I feel sorry for many of the board’s progressive Christians, caught as they must be in the crossfire of the cultural war. In response to Mosier, I’ve met many Christians I admire, and that I believe he would find admirable as well. Unfortunately, most of them seem to live in this box on a desk in my office. Still others live in the metropolitan areas on either coast, and publish missives of compassion and enlightenment which I browse in the local bookstore. But I meet precious few admirable Christians on the bus, in my workspace, at the laundromat or barbershop or the cheap restaurants I frequent.
I understand the reluctance that some have expressed to publicly identify as Christian at first brush. Many who have been hurt, angered or cheated of their full due as citizens by the American establishment of Christianity as our national faith would greet them with skepticism until they were proven. I ought confess my own prejudice: if I first knew you as a benevolent and rational person and later learned of your religious convictions, I would be likely to think: “Oh, Joe Blow’s a Christian? Takes all kinds… collect Spider-Man and keep a cat myself.” If I first meet you as an acknowledged Christian, the “knowing you better” is unlikely to commence. I might, might loan you a quarter for the pop machine on request, with a politely effaced sense of sullen grievance. I’ll be too proud to accept repayment.
Response to Athelas earlier in the thread: to the best of my research, nothing in Scripture renders intolerance of homosexuality as incompatible with faith in Christ – indeed, many have argued it as essential. It is, however, incompatible with Not Being An Asshole. One exemption: if someone is aiming an unwanted stiffie at any of your unwilling and terrified sphincters, let me know. I’ll show up with all of my 5’9, 170 lbs of Ft. Benning trained skills to help you intolerate it. But if you object to how two consenting adults of the same sex choose to physically express their mutual love for one another on the grounds that an invisible, intangible, fictional giant in the sky has promised you immortality in exchange for being a dick to them, then you are useless to your fellow human beings except as a possible source of organs, or humus. Of course, if I knew this about any of you and saw you choking or suffering an infarction, I would still give you the Heimlich maneuver or CPR as needed. I would walk away knowing that a weakness of the will had misled me into a minor act of treason in assisting you to rise and vote again.
If you don’t understand the logic then I guess we’re done.
Jesus summed up what he wanted really nicely. First, love God. Second, treat people well.
He explains exactly what treating people well means. Give to the needy, don’t commit violence (displayed more than just by “turn the other cheek”. One example is when he told his apostles to stand down after they drew their swords to fight the men who came to capture him), don’t pass judgment on people, and don’t boast. Pretty simple, straightforward stuff, and not a forest-blocking tree to be found.
In another post, you claimed that “logic dictates evil cannot be given free reign”, but that’s not what we’re arguing. We’re arguing whether Jesus told his followers not to use violence, whether it’s logical or not. You can’t claim Jesus meant whatever you wanted him to mean, just because you don’t think it makes any sense. The words he used and the example he set were clear orders not to fight evil with violence.
As I’ve stated repeatedly, Jesus never dictated anything you can quote. The best you can do is interpret 3 levels of translations from various letters from his followers who attempted to recreate his words after the fact. All of which were brought together 300 years after Jesus walked the Earth. What I’m arguing is that Jesus did not object to the codified restraint of those who would harm you. Your example was in relation to his self-prophesized capture and should not be construed as his general intent. The fact that his Apostles carried swords in the first place would support my argument.
Your argument was devoid of logic.
It does not matter how many translations of how many documents written how many years later. If we’re relying on the Gospels for Jesus’ instructions with respect to non-violence, it’s pretty clear: he was agin’ it.
Jesus did not object to codified restraint; neither did he advocate it. He had nothing to say about it. He was speaking to individuals, and he clearly said to individuals, repeatedly, not to meet violence with violence.
Jesus was concerned with the individual, and it’s disingenuous to try to generalize his instruction to society as a whole.
I disagree with the premise of individual versus society. We are not hermits, we are a social species. How you react as an individual is not divorced from the requirement to live in a group. Jesus definitely addressed society as a whole when he upended the money table. Unless there are gaps in the lessons of Jesus then he addressed what he thought needed to be addressed.
The question raised is can you protect yourself from evil as a Christian. if Jesus did not object to his followers carrying weapons (presumably to protect themselves) then the answer to that is yes, you can defend yourself using force. Since we don’t know what Jesus said we can’t begin to assign meaning to the translation of hearsay descriptions of his words. What we can do is look at how he lived his life and the lifestyle he prescribed to his followers. I think the message is clear, do all possible to avoid physical confrontation but defending yourself is acceptable.
If the words of Jesus are in question, then certainly the reports of disciples carrying swords in also in doubt, wouldn’t you say?
Look, the entire Christian religion is based on the assumption that the words of the Gospels are the inspired word of god. You may have a belief system that allows you to dismiss that, but it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called Christian .
His argument about how prisons represent the effort to contain (and therefore resist) the actions of evil people? Your denial of this is confusing.
But one may resist evil people without imprisoning them. It is a logical fallacy to imply that since Jesus didn’t call for the release of prisoners, then it is OK to resist violence. There is no logical connection. One does not proceed from the other.
So a Christan should be indifferent to the prison system?
Aside from visiting those in prison, yes, that is what Jesus taught.
Many years ago when I went to a Christian church I was told Christians were works in progress. No one was perfect, but we strive to be perfect. I think that some are closer than others. Just keep trying.
Then I stand by my post #2 in this thread.
Fear Itself, that passage just emphasizes that it’s good to visit those in prison. It says nothing about being indifferent to the prison.
The overall message of the New Testament is about loving God and loving our fellow human beings. Wouldn’t concerning ourselves with prison conditions be part of loving others?
We can’t be all things to all people, but each person can find the ways to help others best. One of the people that I will be spending New Year’s Eve with just got back from a visit with one of the Memphis 3. I also have a cousin who visits in prison as part of his duty . I would never have the courage to do something like that. But a donation to the Southern Poverty Law Center or membership in the ACLU or Amnesty International or writing letters to Congress about the death penalty are all ways of showing concern.
Bryan, it is hard for me to understand the exploitation of Christianity for the sake of gaining power also. It is impossible for me to find justification for the death penalty or war or greed. I grew up with a pacifist father who taught by example.
I am not promoting the position of indifference to imprisonment, what ever that means. I was asked a question, and I quoted the only passage in the gospels that dealt specifically with it. Any other position that is consistent with “do unto others” is fine with me. There is an awful lot of hand waving and and misdirecting the debate here, because some just don’t want to deal with the fact that Jesus said you should not resist an evil person. That needs no interpretation; it means what it says. Any other conclusion is just desperate tap dancing to reconcile a need to strike back when attacked, with the pacifist fundamentals of the Christian faith.
Here’s another one that sends the religious right around the bend. Jesus says you must sell all you have, and give to the poor. Your earthly treasures will keep you from salvation. Now let’s watch all the trust fund Christians with fat 401ks and McMansions explain that Jesus wasn’t really a Communist, so they can keep their prized possessions and go to heaven also.
Nonsense. Jesus said that to one particular man. Assuming Jesus was who he said he was, he could see exactly that particular man’s barrier to salvation.
While Christians are not meant to pursue wealth as the highest good, there is no reason to extrapolate that to mean that all Christians must embrace complete poverty. Jesus dealt with lots of people, rich and poor, in the Gospels. He did not tell all of them to sell everything they owned.
I rest my case.
Should we only go by the things he made sure to tell everyone?