The very thing has been claimed in other threads and I’ve countered it there with cites.
Apos, are you seriously saying you can make a statement like this one:
and claim it is supported by fact and is not a generalization? And that it’s worlds of difference from ‘religion causes all wars’?
If you need a citation for an overbroad declaration of opinion that is too narrowly focused at an indiviual as an attempt to make that poster stand in for a group that is both unquantified and unidentified with a claim that is vague enough to be true, then i will offer you this recent statement in this very thread:
Unspecified “guys” (other than the hackles raising second person).
Vague (and far too broad) accusation that (unspecified and unnamed) parties claim religion is the cause of all wars.
Dismissal of (unnamed and unidentified) posters’ intellect or education with the reference to education regarding international affairs.
If you wish to debate the issue, step away from the broad brushes and the second person usage–which was my specific complaint with Apos’s post, but which certainly applies to yours.
I noticed that in your lengthy commentary, you didn’t mention the words “peace” or “sword” (two of the key words in Matthew 10:34), nor did you explain what they mean in context.
Here’s a possible explanation:
How’s that? 
Agreed.
Jesus was making it clear that following him would not bring peace vis a vis other Jews who saw him as a seditionist; a troublemaker. (including family members)
He acknowledged that this would often take the form of violence (through court actions, prisons, persecutions etc), although he certainly did not advocate that his followers use violence.
I responded to something Charger said directly. The “you guys” wasn’t specified as being directed at anything more than people who, like, Charger, try to paint atheists as some sort of latent army of obsession.
QG, in contrast, clearly directed “you guys” at ME despite the fact that I had not said what she claimed, and clearly including every atheist under her unbrella.
Your glance was decieving then: you picked out some words that happened to be similar without really reading the sentences they were a part of. My ask for a cite was 100% legitimate, because I was directly being accused of saying something I clearly didn’t say.
Uh, yes? Because it is, in fact, a direct characterization of what the Bible really does say, whether you like it or not. It isn’t a generalization at all: it’s reality. Many modern believers refuse to be bound by or endorse those parts of the texts, but honestly, you’re one of the first I’ve met who vehemently denies that they are there at all. The claim that the judeo-christian canon unambiguously supports or preaches peace is, simply put, pretty crummy. Many Jews and Christians do preach that, but many more do not, and the original text and the way most historical believers read them certainly clearly do not paint such a record.
Yes, it has nothing to do with it, in fact.
But he did not “paint atheists as some sort of latent army of obsession,” he was much more careful to note that it was not all atheists, but a particular group identified as “some of the most evangelical.”
You were the one who turned it into a reason to go all second person and inflame the thread.
This is not worth the energy to keep niggling over this stuff. Now that I have made my position clear on broad brushes and second person smears, future posters to this thread can be more careful.
Oh, riiiiiight. That ever-hovering horde of evangelical atheists who but for the lack of a little organization would be rioting in the streets and burning churches. Very measured.
Der Thris is about the worst sort of outspoken atheist we got, yet somehow he’s avoided doing anything more than saying nasty things. Mythical bugaboos ARE broad brush.
I don’t agree. The second person was directed at a specific second person and then another specific example of such a person with similar views, pushing the same scaremongering characterization. It honestly wasn’t even meant particularly seriously as a reference. QG’s, on the other hand, very clearly was.
I’m more annoyed than you that you niggled, so I hardly see the sense in you now fretting that we’ve spent too much time on this. Don’t want to debate the point, then don’t bring it up.
Your position isn’t very clear at all, that’s the problem.
“Seem to be” is key along with “to me” as in IMO. Strangely enough people have found lasting principles for individuals and societies in the words of Christ, and others.
go figure…seriously…go figure.
One can find lasting principles for individuals in the words of the telephone directory: the question is whether the canon definitively weighs in on something in particular. It doesn’t. The fact remains that the textual Jesus isn’t particularly clear or definitive about violence, and one reason seems to be that there are a lot of suggestions that he didn’t believe the current world would be around long enough to care much about the formulation of specific rules for lasting societies.
The very fact that so many people have so many different interpretations of his cryptic sayings and teachings proves my point, not undermines it.
This is the sort of silly self-rationalizing niggling strawman to which I was referring.
So there are multiple of you? Are you a conjoined set of triplets or something? I was using it exactly the same way you did. If I meant you specifically and particularly then I would have said so.
As in ‘those of you who blame religion for violence’. Having followed a post in which Apos did exactly that. At length.
Posts in which Dopers blame wars/violence on religion (besides the above from Apos)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8239035&postcount=40
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8226433&postcount=31
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8221122&postcount=26
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8218348&postcount=18
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8217183&postcount=8
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8217106&postcount=6
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8201707&postcount=78
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7893737&postcount=126
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7893445&postcount=120
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7749963&postcount=25
Given that the entire board is supposedly engaged in fight against ignorance, and that ignorance about the causes of wars appears in posts where people blame religion for wars and violence, I don’t understand where remarking about the particular brand of ignorance that appears to give rise to such statements is against board policy. In short; people who think that religion is the cause of many, most, or all wars likely are not educated in international affairs. If ‘ignorance’ does not equate to ‘lack of education’, then what, exactly, is SDMB about?
This particular little meme about wars/violence is relatively recent. When I was a student of international conflict, we did not need to debate the question, because it never arose. It was never a conflict theory (or, at least, not one taken seriously by any of the experts in conflict theory) and you’d be hard-pressed to find a genuine scholar of international affairs who would make such a statement, simply because the facts about the causes of conflicts around the world over time prove different. I can’t for a minute imagine that anyone who ever studied international affairs could make a statement blaming religion for violence or wars other than in the context of discussion of small extremist groups and operations.
And having studied conflict at one of the better schools for same, it drives me nuts to see supposedly-educated people repeat this same ridiculous meme over and over. It’s as stupid as ‘nice guys always finish last’ and ‘women want players’ (but I hate it even more, because it causes more prejudice).
QM, you’ve failed utterly to demonstrate that I ever said what you directly that said I said. Either provide evidence, or apologize and we can move on with our lives.
I don’t know where the rest of your ramble came from or is going: is it all distraction from your inability to support your claims?
And are you going to explain your bogus charge that the statement you quoted was an over generalization, rather than a factual description of what the cannon actually says? There is no “besides the above from Apos”: your characterization of what you quoted is ridiculous. Are you not even going to try to defend it?
Finally, I didn’t read all of your cites, but just the first few were enough to see how confused you are as to what a citation is. Those are not cites that support your point. Merely finding people who think religion has played a role in wars, or criticizing religion is not the same thing as anyone saying “religion causes all wars.” Try again. Or, better yet, concede.
Boy, what a cogent argument!
Cite?
{kidding}
Hmmmm. I don’t believe the purpose of any teaching is to give us step by step instruction on what to do in every given scenario, but rather to point us in the right direction. In that sense I think JC was pretty clear in his word and in his example.
I’m aware that certain apostles including Paul probably thought Jesus return was within their lifetime but I haven’t explored the idea that JC himself thought that. Any other passages indicating that?
I think “proves” is an exaggeration. I think the different interpretations is an indication of something significant. It indicates we are not meant to be mindless obedient servants but thinking peers and co creators of our lives and our world.
Seek and ye shall find doesn’t mean “immediately” and neither does “ask and it shall be given”
Again, I’m just not seeing the clarity.
We quoted one upthread from the sermon on the mount, and then of course there is the “this generation shall not pass away…” part of the resurrection. That’s also pretty THE point of the Jewish concept of messiah, making that a pretty strong context. The whole core point of the messiah as described in the scriptures is the messianic age itself.
I don’t see how that is an improvement on saying that it’s unclear, cryptic, and confusing and open to a very wide interpretation. Maybe there is a real core single intended truth in there (or maybe you are implying that there isn’t one and we make our own truth or something). But if so, it’s not communicated particularly clearly.
It’s not really that hard to be clear about something as incredibly important as war and violence. It would have taken God/Jesus/ the gospel writers about two sentences to clearly state any number of things that would have prevented all sorts of bloodshed and excruciating suffering. I don’t think a reference to “figuring things out yourself” or mystery really does it either. Think of the just plain horrendous suffering of homosexuals for millenia. It’s taken us that long for anyone to “figure out” that this persecution and self-loathing is wrong, and mabye most believers still haven’t “figured it out.” Generations of tortured gay people have lived entire lives and died in that time. A single phrase from Jesus or the Gospel writers could have prevented all that, and the lack of it simply seems utterly pointless.
Really? There are very few words of Jesus that even suggest the possibility of supporting violence. **Raindog ** did a good job of putting one in context. On the other hand we have specific instructions to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. Then we have the example of Jesus not letting his own disciples defend him from the arrest that would lead to his crucifixion.
I’ve never really studied this so I will leave it to others, perhaps raindog can illuminate the subject.
We have books written decades after the events occurred and altered after that as they passed through many hands. I agree it isn’t as clear as a simple book entitled “instructions for life” might be. I think the basics are there pretty clearly for anyone who seriously looks for them. After that, working out the details of how those principles apply to day to day life, has to be worked out within the individual. It isn’t just about following the rules but about an inner transformation that cannot be contained within the words of any book. Nor was it intended to be.
You’re trying too hard. Jesus was fairly revolutionary in the way he treated women with equality but that doesn’t prevent Paul from having his own opinions on the subject, or later scribes from altering the text to keep women in their place.
If some word about sexual preference had been uttered by Jesus or the apostles it still had to pass through the hands of others to make it into cannon.
Jesus message to treat all people with love, respect and compassion includes sexual preference, all races and genders. I repeat. It isn’t about a list of rules to follow. The message has to be internalized and lived. We are many generations into doing that but progress has been made.
Certainly the truth about mankind’s slow progress isn’t the fault of Jesus or any lack in the clarity of his message. We choose to embrace it or not and to what degree.
I agree that the major world religions promote peace whilst many of their followers practice the opposite of their religous tenets .
I wonder if Satanists while vocifrously wishing evil on the world secretly make donations to Oxfam ,help old ladies across the street and help bring unhappy partners in marriage to successful reconciliations .
It would have to be in secret of course,can you imagine just how embarassed they’d feel if they were found out.
Again, Jesus’ teachings are just not particularly clear about anything. Who is he talking to? In what context does he place his teachings?
As I noted, turning the other cheek could just as easily be a reference to what, in that culture, was the equivalent of giving someone the middle finger.
Which sort of makes the sword thing all the odder. But who knew what Jesus really expected would happen? If he really thought of himself as the messiah, he might well have been surprised that God didn’t fly down from the heavens to crush his enemies.
Raindog is an apologist for a particular point of view. I am too, but my position is a little more nuanced in that what I’m arguing is that there are a lot of things that muddy the waters until we can’t quite be sure what Jesus meant… and hence I can better explain than you or raindog why so many people have read Jesus so many different ways.
Right. So say you. And of course, so says Bob down the street… though he has a completely different take on it than you. That’s exactly the problem.
Again, I think in light of what YOU claim the teachings are, which are a bunch a of very clear and easily understood claims, that position on the bible looks a bit silly. It’s not even clear that Jesus WANTED to be clear, of course.
Again, this is just a cop out. First of all, Jesus treatment of women is, yet again, far from some clear and unambiguous statement of equality. Like everything else it’s idiosyncratic. You read in the symbolism you want.
Second of all, I don’t see how this is in any way an adequate response to my challenge. We’re talking about the son of God here. How hard would it have been to teach that cruelty is wrong and that the persecution of people for their sexuality is wrong? On the contrary, Jesus condemns every lustful thought as sin and promises punishments for pretty much everyone other than his own band of faithful. I don’t see how any “inner transformation” can get around that.
But the cannon IS Jesus: it’s all we really have to call Jesus. All else is just wishful interpretation. It isn’t in there. Maybe there was a Jesus and he did think the persecution of gay people was wrong. But he certainly didn’t try very hard to let anyone know. Instead, the picture we have of Jesus is cursing fig trees, and trying to figure out what the heck that was all about.
That’s what you read into it, sure, but I don’t see that uambiguously supported in the text, so no, I don’t think that was “Jesus” message. That’s your message, or the message of a Jesus you believe in, which is well and good, but I think a little outside the question of what the cannon has traditionally supported.
Again, this seems like a pretty lousy excuse for not simply teaching things straight out and reducing the rather gaping ambiguity.
Again, this is simply you assuming that your interpretation is correct. That’s nice and all, but millions of other people, including pretty much all of the most famous Christian thinkers in like, ever, don’t see things your way. How is that not the fault of the teachings not being clear? Saying that others choose not to embrace it really seems pretty presumptive. They’ll say the same about you too. So?
Then we will just disagree on this. I have a hard time seeing how any reasonable person can read the words attributed to JC as a whole and conclude that he supported violence, unless for personal reasons you just want to.
Really? How so? Is there a shred of evidence to support that?
No it doesn’t. It makes raindogs explanation about those verses make a lot of sense. Your other comment is irrelevant.
I doubt that. You raindog and I all have different opinions and interpretations and disagree on which meaning is more or less likely. We each have opinions colored by personal preference. My guess is that raindog has a lot more real biblical study in than either you or I and regardless of his particular bent , his well informed opinions hold a little more weight. The same would go for DtC another resident well informed student of the Bible.
I think I have a pretty good handle on why so many people have read Jesus so many different ways. Thanks for be willing to help though.
Concerning the basics, not all the specific details, but the basics, I don’t think that many people see it in completely different ways. When it comes to the basics I think most Christians regardless of denomination would agree. Other non Christians might see it as a philosophy rather than divine revelation and still agree on the basics.
Have you run into a lot of people who think Jesus taught violence?
I’m not sure I follow your meaning here.
My claims are my opinions and feelings after years of study. Knowing people as I do I don’t expect everyone to come to the same conclusions I have. That doesn’t mean we don’t agree on the basics.
It isn’t that Jesus didn’t want to be clear. He understood that spiritual growth took time, desire, and willingness. You don’t teach calculus to someone who hasn’t mastered basic math.
end part 1
And every year your school had a big argument about whether the PTA could put up a display in the library of Jesus cursing the fig trees.