Actually, my opinion of Paul IS one of militance and misogyny! But he was more complex than that, as my quote shows. Going to this “pinko” (by the standards of Henry Hyde’s home district) church has shown me that.
-
I get it now! I realize what part of the problem is, my use of the word “all” in the title! You think I mean that ALL CHRISTIANS are violent! Nonononono! It’s a bit of semantic confusion! No, I’m talking about all of the VIOLENT Christians only. See, that’s how English works: you add a modifier to make a more specific subset of the set of all Christians. Yeesh! I wasn’t generalizing. It was you who misinterpreted what I said.
-
Well, that’s how I was taught. Death is cause for celebration as the dead person is reborn to eternal life.
-
No, but some Christians I’ve heard lately seem to.
JODI, once again, I wish this were not in the Pit.
Earlier in this thread I posted this:
The thinkers that andros cited, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and others seem to say “war is regrettable but necessary, and killing in a just war is not wrong or sinful.” I can accept that as Church doctrine, as far as that goes.
If someone started a “Where did all these violent Muslims come from” thread, I would not jump down anyone’s throat as the P.C. police (I only use that if you use the word towel-head). I would try to look at writings from the Koran, writings of Muslim thinkers, and political history of the Muslim world and try to find out how they justify violence to themselves. Much like we are doing in this thread about Christianity.
I apologize if my initial post in this thread came across as derisive. My use of the word “loophole” was also not meant to be derisive. Church fathers and theologians took the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” and said “of course he didn’t mean it’s wrong to kill ALL the time, that’s ridiculous. Here’s when it’s okay to kill: - when it’s a just war, if ordered by one’s superior, and to secure one’s own safety.” Which makes perfect sense from a common sense or survival standpoint, but seems to go directly against “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, turn the other cheek, do not kill.” It’s the transformation of a very idealistic faith into one that can function and build a power base in the real world. And it looks a teeny weeny little bit like yes, a loophole.
It also scares me - was the “just war” theory used to justify the Inquisition? The Crusades?
Now I have more information about how Christians feel about war. Thanks.
As Humble Servant said, this thread is hoppin’.
So much here that I’d like to respond to in a leisurely manner, but I’ve gotta get some work done this afternoon! But a few quickies:
dropzone - yes indeedy, don’t judge Paul on just a few verses. He wasn’t perfect, but he was remarkable - an organizer, exhorter, evangelist, and man of action, and yet a mystic and theologian. There have been few mortal men like him.
beagledave - thanks for the ‘just war’ summation. While there are some things in there that kinda depend on how you spin them, it’s reassuring to see that it’s not that far from where I am.
magdalene - Aquinas (mostly going back further in time by quoting Augustine - yes, this just-war stuff has been around awhile!) does, IMO, open up holes large enough to allow the Church a bit too great of a comfort zone with the worldly needs of a secular nation. And dropzone, I personally feel this had more to do with Constantine than with Paul. As I see it, C. wrapped the Church and the State into a big ball, and they’ve never quite gotten them disentangled yet.
-
Just because I chose, rightly or wrongly, to post it in the Pit doesn’t mean we have to turn our brains off. Mine comes that way, but I greatly appreciate your input here.
-
And I LIKE idealism. That’s why I like the philosophy of Christianity to the point that I am a weekly churchgoer and contributer to my church in both time and treasure despite my agnosticism. They accept me as a seeker. And folks here should be glad I didn’t post the petition that was in the weekly bulletin! Talk about idealism…
I’m seeing that, thanks to my pastor. When I was a kid all I heard was the King of Grumpiness stuff. I would ask myself, “Where’s the love?” It’s there. You guys are gonna bring me back yet!
-
Maybe it was me who wasn’t very clear…the word “ALL” suggest “LOTS” of violent Christians. I see a very few mentioned in your OP. If I said “what’s up with all the violent Muslims”…I would suspect that I would be reminded that they are a small, non-representative minority .
-
So, there is no room for sadness/grief among the friends and families of the departed? OK…
-
Ah, so now we’re down to “SOME” christians…when earlier, you said “ALL” christians since Constantin were that way…unless of course, you meant something different by THAT use of “all”
DROP, apology accepted and I apologize as well. I realize I tend to be a little over-sensitive on this, but it does somethimes appear to be open season on Christians around here. This is reinforced by reading a thread like this one (or, rather, like this one appeared to be initially) when people are simultaneously – and quite rightly – taking extra care not to generalize about Islam or its teachings. It seems like “we are going to be very respectful and careful about how we characterize one faith (Islam), but we’re not going to bother to take care with another (Christianity).” And, yes, as you’ve probably gathered, that bugs me. People who realize there is a spectrum of beliefs in Islam, and who realize Islam can be used and perverted but still remain a legitimate and, at bottom, constructive religion, should also be able to see that the same is true of Christianity.
MAGDALENE –
I really think this is unfair. If the commandment in question has always been widely interpreted to mean “thou shalt not murder” – not “thou shalt not kill” – how are the church fathers and theologians “turning it” into anything. That, in their mind, is what it means. It is not a willful exercise in making it mean something it really does not. That’s what it means.
“Love your enemies, bless those how curse you, turn the other cheek, do not murder” – none of those are incompatible with legitimate self-defense. You take reasonable intepretations of those passages and construe them as rationalizations, simply because they don’t jibe with how you prefer to read them. That’s fine as far as it goes, of course, but you are doing a great disservice to any number of religious thinkers who just happen to disagree with your intepretation, and whose disagreement is not a rationalization nor the creation of a “loophole.” And, yes, to the extent that “loophole” is used to connotate a way to avoid the legitimate law, it remains a teensy bit derrogatory, as surely you can see.
Oh, probably. But just because a theory is subject to misuse does not mean it is without value or does not have a legitimate use. Surely you can see that. Simply because some people might take the concept of self-defense to extend it to acts of aggression does not mean the concept of self-defense itself has no value, and cannot be defended.
Blast those Christians!!! If not for them this world would be so much better. No one trying to guide you along a way that you have no interest in or belief in. But ya know, I’m one of those people. You have no idea every day of my life how thankful I am that the one that will be my final judge is not one from this world or especially this board. I get so sick of hearing ‘turn the other cheek.’ There’s also a verse in the Bible that says “Cast not your pearls before the swine…” I don’t have my Bible at work so I apologize that I can’t give you the exact location. You can argue all you like, make fun of all you like, even cast people that are Christians aside if you so desire. But each man has to work out his own salvation with much trembling and fear. So why not let them as long as they aren’t bothering you or hurting you?
And of course, yes, as you find with most things in life, you have those over zealous people that try to get the message across in the wrong way. But you find that with most things in life. Casting out Bible verses, whether in text or out of text, is not going to change a person’s basic beliefs and actually rarely makes your point. Most Christians have read enough of the Bible to know when you take it out of text you can prove just about any point you wish to make.
Jodi I admire you as a poster, your beliefs are admirable to other Christians. Don’t let the views and opinions of others get to you. After all, that’s all they are, views and opinions. No more right or wrong than anyone else’s, except to those that have true faith and believe. Stick to your beliefs and take these opinions with a grain of salt.
-
Then you made an interpretation that wasn’t accurate. Not my fault.
-
HAH! You forget I used to live in Wheaton, IL, and have been playing this game forever!
Mat 8:21-22 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Face it. You can’t beat me in Dueling Bible Verses.
- Okay, here’s where my own lack of restrictions comes in handy. Dave, do you want me to punch you now or later?
[hijack]
Just for my own edification, can the poster to this thread clarify exactly how they do interpret “Turn the other cheek?” I’ve used it in speaking to people like Wildest Bill, who in my opinion don’t come even close to acting like a Christian supposedly should, because I’ve always taken it to mean “Always return offense with kindness” or something of that nature. If I’m way, way off base from mainstream Christian thought, I’d like to know.
[/hijack]
Ah, my speciality!
PHIL, my interpretation of “turn the other cheek” is that a person should not seek revenge. The context of the quote is the Sermon on the Mount (I think?), and more specifically where Jesus says “You have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say 'turn the other cheek” – or words to that effect.
There is also a school of thought that “turn the other cheek” refers specifically to being insulted – the insult being to be struck in the face – and that the point is that one should not resist insult or give insults in return. (Personally I, um, have a little trouble with that – she said in understatement).
It has not to my knowledge historically been interpreted to mean that one should not defend oneself, one’s family, or the innocent. The thinking is that if that was the point, Jesus would have spoken about an injury far more grave and dangerous than being slapped – if He expected people not to defend themselves.
There is no question that pacifist Christians intepret this text, and the relevant commandment to mean that one must never do injury to another, no matter how provoked. But there is an equally legitimate belief by other Christians that to allow oneself or, worse, an innocent to be injured by an evildoer is acceding to the doing of evil, and is, therefore, itself an evil act.
There are several interpretations. One is “Thank you sir, may I have another?” in which you show contempt for your own corporeality. Another is explained in this link. Sounds like a stretch, but interesting.
So it’s more of a, “Seek justice, but not personal vengeance” rather than a, “Let yourself get pushed around” thing? That makes sense. I never thought of it that way.
Matthew 5:38-39: You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also."
Were I one who interpreted Bible verses I might come to the conclusion that He’s telling us to just take the hit. But I’m not so I won’t.
Jodi, we’ve both had some of our fundamental beliefs attacked lately, sometimes by each other. I’m glad we can put that behind us.
Phil, though IANAC, I believe it to mean that no violence, physical or otherwise, should be returned with violence.
Sermon on the Mount is Chs. 5-7 of Matthew. Search here:
http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
Gotta run!
andros, I interpret it the way you do.
Thanks for the searchable bible, RTFirefly!
From Matthew Chapter 5.
JODI, I respectfully submit that I see nothing to support the “killing is okay in self-defense or just war” interpretation. That may be part of Christianity, the modern religion, as it is practiced here. But “Do not resist one who is evil”…
How do you reconcile it? Why isn’t “murder” the same as “killing” in your interpretation?
I’m not saying that resisting evil people, fighting injustice, and killing people in defense of life or freedom is not common-sensical. But Christianity asks us to resist or refrain from a great many things that are instinctive and normal-seeming in service to God.
I think Jesus was quite a radical man, looking to completely change the order of human living. Later theologians like Aquinas and Augustine and those who interpret “thou shalt not kill” to mean “thou shalt not murder, but killing is okay if…” were not quite so radical - as Christianity spread and gained worldly power there was less interest in challenging the morality of war, and more interest in making sure that wars were just and conducted for moral reasons. Which is better than nothing - just wars, with care taken for civilians, with attention to cause and conduct and proportional response, etc. are better than unjust wars. The problem is that BOTH sides in a war always think that they are fighting for a just cause. Who decides which cause is just? That is why “turn the other cheek” and “love thine enemies” is such a revolutionary way of thinking.
I admire your love of justice and eloquence in its defense to no end, so I am interested in what you have to say.
If God reads the Pit I’m in a world of trouble…
MAGDALENE –
With all due respect, I don’t really care if you see it or not. It is enough for me to feel that you recognize that your strict interpretation is neither mine nor that held by the majority of mainstream Christianity. I am not trying to argue you out of your position; I am merely not allowing you to tell me it ought to be mine.
These are two different questions. The first is, how do you reconcile “do not resist one who is evil” with self-defense? First, you surely see that this phrase cannot be accepted literally, in that Jesus would advise His followers to not resist evildoers in any way. It is more often interpreted, in context, as “do not lash out at evil persons in vengeance” – ie, immediately hitting back someone who has hit you. Second, it has also been argued that the phrase is mistranslated, in that it is a reference to Psalm 37 (Jesus quite often quoting the OT, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, where he was giving His own “spin” on many OT texts). That phrase is “do not fret about evildoers.” Third, it is also argued that the phrase is limited to the context of non-lethal action – ie, that if you are not merely returning insult for insult, which is what Jesus was talking about, then you should not do it. Again, this is not irreconcilable with self-defense, because Jesus wasn’t talking about self-defense in the first place.
Second, it is easy to distinguish between “murder” and “killing” because the words have two different meanings. To kill means “to deprive of life.” “Murder” means “the unlawful killing of one human being by another.” (Dictionary.com; emphasis added.) It is reasonable to believe that God commanded men not to murder, and not to kill, because after He gave them the commandments He also gave them laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy providing for capital punishment. Why would He ask His people to break the very commandment He had given them?
Not my Christianity, it doesn’t. Christianity asks me to try to overcome that which is negative, small, and evil in myself (greed, anger, vanity, etc.) and to embrace that which is good, and to try to follow the teachings of Christ. It does not ask me to do one thing that does not make sense to me.
You continiue to insist that the interpretation of the commandment as “thou shalt not murder” is some late-coming change from how it really was meant to be read. For reasons just given above, I think this is simply incorrect. It never meant “thou shalt not kill, ever ever ever,” as is evinced by the fact that the Law of Moses provided that murderers, idolaters, and adulterers (among others) were to be put to death.
Let me ask you this: If your child was attacked, to be raped and killed by an aggressor, do you really believe that Christianity would expect you to do nothing – that you are required by a Christian faith to “not resist the evildoer”? Because if I thought that was what Christianity meant, I wouldn’t practice it either. There comes a point where failing to resist evil is itself an evil act. I do not say that such decisions are easy to make, or the true “right” side always easy to find, but just because it isn’t easy doesn’t mean it isn’t still valid.
I would add, parenthetically, that I am no Bible scholar, and what limited materials I do have, I don’t have here at work. I would suggest that if you truly were curious about how the Catholic church or Christianity in general reconciles these passages, that you do a quick web search, as I just did. There are abundant materials out there, written by people who are certainly going to do a better job of explaining this that I ever could.