence possible of course.

Of course this is all my personal speculation, and you can continue to argue that Jesus meant "Let evil people do whatever they want under any circumstances". Once you realize the context of his quote though, and the fact that he was speaking a language which has multiple translations in modern day English, I think it is borderline absurd to think Jesus, when he actually spoke those words, actually meant you should allow evil people to harm innocents regardless of the circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a fair point but applies to everything, as Bunny pointed out its in the current versions of the bible and its very clear. Dismiss this and why not dismiss everything else.

[ QUOTE ]
I would imagine Jesus would condone defense of your property. Using the least amount of violence possible of course.

[/ QUOTE ]
I struggle to see how you cans possible get this but if you can then how can you not also imagine that Jesus would condone homosexuality, women priests, unmarried sex, prostitution, eternal salvation for non-believers ... just about anything really.

What can't be honestly done is to dismiss the bits that are really tough. there's a lot of merit in the not resorting to violence idea, its a lot less borderline aburd than stuff like the doctrine of original sin /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Personally I think Jesus goes too far but his morality is extremely well founded (but then I just think he was a basically good bloke not divine). Its really tough to follow so it just gets dumped. We then then find any amount of violence up to and including the mass slaughter of Iranians being advocated by so called christians.

chez

Peter666

07-06-2006, 07:15 PM

The questions are being asked on a false presupposition, namely: this is my personal intrepretation, now I want you to answer questions based on my subjective premise.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that stealing is a sin in the first place, and if you aid someone in theft, which is what you do by giving your wallet away for no reason, that you are aiding the criminal and promoting his behaviour. So you can both go to Hell.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 07:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that stealing is a sin in the first place, and if you aid someone in theft, which is what you do by giving your wallet away for no reason, that you are aiding the criminal and promoting his behaviour. So you can both go to Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]
That about sums your view up and speaks for itself.

I would happily argue against it but all that relevant to this thread is how stunningly unchristian it is.

chez

godBoy

07-06-2006, 07:35 PM

Why do you feel it neccessary to judge a person simply on their beliefs? I don't, a person is person. That persons beliefs only add to that person, they don't define them. It is possible to constantly work towards a goal like the likeness of christ.. Yes, there have been many many hipocritical christians in the world but many sincerely strive to walk the walk. As for the OP, yes I try to live that one out too.

madnak

07-06-2006, 07:36 PM

Of course. The most reliable translation actually states, "And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, kick his [censored] ass!"

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 07:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel it neccessary to judge a person simply on their beliefs? I don't, a person is person. That persons beliefs only add to that person, they don't define them. It is possible to constantly work towards a goal like the likeness of christ.. Yes, there have been many many hipocritical christians in the world but many sincerely strive to walk the walk. As for the OP, yes I try to live that one out too.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstand me. A christian is someone who tries to live in the manner taught by christ.

When someone lives in a manner completely opposed to those teaching then they are not christian whatever they claim to believe.

I dont think it matters what they believe but if someone does believe then they don't ignore what Jesus said. I don't believe but sometimes call myself christian because I think Jesus had the right idea about morality (though he takes it too far imo)

chez

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 09:55 PM

bunny

07-07-2006, 12:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Deny Jesus on what? You are just going to take any passage you see fit, put whatever interpretation on as you see fit, and basically follow your own man made religion. But this is not true Christianity which has an objective moral authority in the Catholic Church, is guided by the Holy Spirit and has the deposit of faith contained in the Bible and Tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have faith in God but not in the catholic church. Can I ask what makes you think the Catholic Church is a good arbiter of what the bible means? Specifically I would ask:

Why is the church not prone to failings given that it is composed of flawed humans?

How do you reconcile your faith in the Catholic Church given it's previous policy reversals? (eg condemning as heresy opponents of the copernican system. The sale of indulgences.)

Dont you think the many quotes from jesus re the saduccees, pharisees, etc is a warning not to take organised religion too seriously through bowing to rules and authority but to live Christianity in your heart?

Peter666

07-07-2006, 01:44 AM

Good questions, I will tackle each separately.

"Why is the church not prone to failings given that it is composed of flawed humans?"

It is in fact due to human failings that God had to provide a system to guarantee that what is essential to our salvation be always known and taught free from error.

The humans within the Church are prone to failings and exhibit it all the time. What the Catholic Church is not prone to is doctrinal or dogmatical error. Everything that the Church teaches is either directly from Christ or a clarification of his teachings as given to the Apostles. Nothing new can be added to this "deposit of Faith" and it is basically passed down from generation to generation.

If there wasn't protection from God, than it is almost guaranteed that what was originally taught will somehow get skewed or perverted. It would have been pointless for Him to teach us anything in the first place, as we would be sure to mess it up with time. Those people who do not acknowledge the authority God has given the Catholic Church end up making their own private "Christian" religion based on their subjective opinions.

"How do you reconcile your faith in the Catholic Church given it's previous policy reversals? (eg condemning as heresy opponents of the copernican system. The sale of indulgences.)"

When making a doctrinal or dogmatic statement, the Church has never reversed its teaching or policy, nor could it without ceasing to be Christ's Church. The examples you bring up are generally misconceptions about historical events. Copernicus was a good Catholic, I don't know what exactly you are referring too. The same with indulgences which are still in place. A popular misconception is that the Church attacked Galileo for his science and called it heresy, which was not the case. He was put under house arrest because of some personal attacks he made against the Pope which was incitement to riot during the Protestant revolt, but not because of science.

"Dont you think the many quotes from jesus re the saduccees, pharisees, etc is a warning not to take organised religion too seriously through bowing to rules and authority but to live Christianity in your heart?"

People often use their "heart" to justify all sort of deviant behaviour. The problem is, people have to be taught what Christianity is before they can form sound judgements on how to live it. The Church is the authoritative teaching instrument appointed by God.

bunny

07-07-2006, 02:34 AM

Thanks for your answers...

[ QUOTE ]
The humans within the Church are prone to failings and exhibit it all the time. What the Catholic Church is not prone to is doctrinal or dogmatical error.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it is humans saying "THIS is the correct doctrine" arent they bound to get it wrong from time to time?

[ QUOTE ]
Everything that the Church teaches is either directly from Christ or a clarification of his teachings as given to the Apostles. Nothing new can be added to this "deposit of Faith" and it is basically passed down from generation to generation.

If there wasn't protection from God, than it is almost guaranteed that what was originally taught will somehow get skewed or perverted. It would have been pointless for Him to teach us anything in the first place, as we would be sure to mess it up with time. Those people who do not acknowledge the authority God has given the Catholic Church end up making their own private "Christian" religion based on their subjective opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see it as trying to live as jesus taught - that traditionally "bad people" would be welcomed by God when pious religious authorities may not be, no matter how closely they adhered to the rules taught to them by a church.

[ QUOTE ]
"How do you reconcile your faith in the Catholic Church given it's previous policy reversals? (eg condemning as heresy opponents of the copernican system. The sale of indulgences.)"

When making a doctrinal or dogmatic statement, the Church has never reversed its teaching or policy, nor could it without ceasing to be Christ's Church. The examples you bring up are generally misconceptions about historical events. Copernicus was a good Catholic, I don't know what exactly you are referring too. The same with indulgences which are still in place. A popular misconception is that the Church attacked Galileo for his science and called it heresy, which was not the case. He was put under house arrest because of some personal attacks he made against the Pope which was incitement to riot during the Protestant revolt, but not because of science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasnt specifically referring to galileo but the catholic church statement that the world moved in circles round the sun (as I understand it it was backed up by papal decree as "given from god" or whatever that latin phrase is...) later they retracted this view. Similarly, indulgences were sold in the middle ages so you could pay your penance before you committed your sin. This practise was abolished later and seems hard to fit into a christian understanding of sin and forgiveness.

[ QUOTE ]
"Dont you think the many quotes from jesus re the saduccees, pharisees, etc is a warning not to take organised religion too seriously through bowing to rules and authority but to live Christianity in your heart?"

People often use their "heart" to justify all sort of deviant behaviour. The problem is, people have to be taught what Christianity is before they can form sound judgements on how to live it. The Church is the authoritative teaching instrument appointed by God.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's true your heart can lead you astray - it can also lead you to do good things. Jesus spoke so often about living your faith and not paying attention to rules. That the most important thing was to love, not observe the sabbath, make proper sacrifices, etc. The trouble is that, no matter what the chain of teachers leading back to the apostles, the catholic church has also been a human institution concerned with personal power (albeit made into that by humans) - people were tortured by the inquisition in the name of christ and the catholic church. Doesnt that alarm you or worry you on some level?

Lestat

07-07-2006, 03:47 AM

The entire Catholic religion is filled with contradictions and violence is just one of them.

The new testament is a lot of love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc., but the old testament is filled with violence. It's my understanding that God committs most of the violence Himself.

So why wouldn't Catholics pick and choose whatever suits their fancy at the time? That's the beauty of religion, isn't it?

chezlaw

07-07-2006, 04:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The entire Catholic religion is filled with contradictions and violence is just one of them.

The new testament is a lot of love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc., but the old testament is filled with violence. It's my understanding that God committs most of the violence Himself.

So why wouldn't Catholics pick and choose whatever suits their fancy at the time? That's the beauty of religion, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only for people who don't believe. If they just use religon for whatever suits them then I agree with you. People who actually believe something cannot ignore the ramifications of what they believe.

Somone who believes the wife is watching does not cheat on her. Someone who believes Jesus is divine cannot ignore his teachings.

Its not a particular problem of catholicism, some of the catholics who post here also take very seriously the teachings of christ. Others seem to hate just about everything christ stood for.

chez

luckyme

07-07-2006, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So why wouldn't Catholics pick and choose whatever suits their fancy at the time? That's the beauty of religion, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]Only for people who don't believe.
If they just use religon for whatever suits them then I agree with you. People who actually believe something cannot ignore the ramifications of what they believe.
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

At one level below that - People are attracted to their individual spin on religious beliefs by their underlying personality and psychological needs. If we took 6 very different posters on here into the 17th century islamic culture they would not be cookie-cutter muslims, they would be espousing and stresses those aspects of it that fit their makeup. Just as today we get Muslims claiming their religion is one of peace and one of Jihad.
None of them, then or now, would not believe what they are selling.
Religious style and choices is no different than poker style and games we chose or clothes we wear or how we wear them ... our actions and choices are influenced heavily by who/what we are.
If you watch a players bridge style and approach you may be able to predict quite well how he'll respond to specific backgammon situations even if you've never seen him play backgammon. ( it's actually a fun exercise).

Religion is no different, it reflects us, not the other way around. ( no, it's not as anywhere near as simple as my 2 sentences on it.)

In this thread, you go to a christian church, you're a christian. the teachings of christ are not that relevant when it comes to the definition. I'm a Republican once I buy the membership, it doesn't matter if I've read the manifesto. So, we end up with a world full of christians that don't follow the teaching of christ. oh well.

chezlaw

07-07-2006, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In this thread, you go to a christian church, you're a christian. the teachings of christ are not that relevant when it comes to the definition. I'm a Republican once I buy the membership, it doesn't matter if I've read the manifesto. So, we end up with a world full of christians that don't follow the teaching of christ. oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that's all people claimed then fine. if peter666 and others want to say they are christians purely by virtue of belonging to a christian church then they are christian.

However, I doubt that's the claim, certainly wasn't last time we had a discussion like this when no christian argued against my loose partial definition that a christian is someone who attempts to follows the teachings of christ (or something like that).

Anyway labels don't matter much. Just change the thread title to 'anyone who attempts to follow the teachings of christ out there?'

chez

revots33

07-07-2006, 11:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Only for people who don't believe. If they just use religon for whatever suits them then I agree with you. People who actually believe something cannot ignore the ramifications of what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a recently departed (from the church) "pick and choose" Catholic, I think you'd be surprised to see how many people truly believe in Christ, but still follow their own internal codes as well. This does not mean their entire belief is a sham, or null and void.

Example: The church's views on homosexuality are crystal clear. Now I'm no bible scholar so I can't say if Jesus expressly addressed homosexuality in the New Testament. However, the church's doctrine is that it is a sin. Do you think every practicing Catholic honestly believes this? And that if they don't, they must therefore not truly believe in Christ?

A more likely explanation is that they cannot reconcile the Church's position on homosexuality, with Christ's admonishions to love your neighbor. So, they decide that the sanction against homosexuality was likely devised by men, not God - and ignore it.

Whether this makes them "bad" Catholics is open to debate, just as a person who feels they have the right to defend themselves when attacked is open to debate. Some may interpret Jesus' teachings as simply to avoid violence when possible. This does not mean that all except 100% pacifists are not true believers of Christ. Their opinion on any 1 single issue does not define them.

I think the spirit of Jesus' words is the important thing, not literally obeying every word as if it was a command. When Jesus says turn the other cheek, he is making a point about how we should try to live, not ordering us to let ourselves get beaten to death if attacked.

chezlaw

07-07-2006, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the spirit of Jesus' words is the important thing, not literally obeying every word as if it was a command. When Jesus says turn the other cheek, he is making a point about how we should try to live, not ordering us to let ourselves get beaten to death if attacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
i agree totally, that's eaxctly what i'm talking about.

Sadly many christians seems to be totally opposed to the spirit of jesus' words.

BTW the bit about homosexuality is so vague it's ridiculous. Its amazing how such a weak piece of scripture is so strongly insisted upon as holy writ by some of the same people who oppose the bits that are so clear.

chez

luckyme

07-07-2006, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i agree totally, that's eaxctly what i'm talking about.

Sadly many christians seems to be totally opposed to the spirit of jesus' words.

BTW the bit about homosexuality is so vague it's ridiculous. Its amazing how such a weak piece of scripture is so strongly insisted upon as holy writ by some of the same people who oppose the bits that are so clear.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the aspect of 'belief' I was addressing. The parts that fit a believer jump out of the page. The parts that don't suit seem vague and require 'interpretation' or 'taken in context'... lot's of reasonable doubt around when needed. Eventually each 'christian' ends up where they were headed anyway and can claim they are 'following christ' and feel good about themselves.

That's how it appears to me and looked at that way then it's not amazing but natural/normal that christ was the last christian and from parts I remember he wasn't that good at it.

chezlaw

07-07-2006, 09:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i agree totally, that's eaxctly what i'm talking about.

Sadly many christians seems to be totally opposed to the spirit of jesus' words.

BTW the bit about homosexuality is so vague it's ridiculous. Its amazing how such a weak piece of scripture is so strongly insisted upon as holy writ by some of the same people who oppose the bits that are so clear.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the aspect of 'belief' I was addressing. The parts that fit a believer jump out of the page. The parts that don't suit seem vague and require 'interpretation' or 'taken in context'... lot's of reasonable doubt around when needed. Eventually each 'christian' ends up where they were headed anyway and can claim they are 'following christ' and feel good about themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
There a lot of truth in that but its not entirely subjective.

If someone reads this thread and claimes that chezlaw says that Christ endorses torturing small fury animals then they are simply wrong - there are some matters of fact about what texts say (it's tough to prove whch allows people who aren't objective to cling to any claim they see fit).

Similarly there are matters of fact about what the bible is understood to say. The points about translation and context are valid but they're not really in dispute here, its not like anyone is using a translation that says anything substantially different.

If this was an argument about different guidence from jesus, or different interpretations of the guidence then again you may have a point but that's not happening either. Instead the only response to the the clear guidence from jesus regarding violence and resistence is that he got angry and beat up a few tables - from that somehow we are supposed to ignore all the guidence to the contrary and be as violent as we see fit - it just isn't there. Wherever the endorsment of violence comes from it isn't anything to do with Jesus.

So we're left with a more or less agreed text that has jesus teaching love/peace/non-violence and not teaching violence. If the conclusion from that is violence then it is not following the teachings of christ and hence not christian (by the partial definition given earlier).

chez

godBoy

07-07-2006, 10:13 PM

I don't agree with your definition of a christian, A christian is someone who believes Christ is who he said he was.

Although I know where you are coming from, Jesus said something along the lines of people will know that you are christian because of the love you have for one another. If someone claims to believe in who Jesus was, you should definately be able to see their lives being shaped into his likeness.

I think it speaks a lot louder when someone acts like Christ rather than talking like him. Bono is a authentic cristian.

I did misunderstand you, thanks.

godBoy

07-07-2006, 10:22 PM

Yes, I agree with that.

But you can't say, oh your a christian.. I know a lot about you then. That belief will only add to what's there to begin with..

So a person is not a 'christian' who is also like this..
But rather a person like this who is also a christian.

I think many responses here are directed firstly to that persons 'picture' of a christian, then what they have to say.

bunny

07-07-2006, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There a lot of truth in that but its not entirely subjective.

If someone reads this thread and claimes that chezlaw says that Christ endorses torturing small fury animals then they are simply wrong - there are some matters of fact about what texts say (it's tough to prove whch allows people who aren't objective to cling to any claim they see fit).

Similarly there are matters of fact about what the bible is understood to say. The points about translation and context are valid but they're not really in dispute here, its not like anyone is using a translation that says anything substantially different.

If this was an argument about different guidence from jesus, or different interpretations of the guidence then again you may have a point but that's not happening either. Instead the only response to the the clear guidence from jesus regarding violence and resistence is that he got angry and beat up a few tables - from that somehow we are supposed to ignore all the guidence to the contrary and be as violent as we see fit - it just isn't there. Wherever the endorsment of violence comes from it isn't anything to do with Jesus.

So we're left with a more or less agreed text that has jesus teaching love/peace/non-violence and not teaching violence. If the conclusion from that is violence then it is not following the teachings of christ and hence not christian (by the partial definition given earlier).

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me from peter's reply that there are two sources of divine revelation for him. Complementary sources but separate nonetheless - the bible and the catholic church. I think he would say that to be christian you have to believe in both (the bible = the teachings of jesus and the church = how that should be interpreted).

With regard to your point about there being some limits to how you can interpret a text. That is not true if there is some code (ie method of interpretation in this case) which reveals what was really meant. Personally, I dont think this is what jesus wanted you to do (and I think there is some evidence for that in the bible) but I think it is the key to where christians like peter and me differ.

bunny

07-07-2006, 11:38 PM

Hi Godboy, I'd be intereted to hear your views on the pacifism vs occasional violence issue. I have wondered whether australian catholics are closer to pacifist than american catholics (as it seems to me that australians in general are less comfortable with violence than americans in general)

chezlaw

07-07-2006, 11:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With regard to your point about there being some limits to how you can interpret a text. That is not true if there is some code (ie method of interpretation in this case) which reveals what was really meant. Personally, I dont think this is what jesus wanted you to do (and I think there is some evidence for that in the bible) but I think it is the key to where christians like peter and me differ.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's true but only in the sense that what I said in this thread could be a coded way of saying that I believe jesus endorses the torture of small furry animals.

If anyone is to argue for such a code and be a christian then they need to demonstrate where jesus teaches of the coding. Otherwise the generated interpretation is nothing to do with jesus.

chez

godBoy

07-08-2006, 03:36 AM

Well i'm not a catholic, I feel there a much better ways to solve problems than war. Though I think there are times for that too. I don't have a strong opinion either way, sorry.

There is actually a lot of racist tension at the moment in our country.. This has brought a lot of violence with it. It's been quickly adressed and handled well - I don't see it getting out of hand.

I would say in general I advocate pacifism, yet I would protect my family at any cost.

whiskeytown

07-08-2006, 03:57 AM

yes.

RB

MidGe

07-08-2006, 04:07 AM

I think what becomes apparent from this thhread is that all claims being made by some christians about the popularity of they religion as needing an explanation or being able to be used as a "proof" that it is the right religion is absolute bunk. There seem to be so many different "christianities" from the black to the lily white with all shades of grey in between.

Lestat

07-08-2006, 06:04 AM

With regard to your point about there being some limits to how you can interpret a text. That is not true if there is some code (ie method of interpretation in this case) which reveals what was really meant. 

What do you think was meant when Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing), a camel has a better chance to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man entering the kingdome of heaven?

Clearly, there are many very wealthy Christians in this world who find a way to (mis)interpret this passage to mean what they want it to mean and fit it to benefit them.

Also, I'm not sure, but I think somewhere in the bible it says (again paraphrasing), for every dollar you make, give half to someone less fortunate. Now some Christians feel this is too much, so maybe they give a lesser percentage (again, to fit their needs or whatever benefits them). I know of no one who gives anywhere near half their wealth to charity. So what gives here?

OrigamiSensei

07-08-2006, 06:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny asked this of Peter666. I've asked it as well. It seems the heart of christianity to me.

Not only do christians seem to ignore this they act in a way that is entirely counter to it. They wage war against evil men, they advocate violence defense of property, they do not give to those that ask, they defend themselves against the agressor.

Yet it's so clear.

[ QUOTE ]
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

[/ QUOTE ]

Do any of our posters at least try to live up to this part of the bibles teachings?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
If one simply takes things literally and out of context this is hardly the most difficult passage to be found. More difficult would be the portions telling us "if thine eye offend thee pluck it out" and "if thine hand offend thee cut it off". Once we recognize that hyperbole can be an effective teaching technique by shocking people out of their habitual thinking and once we search through the rest of the scriptures for related passages on revenge and handling things when people do us wrong the message becomes quite clear. In this teaching Christ was trying to reach those who had let hatred and a lust for revenge seep into their lives. If someone did a bad thing to them they would not rest until they personally "got even". Naturally the result of "getting even" is often an escalating circle of horrible behavior. This mindset was longstanding and ingrained, even among those whose claimed to be the children of God. So how best to combat this vicious cycle of neverending revenge and retribution?

Time after time we are admonished not to take revenge into our own personal hands. In the Old Testament where "an eye for an eye" often prevailed we see the establishment of cities of refuge in Deuteronomy 19 and and Joshua 6. If a man killed another accidentally he was able to flee to a city of refuge where he could live in safety until justice could be done fairly as opposed to having a family member of the victim taking revenge. However, if the person who committed the slaying was found guilty of murder in a fair trial he was handed over to the avenging family member for justice to be done. This is hardly an endorsement of lawless anarchy where evildoers are intended to go unpunished.

In Leviticus 19:18 we read "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; I am the Lord." Again we are not to take vengeance into our own hands. That scripture and theme is echoed by the apostle Paul in Romans 12:17-21: "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. / If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peacably with all men. / Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord. / Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. / Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Verse 20 echoes the admonition found in Proverbs 25:20-21.

King David writes in Psalm 37:8-9: "Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. / For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth."

The original passage being discussed draws from Isaiah 50:6: "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." This describes not only a desired way of behavior but also prefigures the ill treatment of Christ prior to his crucifixion. The forbearance of others as they do wrong to you is also discussed in Proverbs 19:11: "The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression." In other words, let it go - but the passage is also very clear that this act of letting it go can be accomplished with dignity.

The importance of just and lawful governance but their importance is emphasized repeatedly throughout the Bible. Proverbs is full of such admonishments. Christ himself said to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Under one of the most corrupt and evil regimes ever to persecute the Christian church the apostle Paul writes in Romans 13:1-4 from which I'll excerpt a few quotes: "Let every sould be subject unto the higher powers." "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. / For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minster of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." This is a pretty clear endorsement of the earthy governmental structures to execute justice and punish evil.

Thus the message is clear. When wrong or evil is done to you:

1) If you can possibly do so, let it go. Forgive.
2) Don't recompense evil with evil. Treat your enemies with kindness and compassion.
3) Let God or his appointed authority handle the justice part of it.

I understand this post is highly unlikely to convince anyone of anything but hopefully it provided a few suggestions for further study to those with an interest in the subject.

One last thing. The OP said "it seems like the heart of Christianity to me." I'd like to share Christ's opinion on the subject. In Matthew 22:36-40 a Pharisee attempts to trick him and asks what is the greatest commandment. His answer is enlightening and simple: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. / This is the first and greatest commandment. / And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. / On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." It really is that simple at its heart. Love God, love others. The rest follows naturally from there.

MidGe

07-08-2006, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
More difficult would be the portions telling us "if thine eye offend thee pluck it out" and "if thine hand offend thee cut it off". Once we recognize that hyperbole can be an effective teaching technique by shocking people out of their habitual thinking and once we search through the rest of the scriptures for related passages on revenge and handling things when people do us wrong the message becomes quite clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite clear??? Quite muddled in my opinion... It surely is not making it easy. I think your god is a tricky one.. he allows the devil to interpret whichever way, and people follow! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chezlaw

07-08-2006, 08:23 AM

An interesting post, a few point:

I'm not suggesting anything literal, its all about the spirit of christs teachings. Literal interpretaion is a non-sensical idea.

Nothing in your post suggests that violence from a christian is correct.

The bit about government is fine but I assume you're not suggesting that the roman rulers were christian.

chez

bunny

07-08-2006, 09:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
 With regard to your point about there being some limits to how you can interpret a text. That is not true if there is some code (ie method of interpretation in this case) which reveals what was really meant. 

What do you think was meant when Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing), a camel has a better chance to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man entering the kingdome of heaven?

Clearly, there are many very wealthy Christians in this world who find a way to (mis)interpret this passage to mean what they want it to mean and fit it to benefit them.

Also, I'm not sure, but I think somewhere in the bible it says (again paraphrasing), for every dollar you make, give half to someone less fortunate. Now some Christians feel this is too much, so maybe they give a lesser percentage (again, to fit their needs or whatever benefits them). I know of no one who gives anywhere near half their wealth to charity. So what gives here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the meaning of the first is that people who devote their time to amassing wealth are missing the point of life. I dont know this second quote - I'm surprised there's something as quantitative as donate half your income. This could well be problematic for me (although maybe I can use the "income tax is a redistributive tax" argument so I'm probably giving more than half of my (gross) income anyhow... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

bunny

07-08-2006, 09:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well i'm not a catholic, I feel there a much better ways to solve problems than war. Though I think there are times for that too. I don't have a strong opinion either way, sorry.

There is actually a lot of racist tension at the moment in our country.. This has brought a lot of violence with it. It's been quickly adressed and handled well - I don't see it getting out of hand.

I would say in general I advocate pacifism, yet I would protect my family at any cost.

[/ QUOTE ]
My apologies, somehow I got the impression you were a catholic. I agree about the racism based violence and the way it was handled - obviously it was an awful incident but I think the community concerned dealt with it very well. The underlying racism is still there of course... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

bunny

07-08-2006, 10:45 AM

Thanks for your post, Origamisensei. You mention that several of the quotes are admonitions not to take vengeance into our own hands. Doesnt this suggest pacifism? (Albeit a strange form of pacifism where it is ok for authority to punish but not the individual)

None of the quotes you cited seem to do anything other than confirm that you shouldnt commit violence against a murderer who has broken into your home - you should leave that to the rulers. (This was the hypothetical situation which was the catalyst for this thread)

I cant imagine jesus ever advocating violence (and in the old "what would jesus do?" tradition, I'm sure he wouldnt meet a prospective murderer with pre-emptive violence). I expect I would commit violence in this hypothetical (although I have been through many extremely aggressive, dangerous and violent situations without having to resort to this) - nonetheless, I would regard it as a failing in moral behaviour if I did (even to protect innocent life) - I have always found a peaceful solution and think that is exactly "what jesus would do"

Peter666

07-08-2006, 11:36 AM

"I wasnt specifically referring to galileo but the catholic church statement that the world moved in circles round the sun (as I understand it it was backed up by papal decree as "given from god" or whatever that latin phrase is...)"

This has never been Church doctrine and could not be as the Church's spiritual authority is over faith and morals alone.

"But it is humans saying "THIS is the correct doctrine" arent they bound to get it wrong from time to time?"

There is a process that must be done in a specific way called an ex-cathedra statement that insures the Holy Spirit guarantees the doctrine. Only the Pope or a Council with the Pope can make such statements.

"indulgences were sold in the middle ages so you could pay your penance before you committed your sin"

That was an abuse and was never Church doctrine. It was basically the work of some scam artists.

"people were tortured by the inquisition in the name of christ and the catholic church. Doesnt that alarm you or worry you on some level?"

This was a political action done to protect the integrity of the newly conquered Spanish State. If you belong to a faith that claims exclusive and inerrable authority, and you are running a country whose official religion is the same, than the most dangerous and vile things are heretics. First, heretics damn others by spreading false doctrine. Second, they propagate revolution in the state. As such, the most severe punishments possible should be reserved for heretics. If eternal salvation is not a priority for a person, than the combatting of heresy looks out of place. But if eternal salvation is a person's priority, which it should be, combatting heresy is of utmost concern.

OrigamiSensei

07-08-2006, 12:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your post, Origamisensei. You mention that several of the quotes are admonitions not to take vengeance into our own hands. Doesnt this suggest pacifism? (Albeit a strange form of pacifism where it is ok for authority to punish but not the individual)

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, and I'm not trying to play Internet debate games here, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by pacifism. If you mean not using violence to achieve political or social (or even personal) goals a la the core pledge of Libertarianism then yes, Christianity advocates pacifism under the commandment "thou shalt love others as thyself."

If you mean that "strange form of pacifism where it is ok for authority to punish but not the individual" you do understand that we live under that system in the United States (and I assume in mnay other democratic societies), right? Vigilantism is frowned upon and punished. If a person commits a crime and you catch them later you are not permitted to mete out the punishment, you are to turn them over to the authorities. Even if that person has just completed committing a crime you are not permitted to shoot them in the back as they leave the scene. This is consistent with the scriptures that say to leave the vengeance to the authorities.

I have yet to find any scriptural cite that says we must allow real and lasting harm to come upon ourselves. In the scripture cited by the original post three examples are given. In the first we see an act which could appear to be one of violence but is in reality an act of humilation, that of a slap or a blow to the face. If we refer back to the scripture I cited from Isaiah, "I hid not my face from the shame and the spitting" we see that we are to accept these attempts to humiliate us with dignity - and not for example by challenging the offender to a duel as happened so commonly a few hundred years ago. We even see a counterpart on this forum where an insult is delivered and the offended party challenges the other to a heads-up match. We saw in Proverbs that if we can find it within ourselves to let such an offense pass we should do so.

In the second example we see that we should attach less importance to material things. The example states "if any will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat". This obviously is not an example of someone physically attacking you and wresting your garments away but reflects an example of when something unjust is done to you through the means of the legal system. In the end it's just material things and we should attach more importance to that which is spiritual and eternal.

The third example refers to a practice in Roman times. In an occupied territory such as Judea a traveling Roman centurion could grab a random person and force them to carry the heavy armor and items for a mile. Again, this is an act that was very humiliating to the oppressed Jews but no actual physical harm was done. In this case we are to accept the humilations imposed by an unjust and corrupt government with dignity.

Meanwhile I cannot find scripture that says we're supposed to actually stand back and let some random person commit bodily harm upon us. It is obvious that Christ condoned the habitual carrying of swords by his disciples for self-defense purposes. The reasons he rebuked Peter for cutting the ear off the young boy during the betrayal were three-fold:

1) The young lad was not personally responsible for the wrong being committed - what's the point of hurting him?
2) It was an act of resistance against the authority of a legal government - and Christ never advocated that sort of rebellion
3) It was attempt to forestall what needed to be fulfilled

But nowhere do we have Jesus saying "put down all your weapons and let anyone do anything to you that they want."

[ QUOTE ]
None of the quotes you cited seem to do anything other than confirm that you shouldnt commit violence against a murderer who has broken into your home - you should leave that to the rulers. (This was the hypothetical situation which was the catalyst for this thread)

[/ QUOTE ]
My hope is that I've demonstrated this passage advocates no such thing.

[ QUOTE ]
I cant imagine jesus ever advocating violence (and in the old "what would jesus do?" tradition, I'm sure he wouldnt meet a prospective murderer with pre-emptive violence). I expect I would commit violence in this hypothetical (although I have been through many extremely aggressive, dangerous and violent situations without having to resort to this) - nonetheless, I would regard it as a failing in moral behaviour if I did (even to protect innocent life) - I have always found a peaceful solution and think that is exactly "what jesus would do"

[/ QUOTE ]
In all sincerity I admire that you have been through those scary situations without having to resort to violence and I do genuinely believe that where it can be achieved we should do so. However, I simply cannot find anywhere in the Bible where God tells us to let ourselves be robbed, raped and murdered without a fight.

chezlaw

07-08-2006, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"people were tortured by the inquisition in the name of christ and the catholic church. Doesnt that alarm you or worry you on some level?"

This was a political action done to protect the integrity of the newly conquered Spanish State. If you belong to a faith that claims exclusive and inerrable authority, and you are running a country whose official religion is the same, than the most dangerous and vile things are heretics. First, heretics damn others by spreading false doctrine. Second, they propagate revolution in the state. As such, the most severe punishments possible should be reserved for heretics. If eternal salvation is not a priority for a person, than the combatting of heresy looks out of place. But if eternal salvation is a person's priority, which it should be, combatting heresy is of utmost concern.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/blush.gif

RJT

07-08-2006, 08:25 PM

Chez,

[ QUOTE ]
Can you wage war against evil men without resisting them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear what you are saying, chez. To me though, I think Jesus was cool with the Allies in WWII.

[ QUOTE ]
When Bush and others talk about war against evil regimes, can that be christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is a different context. I am not sure that Jesus is cool with this at all. At least preemptively. I think He is cool with us going after Bin Laden for example though- not so much as an act of revenge, but as a preventative measure - and/or even to seek justice for crimes against humanity.

[ QUOTE ]
This whole thread started when peter666 was saying its okay to be violent to burglars. Sadly I think many 'christians' would endorse shooting or beating up a burglar. I'd be happy to be corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter666 tends more towards the militant type of Christian. (I know it sounds - and probably is - oxymoronic.)

RJT

p.s. Is Italy going to do it tomorrow (today for you)?

godBoy

07-08-2006, 08:42 PM

I wouldn't hesitate to kill a man with a gun in the face of one of my family members.
I suppose that the leader of a 'powerful' country needs to protect it's people from those who would put a gun in the face of his people.
If war can be prevented with the death of one person, a pacifist mentality shouldn't prevent it.

RJT

07-08-2006, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't hesitate to kill a man with a gun in the face of one of my family members.
I suppose that the leader of a 'powerful' country needs to protect it's people from those who would put a gun in the face of his people.
If war can be prevented with the death of one person, a pacifist mentality shouldn't prevent it.

[/ QUOTE ]

gB,

I wouldn’t hesitate either. That isn’t really the issue though.

The question is “what would Jesus do?”
What does He teach us to do?

That is the hard thing about Christianity. How much of our day to day actions do we justify to ourselves?

RJT

godBoy

07-08-2006, 09:16 PM

hmm, that really is a toughy..

My first thought was 'Jesus would not have let someone kill his mother'.. Though, I know He would not have killed another, I think that Jesus was God incarnate so she was always safe - Jesus had power to keep her safe. We don't have this devine power so perhaps there are times when we need to use a fist?
Obviously this is not the best way to settle a dispute but I think that in some circumstances perhaps it is necessary.

bunny

07-08-2006, 11:28 PM

Thanks again - I at least understand where you are coming from, even though i disagree.

To me hurting another human being is wrong and jesus's teaching that you should love everyone seems a clear admonition that you shouldnt hurt them (even if they are evil). Within the bible the only time swords were used by the disciples jesus rebuked them - the reasons you give for why he told them not to are interpretational as the gospels dont reveal the reasons. Similarly with regard to "turning the other cheek" being about humiliation rather than violence.

I understand that if you have faith in the catholic church (or some other authority) then you would have to accept their interpretation. I think jesus regularly advocated not doing what the church authorities said but living your faith from your heart so I dont have that faith in organised religions (especially given some of the horrendous things that organised religion has sponsored).

In my opinion there is always another solution - I've never been murdered or raped but I have been mugged, I have intervened in a rape and I've confronted a drunk, violent man intimidating a group of teenage girls I was responsible for at the time. None of these required me to be violent and I feel like if I had an easy out (such as "the church says it's ok here") perhaps I would have just fought my way through.

bunny

07-08-2006, 11:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"But it is humans saying "THIS is the correct doctrine" arent they bound to get it wrong from time to time?"

There is a process that must be done in a specific way called an ex-cathedra statement that insures the Holy Spirit guarantees the doctrine. Only the Pope or a Council with the Pope can make such statements.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe there was a statement made of this sort that the earth stood still and the sun orbited it - this was only revoked in the 20th century. Regardless, this process requires faith in the catholic church rather than faith in god which seems like idolatry to me.

[ QUOTE ]
"indulgences were sold in the middle ages so you could pay your penance before you committed your sin"

That was an abuse and was never Church doctrine. It was basically the work of some scam artists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this wasnt church doctrine - it was done openly by the church. How do you know that any other catholic practise or teaching isnt going to turn out to be "the work of scam artists"? Perhaps the anti-contraceptive interpretation is also the work of humans with another agenda.

[ QUOTE ]
"people were tortured by the inquisition in the name of christ and the catholic church. Doesnt that alarm you or worry you on some level?"

This was a political action done to protect the integrity of the newly conquered Spanish State. If you belong to a faith that claims exclusive and inerrable authority, and you are running a country whose official religion is the same, than the most dangerous and vile things are heretics. First, heretics damn others by spreading false doctrine. Second, they propagate revolution in the state. As such, the most severe punishments possible should be reserved for heretics. If eternal salvation is not a priority for a person, than the combatting of heresy looks out of place. But if eternal salvation is a person's priority, which it should be, combatting heresy is of utmost concern.

[/ QUOTE ]
I obviously have to balk at this as I consider myself a heretic, yet dont think I should be tortured for my erroneous beliefs. I think there is always a non-violent solution (why couldnt they have just been isolated and treated compassionately while an effort was made to redeem them?)

bunny

07-08-2006, 11:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't hesitate to kill a man with a gun in the face of one of my family members.
I suppose that the leader of a 'powerful' country needs to protect it's people from those who would put a gun in the face of his people.
If war can be prevented with the death of one person, a pacifist mentality shouldn't prevent it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think pacifism is often confused with inactivity. I am not advocating allowing evil to run amok, merely that there are other options besides violent ones. If war can be prevented with the death of one person, it can probably be prevented with the humane incarceration of that person.

Lestat

07-09-2006, 12:23 AM

I think the meaning of the first is that people who devote their time to amassing wealth are missing the point of life. 

I'm not saying this applies to you Bunny, but I can't let this slide that easily.

Clearly Jesus implies that amassing wealth is unchristian. Do you agree? Are those christians who are wealthy going to hell?

felson

07-09-2006, 12:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not sure, but I think somewhere in the bible it says (again paraphrasing), for every dollar you make, give half to someone less fortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, this is not in the Bible.

bunny

07-09-2006, 01:35 AM

I have never thought it meant that - I thought it was referring to people who put wealth ahead of everything else.

To be clear, although in this thread I am arguing that jesus would advocate pacifism (and a large part of that is taking the "do not resist an evil man" at face value). I do not suggest that the bible is literally true and accept that it is supposed to be interpreted. After all - there are contradictions in the bible if you interpret it literally (this seems a good example - rich people cant get into heaven vs god loves everyone and will forgive all...they cant both be true). I think the statement that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven means that striving for wealth and physical comfort/power is often in conflict with striving to live a good life. With the "do not resist an evil man" quote I think it is intended more literally.

All interpretation, but I think that is an important part of being a christian. I certainly didnt mean to imply that you can pick any sentence from the bible and it is literally true - I do not believe that is even close to true.

OrigamiSensei

07-09-2006, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly Jesus implies that amassing wealth is unchristian. Do you agree? Are those christians who are wealthy going to hell?

[/ QUOTE ]
I must admit I disagree with your assertion. As we move forward through threads like these I'd like to see statements like "Jesus was a pacifist" and "Jesus implies that amassing wealth is unchristian" with some cites to back it up. For instance I have trouble believing that Christ was a pacifist in the sense that has been argued here in light of Matthew 10:34 and the succeeding verses. Matt. 10:34 says: "Think not that I am come to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." In the same light it's difficult for me to believe God has a particular problem with bestowing material blessings as evidenced by the example of Job and Jabez. I must leave and can't give the cites right now but there is a balance. There's nothing inherently wrong with wealth - it's when the material things get in the way of our relationship with God that it becomes a problem.

chezlaw

07-09-2006, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. Is Italy going to do it tomorrow (today for you)?

[/ QUOTE ]
No idea (just kicked off). I'm told I'm supporting Italy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

RJT

07-09-2006, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
p.s. Is Italy going to do it tomorrow (today for you)?

[/ QUOTE ]
No idea (just kicked off). I'm told I'm supporting Italy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If it just kicked off for you then I have to wait 6 or 7 hours for kick off, because of the time difference. LOL. Obviously, just kidding. In overtime now.

I know you have no choice but to support Italy. Well, you have free will - but life is easier if you go with the Calabrese’s home team.

chezlaw

07-09-2006, 04:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
p.s. Is Italy going to do it tomorrow (today for you)?

[/ QUOTE ]
No idea (just kicked off). I'm told I'm supporting Italy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If it just kicked off for you then I have to wait 6 or 7 hours for kick off, because of the time difference. LOL. Obviously, just kidding. In overtime now.

I know you have no choice but to support Italy. Well, you have free will - but life is easier if you go with the Calabrese’s home team.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is much joy. Congratulations.

chez

felson

07-16-2006, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not sure, but I think somewhere in the bible it says (again paraphrasing), for every dollar you make, give half to someone less fortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, this is not in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat, I think I know where you got the idea: the story of Zacchaeus. See Luke 19:1-10.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=19&version=31

Zacchaeus sets an admirable example. But it would be a misinterpretation to conclude from this that "you must give away half of your possessions in order to be a Christian." A hard-and-fast rule like that would be contrary to the idea of grace.

Imo, the Gospel author saves the meaning of the story for the end, in v. 9-10: that salvation is available even to 'sinners' (v 7) like the hated tax collectors, who were seen as oppressors.

I don't want to participate in any long debates, but I did want to clear up this one minor (and hopefully uncontroversial) point of confusion.

Peter666

07-16-2006, 11:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"But it is humans saying "THIS is the correct doctrine" arent they bound to get it wrong from time to time?"

There is a process that must be done in a specific way called an ex-cathedra statement that insures the Holy Spirit guarantees the doctrine. Only the Pope or a Council with the Pope can make such statements.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe there was a statement made of this sort that the earth stood still and the sun orbited it - this was only revoked in the 20th century. Regardless, this process requires faith in the catholic church rather than faith in god which seems like idolatry to me.

[ QUOTE ]
"indulgences were sold in the middle ages so you could pay your penance before you committed your sin"

That was an abuse and was never Church doctrine. It was basically the work of some scam artists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this wasnt church doctrine - it was done openly by the church. How do you know that any other catholic practise or teaching isnt going to turn out to be "the work of scam artists"? Perhaps the anti-contraceptive interpretation is also the work of humans with another agenda.

[ QUOTE ]
"people were tortured by the inquisition in the name of christ and the catholic church. Doesnt that alarm you or worry you on some level?"

This was a political action done to protect the integrity of the newly conquered Spanish State. If you belong to a faith that claims exclusive and inerrable authority, and you are running a country whose official religion is the same, than the most dangerous and vile things are heretics. First, heretics damn others by spreading false doctrine. Second, they propagate revolution in the state. As such, the most severe punishments possible should be reserved for heretics. If eternal salvation is not a priority for a person, than the combatting of heresy looks out of place. But if eternal salvation is a person's priority, which it should be, combatting heresy is of utmost concern.

[/ QUOTE ]
I obviously have to balk at this as I consider myself a heretic, yet dont think I should be tortured for my erroneous beliefs. I think there is always a non-violent solution (why couldnt they have just been isolated and treated compassionately while an effort was made to redeem them?)

[/ QUOTE ]

- Faith in the Catholic Church is Faith in the God who appointed it.

- The specific scamming type of indulgence you mentioned was not practiced openly by everyone everywhere. There is a proper method and an improper one. The improper one has been strictly condemned and not even attempted for well over 500 years. If you have evidence contrary to this, present it.

- Heretics today are generally born into their heresy because they do not grow up in a Catholic state. There are no true Catholic states left. As such, the situation is completely different from Medieval Europe and thus there is no political cause to stamp out heresy. Only spiritual means are thus used.

madnak

07-16-2006, 01:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
- Heretics today are generally born into their heresy because they do not grow up in a Catholic state. There are no true Catholic states left. As such, the situation is completely different from Medieval Europe and thus there is no political cause to stamp out heresy. Only spiritual means are thus used.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if there were a Catholic theocracy, then bring on the Inquisition?

Peter666

07-16-2006, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Heretics today are generally born into their heresy because they do not grow up in a Catholic state. There are no true Catholic states left. As such, the situation is completely different from Medieval Europe and thus there is no political cause to stamp out heresy. Only spiritual means are thus used.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if there were a Catholic theocracy, then bring on the Inquisition?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. There is still a board of Inquisition in the Catholic Church today. However, states don't use it in their political agenda these days, although they could if they wanted to.

bunny

07-16-2006, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"indulgences were sold in the middle ages so you could pay your penance before you committed your sin"

That was an abuse and was never Church doctrine. It was basically the work of some scam artists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this wasnt church doctrine - it was done openly by the church. How do you know that any other catholic practise or teaching isnt going to turn out to be "the work of scam artists"? Perhaps the anti-contraceptive interpretation is also the work of humans with another agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

- The specific scamming type of indulgence you mentioned was not practiced openly by everyone everywhere. There is a proper method and an improper one. The improper one has been strictly condemned and not even attempted for well over 500 years. If you have evidence contrary to this, present it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it was condemned 500 years ago - that's my point. Until it was outlawed by papal decree in the 16th century it was accepted. Prior to that - popes thought it was ok to issue indulgences to people who gave money to the church, after the decree popes said it wasnt ok. Catholic teaching changed.

Peter666

07-16-2006, 07:28 PM

It's still ok to give money to the Church in alms to gain indulgences. I think you have a misunderstanding of the teaching and history. I recommend you read the article on Indulgences in the Catholic Encyclopedia for a thorough answer. Here is a section on the abuses:

ABUSES

It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means an eating and drinking of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the body of the Lord. (1 Cor., xi, 27-9). And, as God's forbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evil practices. These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.

Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give the libelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as "unheard-of presumption and sacrilegious audacity". In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).

bunny

07-16-2006, 07:47 PM

Perhaps I am not making myself clear - I presented indulgences as an example, not as a reason to not be catholic. The point is, you citing the authority of "the church" is actually citing a bunch of people. They can, and have, made mistakes. Some of the examples listed in your excerpt were cardinals, archbishops, etc - all doing what you acknowledge was wrong. My only point is that any directive from "the church" is made through the mouths of people - people are not perfect and they make mistakes (both genuine errors and in committing sins).

Gallileo is another good example - regardless of the source of his dispute with the pope of the day...the dispute existed. His work was condemned by the pope and it was officially declared heresy to claim that the earth moved. Later this position was reversed.

Do you claim that no pope has ever reversed a position adopted by a previous pope?

Peter666

07-16-2006, 09:34 PM

"it was officially declared heresy to claim that the earth moved."

This was claimed by Bible thumping Protestants, not Catholics who encouraged scientific research. The most vehement opponents to a heliocentric universe were Martin Luther, Melanchton and Calvin. It did not jive with their subjective interpretation of scripture.

I know a thing or two about dogmatic theology, and this never was, or never could be a doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church. There was a time when Copernicus's work was on the list of prohibited books, but prohibited books do not mean heretical. It means that the book poses a danger to the faith if read improperly. Thus the masses of asses were prohibited from reading such things, but learned scholars could through permission of their local bishops or Church authority. The Pope actually encouraged the scientific research and writings of Copernicus, because they were interested in correcting the calendar at the time. Copernicus was a good Catholic whose uncle was a Bishop as well.

Also, as to your last question, no Pope can ever reverse an official dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church. To do so would be heresy.

bunny

07-16-2006, 10:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"it was officially declared heresy to claim that the earth moved."

This was claimed by Bible thumping Protestants, not Catholics who encouraged scientific research.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was the inquisition in rome who condemned galileo.

[ QUOTE ]
I know a thing or two about dogmatic theology, and this never was, or never could be a doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church. There was a time when Copernicus's work was on the list of prohibited books, but prohibited books do not mean heretical. It means that the book poses a danger to the faith if read improperly. Thus the masses of asses were prohibited from reading such things, but learned scholars could through permission of their local bishops or Church authority. The Pope actually encouraged the scientific research and writings of Copernicus, because they were interested in correcting the calendar at the time. Copernicus was a good Catholic whose uncle was a Bishop as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems a peculiar view to adopt. The words used in the documents from the inquisition were very clear. The books werent restricted to be read by learned scholars - they were repressed until they could be "corrected".

Peter666

07-16-2006, 11:32 PM

"It was the inquisition in rome who condemned galileo."

This is and incorrect and a popular msiconception of history. Galileo was never condemned for his scientific research. In fact, he was given scientific equipment and materials to conduct his research after being placed under house arrest. The reason for his condemnation was some insulting references he wrote about the current Pope which was seen as fomenting revolution during the Protestant revolt. Galileo was a citizen of the Papal states. There have been some interesting historical works regarding this recently. He was a great scientist, but also quite a douchebag by these accounts.

"The books werent restricted to be read by learned scholars - they were repressed until they could be "corrected"." Or until they were deemed to be no longer dangerous to the Faith. There were some anti-Catholic novels that were prohibited as well. These did not necessarily contain heresy, but had unflattering or slanderous portrayals of Church authorities. There were many reasons for condemning books. Not just heresy.

MidGe

07-16-2006, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, as to your last question, no Pope can ever reverse an official dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church. To do so would be heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the funniest part of that is that some popes denied the infaillability of the popes (Adrien VI for instance). Now which of them is infaillible? LOL.

bunny

07-17-2006, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]

"It was the inquisition in rome who condemned galileo."

This is and incorrect and a popular msiconception of history. Galileo was never condemned for his scientific research. In fact, he was given scientific equipment and materials to conduct his research after being placed under house arrest. The reason for his condemnation was some insulting references he wrote about the current Pope which was seen as fomenting revolution during the Protestant revolt. Galileo was a citizen of the Papal states. There have been some interesting historical works regarding this recently. He was a great scientist, but also quite a douchebag by these accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am aware of this and it isnt the point I was making - you claimed it was protestants who labelled him a heretic and not catholics. That is just not true - the rome inquisition DID label his view that the earth moved as heresy because it challenged the veracity of the scripture. (They only allowed people to write on the copernican system as long as it was called a "hypothesis" since this doesnt imply the scripture is false. The scripture at the time was interpreted by the catholic church to state that the earth remained still - therefore it was heretical to say otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
"The books werent restricted to be read by learned scholars - they were repressed until they could be "corrected"." Or until they were deemed to be no longer dangerous to the Faith. There were some anti-Catholic novels that were prohibited as well. These did not necessarily contain heresy, but had unflattering or slanderous portrayals of Church authorities. There were many reasons for condemning books. Not just heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be - but galileo's book was condemned for his crime of heresy. And the words of the inquisition were that they needed to be "corrected" (not kept from the ignorant masses until they were no longer dangerous).