Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,
I have yet to be convinced
Read The Politics of Jesus by Yoder.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,
I have yet to be convinced
Bit cheap, got a summeryRead The Politics of Jesus by Yoder.
I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,
I have yet to be convinced
I call shenanigans. The Gospels are full of instances of Jesus calling all sorts of people "vipers", "evil-doers", and "whitewashed tombs"... IOW, passing judgement on them.Jesus made the point not to pass judgement, and that by doing so the people had executed and condemned the innocent not knowing.
I think you're ignoring the fact that much of early Christianity's rise in popularity was due to it being adopted by soldiers in the Roman army. In general, they didn't stop being soldiers when they became Christians. While we can point to pacifist leanings in early Christianity, we can point just as easily to decidedly non-pacifist leanings as well.The point, I think, that could be made is what is this life to a practicing Christian? It matters nothing except what you learn from it/what good you can do in it. Did any of the first Christians fight back as they were boiled alive, stripped of their skin, and crucified? No...And even for that they were mocked. But they would have been destroyed completely if they had, observe. The people would have said "They are devil worshipers AND dangerous/violent as well!?"
I call shenanigans. The Gospels are full of instances of Jesus calling all sorts of people "vipers", "evil-doers", and "whitewashed tombs"... IOW, passing judgement on them.
I think you're ignoring the fact that much of early Christianity's rise in popularity was due to it being adopted by soldiers in the Roman army. In general, they didn't stop being soldiers when they became Christians. While we can point to pacifist leanings in early Christianity, we can point just as easily to decidedly non-pacifist leanings as well.
Is it Kill or Murder?
to my knowledge and from the council of my Israeli friend, it's murder
Granted God may have might murder in the Old Conveant and magnified it as he did with the other commandments to include killing now.
We do see Just War in the Old Testament, it may have been a tolerated evil, but I still have trouble recociling it with Pacifism
What the Lord advocated was not pacifism but non-violent resistance and peace-making. He advocated the humiliation of the violent and power-hungry. He advocated forgiveness and reconciliation between the have's and the have-not's
About the temple, I am sure he didn´t kill anyone there.
But he made a point with violence, and did not condemn any of the soldiers he met or any of the disciples for carrying swords
He prescribed quite a bit of punishment. He declared that the unrighteous would be gathered up and burned like chaff; his message was inherently violent.Using the word differently though, he didn't put them to death did he? Never ordered a punishment for them to be carried out by his followers. That is what I meant, and I think what he meant as well. No judgement being passed as in no punishment/"Correction" being prescribed.
They were probably just as literate as the non-violent Christians who you wanted to cite as support when it was convenient for your argument.True, but I find it hard to justify using the New Testament myself. Were the soldiers even literate(I wouldn't know myself, not that well versed in Roman history yet :/)?
IOW, the beliefs of individual believers don't matter when judging the qualities of the religion itself.Would be interesting and even pivotal, I think, to look into WHY the soldiers took in Christianity as well. Seems likely to me that they would do so for hopeful protection from a new god, or by being forced?...There seems to be to me, in religion a need for a separation between what it's founders/scriptures say and what it's followers actually do. As well as the doctrines and interpretations that sprout up afterwards, among its followers. As we all know, people are all to happy to skew scripture so that it fits what they want to do. It matters none what people call themselves in my experience.
Quite right. On one occasion, he even commanded his disciples to get swords if they didn't have them.But he made a point with violence, and did not condemn any of the soldiers he met or any of the disciples for carrying swords
He didn't say not to use them either, and the whole point of carrying a sword is to prepare onesself to commit violence (maybe violence in defense of onesself or others, but still violence).Carrying a swod intimidates other people. He never said use them, and when they did he reprimended them and HEAL the soldier that was wounded by his disciple.
It's more accurately translated "you shall not murder"... i.e. engage in unlawful killing. Lawful killing, such as self defense, battlefield deaths, or official executions were A-OK by Mosaic law.edit: Also, there is no commandment of "you shall not be violent" but there is a commandment of "you shall not kill"
LOL christian pacifism, there is no such thing if christians were willing to murder, rape and make war with each other for hundreds and hundreds of years. That shows what their idealogy is cabable of doing
SDA,JW, Mennonites, Amish etc. Christian pacifism is alive and wellLOL christian pacifism, there is no such thing if christians were willing to murder, rape and make war with each other for hundreds and hundreds of years. That shows what their idealogy is cabable of doing
I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,
I have yet to be convinced
What the Lord advocated was not pacifism but non-violent resistance and peace-making. He advocated the humiliation of the violent and power-hungry. He advocated forgiveness and reconciliation between the have's and the have-not's
I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,
I have yet to be convinced