Because it is fun to speculate and to watch people turn the same stories into something that supports their own preconceptions.
I just wanted to thank you all for such an interesting thread. I struggle with many of the beliefs with which I was brought up. Although I have stopped believing in many of them such as creation, young earth and the like, there is still a part of me that wants to have something to hold on to.
In my heart I try to be Christ-like which, to me, means, in a nutshell, to love. To me that means I will support same-sex marriages, not think of Muslims as evil, speak up if someone says something derogatory about an ethnic group or a transgendered person.
I find myself agreeing with each new post in this thread, my mind changing back and forth. But what an engaging discussion, thank you.
No, it doesn’t. Nor it is a command to refuse to defend one’s self, though.
BTW, self-defense is not logically equivalent to “killing for what you believe in.”
Sometimes it depends on who is doing the defining, doesn’t it? If I started a thread titled “What is your definition of self-defense?”, do you think people would generally agree with each other?
I don’t think you’re interpreting that verse correctly. It’s not talking about refusing to defend one’s self. This is evident in the fact that refusal to defend one’s self is NOT logically equivalent to death.
I suggest that you read the verse in its entire context. Jesus was talking about abandoning one’s old life in order to follow him. This is evident in verses 34 to 37:
Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me . For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels." (Emphasis added.)
Jesus clearly was not talking about passive submission to violence. Rather he spoke about denying one’s self, taking up one’s cross, following him, and refusing to be ashamed of him. That’s what he meant by “losing [one’s] life.”
Explain the difference.
That’s cute. I’m talking about two similar parables where the human body is used, one relating to the individual and one relating to society as a whole. I’m not saying the two texts are related except in a thought process. If it’s sometimes necessary to remove a part of the body to save the whole then it might be necessary at times to remove a person or persons to save the whole body of humanity.
We should also do that as an absolute last resort, just as we would make every effort to save an infected part of our own body.
Is that clearly stated in the Bible, or the words of Jesus. No. Is it reasonable given the words of Jesus concerning plucking out an eye. I think so.
As I said, we don’t have the words of Jesus concerning every possible situation. I doubt we were ever supposed to look at the Bible or any writings as some sort of absolute instruction manual. I don’t see anything in the words of Jesus to indicate that was the case.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
No. Jesus taught people to look beyond the lines of separation such as tribe and social class, to see that all people are children of God. The goal was to teach those that weren’t aware of that truth.
Concerning personal preference. Yes and No. We can’t avoid interpreting the Bible’s message through our individual lens. Should we then accept that every personal preference is perfectly acceptable. No. The goal is continued spiritual growth. I’m not sure “interpret the Bible’s message as it was intended” means anything. Who gets to decide the intent?
Sounds like scripture are useful as guidelines. More importantly I think Jesus taught that spiritual growth was an internal process. So, Love one another as I have loved you" is not just a command about behavior, it’s pointing toward an internal transformation that is an ongoing process. Speaking to his disciples
John 16:12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
[/QUOTE]
It seems Jesus knew there was only one worthy goal {you’ll hear some great interpretations of this one]
He also understood that this transformation took time.
The apostles continued this teaching
Jesus knew the transformation was an inner spiritual process. His teaching pointed toward spiritual perfection so we should never stop striving to live in the spirit. He also knew the process varied from person to person. Not every one was intended to be a martyr or apostle. JC was teaching, but the living had to be done by the individual.
That’s not to excuse bad behavior or justifying purposely distorting the teachings to indulge ourselves. The Bible is also full of passages about not giving JC lip service while your actions speak differently. Ultimately each person must face the consequences of their own choices.
I see it quite differently. It isn’t dam the consequences. It’s see the true consequences. See that poisoning the environment might make for convienience and short term profit, but costs so much in the long term. See that accepting the lines of separation drawn between people and harboring the us vs them mentality poisons mankind and has real consequences for our generation and the next as well. And on and on… Jesus taught us about the truth of who we are and how we are connected. If we deny and refuse to to see and accept and live that connection , we do it to our own detriment, and to the detriment of future generations.
This is totally my view as well and so I am surprised at how far you go in the rest of your post.
Well I disagree with this. I think Jesus is much more vague on the issue of self-defense and so did not weigh in this debate.
On the issue of War though, we have pretty clear evidence that he and his close associates see soldiers and don’t make leaving military service a pre-requisite for following God. These issues and verses have been discussed at the U.S. Supreme Court and in Military trials for over a century now. I am not saying you are wrong overall. Simply that others aren’t necessarily twisting or data mining or that it is a slam dunk what “Jesus said” in regard to this.
These are the most common verses discussed (NIV):
Luke Luke 7:1-9
Jesus cures the Centurion’s servant and says how he believes
*When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.” *
Nothing about the Centurion needing to stop being a Centurion
Luke 14:31-32
Jesus uses the parable of the King preparing for war with the outnumbered army as a good example of discipleship of following Jesus
Luke 3:12-15
People come to get baptized by John the Baptist all manners of sinners and ask him what to do
*12Tax collectors also came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” 13"Don’t collect any more than you are required to," he told them. 14Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” *
These may be soldiers of Herod or they may be Romans - ultimately though John clearly does not give a pacifist message to them as a pre-requisite for Baptism
ACTS 10 An Angel tells the Cornelius Centurion “of the Italian Regiment” to call Peter - Peter Baptizes him and all his household. There is no finger wagging by Peter on being a Soldier. Instead, in the following verses were learn the other Apostles and “the church” are horrified that Peter didn’t keep Kosher and that he Baptized an uncircumcised man - not that he Baptized a soldier.
Now you might say the reason all this is in Luke-Acts is because one of the author’s main points was to apologetically make the case that Christianity was not a threat to the Roman Empire. I would agree. I would also agree that there is other contradictory stuff on the other side too. But it still means it is more complex on this issue than your post makes it.
Thank you so much for adding absolutely nothing to the thread.
I see your point but I don’t believe it’s a crystal clear as you present. It seems plain that we are to include all people in the circle of God’s children and treat then accordingly. IMO “turn the other cheek”, and Jesus going to his execution, does not speak to every situation and we are left to ask what loving one another requires of us in that situation.
Faced with a situation of someone intending to kill us or others we must try and discern in that situation what love requires. In some situations it might be love to not defend ourselves. Violence often leads to escalated violence. In other situations I can believe that allowing others to be killed would not be an act of love.
I don’t believe the answer to the OP is a clear no.
Good post and good references. I agree.
With respect, I think both of you are forgetting how the passage begins: do not resist an evil person. This particular passage doesn’t require you to discern what love requires (although other passages certainly do); it also doesn’t preface an exhaustive list of what constitutes actions by evil people and the acceptable responses thereto.
It sets out a simple rule: do not resist an evil person. In order to follow it, you need to make sure that you’re not resisting an evil person. That rapist after your family? Evil dude. Getting in his way? Resisting him.
There is a loophole, of course: the passage certainly allows resistance against someone who isn’t evil. As long as you decide that rapist is a good guy, feel free to blow him away.
Daniel
I did notice that but he is not speaking of deadly violence when he says that. If you pull that phrase out of context and interpret it literally it means what you say it does. That doesn’t mean that’s how it was intended in context.
Alright sir, let us go to the verse where he is talking about deadly violence:
He equates mere anger and insults toward another with murder, and both put your soul in danger of damnation. How can you justify physical violence, when Jesus says you may not even be angry with someone?
When someone uses deadly violence unprovoked, would you consider that the actions of an evil person? If so, then yes, actually, he is speaking of deadly violence. The fact that his examples don’t include it is irrelevant: the rule is very clear, and it’s just rules-lawyering to try to suggest that his examples are comprehensive rather than illustrative.
Jesus wasn’t stupid. If the rule was that you shouldn’t resist an evil person unless they were being really really evil, he could’ve said that. Jesus was familiar with the fact that folks used deadly violence. He made no exception to the general rule.
As I understand it, the Amish are about the only group out there that take this rule seriously.
Daniel
Actually there are a handful of others: Peace churches - Wikipedia
For now I’ll leave the Christians to argue among themselves. Those who see Jesus pulling the trigger on his Glok are reading a different New Testament than the one I did so I guess they can decide among themselves (although in 2000 years their track record does not reassure me they’ll come to a consensus).
I already did. You weren’t paying attention.
Jesus was talking about abandoning one’s old life in order to follow him – to “deny one’s self” and “take up one’s cross.” In other words, it means abandoning one’s old sinful lifestyle and choosing to obey the Messiah.
One could insist that this is identical to refusing to defend one’s self, but that would require reading an awful lot into his words. It also requires assuming that Jesus taught pacifism, which amounts to circular reasoning.
It says what it says; “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it”. You are the one reading hidden meanings into his words.
I don’t have to read anything into his words when he says, “Do not resist an evil person”.
It requires nothing of the sort. It only requires you to read the words, without parsing them to fit your earthly desire to lash out when attacked.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Jesus was teaching that people had to look within rather than just obey rules superficially. So, if you resisted the urge to murder or harm others but still harbored feelings of anger, resentment, hatred, a desire for revenge, then your spirit is no better than if you had killed them.
It isn’t just about the physical act. So, could I defend my family without hatred and even feel bad that I had to harm another person?
otoh if I didn’t defend my family and they were killed, any feelings of anger and revenge I had toward their killer would be the same as killing him, wouldn’t it?
At the end of the sermon on the mount Jesus says
I don’t know anyone who is so I guess everybody has failed to live as Jesus instructed. Or could it be that Jesus was teaching us what to strive for and realized that the process of spiritual growth was an ongoing one?
My understanding of what makes the Amish rare (if not unique) is that they extend the prohibition to seeking legal redress against those who have wronged them. Wikipedia suggests they do not defend themselves in court; I am guessing, although certainly I have no cite, that the more conservative Amish also don’t initiate suits in court.
But yeah, there are certainly other denominations that restrict the rule against resisting evil to not using violence against evil.
Daniel