Other Waldo Pepper in my opinion sounds a bit like Tolstoy who was a Christian Anarchist.
I think Jesus was a myth and many of his followers are assholes. That said, your statement is bullshit. Jesus-the-character was resolutely uninterested in temporal power. He’d no more want to be in charge than Superman would.
But isn’t that imposing Superman’s ethos on the Jesus myth?
Then again, Supes started out as a fighter for justice. (He was, after all, a good Jew.) Some Xtians don’t want Jesus to be even that; they want a magic name to invoke who will heal them, bless them, offer them a Gnostic Heaven, & above all, not judge. The man in the Gospels, otoh, was a harsher piece of work.
Let’s just be clear: I’m not doing something akin to violence if I tell a rich man to give all he has to the poor; I’m only doing something akin to violence if I take it from him when he refuses. I’m not doing something akin to violence if I turn the other cheek when struck; I’m only doing something akin to violence if I hit back. Casting the first stone is akin to violence in a way that instructions and criticisms aren’t – unless we’re talking about, say, instructions to commit violence, or whatever.
You think Jesus believes authority comes from the people?
Look, when Jesus criticized or instructed or whatever regarding how folks shouldn’t cast the first stone, he didn’t leave the door open for people to give authority to some bloke who can then cast the first stone and say he’s simply doing his job. He advocated turning the other cheek when smacked upside the head; he didn’t say any individual or group of individuals could end-run that prohibition by delegating hit-'em-back authority to a designated hireling.
He didn’t say people can grant others the authority to do the badmouthed stuff in their stead; he just badmouths the stuff, is all.
I’m not claiming it’s an analogy to violence. I’m claiming it is violence.
I don’t see that Jesus would allow me, acting as a private citizen, to tell someone else to go hit someone. I don’t see that Jesus would allow me, acting as a legislator, to tell someone else to go hit someone. I don’t see that Jesus would allow me to do it personally, or that he’d allow me to delegate that authority to anyone else, or that he’d let me get that authority delegated my way from other people; Jesus only ever says not to do it, and AFAICT never spells out an exception I can exploit.
And, yes, I get that you see my interpretation as being ‘too literal’. Possibly you’d prefer an interpretation that says “judge not, except, y’know, in one or two special cases.” Many folks would doubtlessly prefer an interpretation that says “forgive others their trespasses, unless they do X or Y or Z to you”. Arguably I’d certainly prefer an interpretation that says “turn the other cheek, unless it’s someone who needs to be taught a lesson, in which case, hey, don’t even wait for them to hit you first; just let fly and cast a fist-sized rock.”
The problem is, he didn’t talk like that; he talked like an absolutist, and didn’t much bother with exceptions.
I can’t readily lock someone up – regardless of what he’s done – without recourse to violence. I don’t see that I can tell someone else to do it without authorizing some, either. I don’t see that Jesus said I can grant anyone that authority, or that other people can grant me such authority.
He sure did. It’s not enough to just talk a good game about turning the other cheek and forgiving others their trespasses; you have to do it. The action of casting the first stone, or even hitting back, is what counts. Merely admonishing is fine, but physically taking action is vengeance-is-mine-saith-the-lord territory.
Admonishing is pretty much where those followers draw the line, because that’s pretty much the limit he spelled out. That’s why I tend to think he wouldn’t approve of such legislation; I’m supposed to admonish, but as per Jesus my province is supposed to be lip service rather than action when it comes to someone else’s property. My province is letting that ‘someone else’ smack me upside the head while he keeps my grubby hands off his money – whether as a private citizen or a legislator or anything else, Jesus never spelled out any exceptions. If you find that overly literal, take it up with him.
Then we simply don’t agree and going in circles won’t change anything.
I don’t see the new health care bill as violence.
While you’re asserting Jesus absolutism about non violence you might want to read
about him driving the money changers out of the temple. It’s in all four gospels
Jesus reserves the right to do all sorts of stuff the rest of us are banned from doing; that’s rather the whole point of me referencing vengeance-is-mine-saith-the-lord territory in the post you’re now quoting. Jesus says he has authority to execute judgment and in fact entered this world to render judgment sure as he says that guys like you and me are of course supposed to judge not – but that first part in no way keeps the second part from applying to you and me.
That’s one way of looking at it. Incorrect IMO but it’s one way.