Coming from a Catholic whose church made ample use of the sword to slaughter the innocent in the name of its God. Thanks for sharing.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Bible and The Quran
- Thread starter dgirl1986
- Start date
That is ridiculous. It's a metaphor. In fact the next two verses explain this to those who may lack imagination,
"For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
It means simply that what he is teaching is revolutionary thought that challenges conventional, traditional thought and will create a division between those who choose to follow his teachings, and those who choose to stay stuck in their traditions. Even as a young person reading that my first time I got that. It's pretty obvious. Only some unimaginative sort would take that to mean he was saying go slice your mom and dad up with a sword.
Let's take another verse like this literally and see what happens,
"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
I'm sure a literal reading of this could be taken to be an instruction to use the Bible to inflict severe paper cuts on the infidels. I'm surprised some freaky cult hasn't come up with that yet. "The NT advocates violence, instructing its followers to slice people up with the edges of it's pages!"
Last edited:
What do you mean by this? You mean some Christians don't use the NT at all?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
The law brings death and love brings life no matter what source you get it from.IMO
As you wish.
Then you agree?
Not always, at least at first glance.
What a huge problem that turned out to be.
Going back to the OP's question, I will say that I don't think it is proper to use scriptures as justification for hatred or violence. Ever.
The very existence of literalist and/or fundamentalist Christians / Muslims is weird to me.
Include any religion to that, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca, etc. Literalism is simply a mode of thinking, concrete-literal thinking. It cannot think metaphorically, in "as-if" thought. It also externalizes everything, that it is a power totally outside of you, a force that does things and you have to figure out how to appease/obey it in order for it to do its magic. Same words, same scriptures, entirely different mindsets and different understandings.
Hello Jay
So...because I am a Catholic I am therefore unable, or should be dissuaded, from criticizing an interpretation of a biblical verse which I regard as not teaching violence?
I think that is a rather sweeping denunciation of Catholic history, which spans 2,000 years, every continent on the globe, uncountable millions of people (from sociopaths to saints) and like all religions has went through distinct time periods (some of them, such as the Spanish Inquisition, being undeniably violent as you say) and brought up for no good reason at all since I'm not discussing Catholicism but the New Testament.
Catholicism hasn't got much of anything to do with this thread, as far as I can tell, since it is about religious scriptures - namely the Bible and the Qur'an - not religious institutions which use them (and which can indeed be very faulty as I know all too well).
I have merely corrected what I see as your mistaken interpretation and un-contextualized lifting of a New Testament verse which does not advocate violence as you suggested but namely is a metaphorical reference to inter-family division. That in itself might not be good, however it still isn't condoning violence.
I had expected a rebuttal of my points and some debate/discussion however apparently its not to be
Last edited:
That depends on what you consider part of Christianity, doesn't it?
Quite a lot of vicious movements and people claim to be Christian, after all. Some parts of the Bible are downright bloodthirsty, particularly Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 20.
As Jayhawker Soule already mentioned, the New Testament isn't all that peaceful either. His quote comes from Matthew 10, and I don't think the context is all that reassuring. I would also question Matthew 18's Parable of the Unmerciful Servant and John 12,47-48
It may well be that Christianity does not condone violence, but one would not guess that from the Bible alone.
On that point, we are in full agreement.
As the Qur'an says, actually:
In other words, people are able to see the truth for themselves. There is no need therefore to become entangled in petty disputes about which religious scripture is better than the other. Independent investigation of truth allows people to make up their own minds about what they want to follow.
Hello Luis
May I ask what you consider to be violent about the above passage?
The above passage is dealing with believing in Christ and facing judgement on the "last day". Now, again as with the family strife passage, that might not appear "endearing" as a general concept however I personally see nothing violent about it since it is referring to purely spiritual matters of personal salvation. It is essentially saying that Jesus does not judge people who reject his gospel in this life because his Father will judge them in the life to come after their death.
I think that we have to be very clear that violence means violence, rather than simply taking a passage which seems to reflect a restricted view of salvation (as opposed to other verses which don't) or another negative concept but which isn't actually preaching violence of any sort.
Could you perhaps elaborate?
Last edited:
Hi, Vouthon.
Let's call it judgmental (I agree that it is not violent, but I found it questionable, as stated).
I don't personally don't see how such a passage can be constructively used. Ultimately, it is a vague warning or threat for those who "reject" Jesus.
But sure, it is not really violent. It is just weirdly judgmental.
Let's call it judgmental (I agree that it is not violent, but I found it questionable, as stated).
I don't personally don't see how such a passage can be constructively used. Ultimately, it is a vague warning or threat for those who "reject" Jesus.
But sure, it is not really violent. It is just weirdly judgmental.
Hi Luis,
Good point and I'm glad that we agree its not violent
Well first off, if we take the purely secular viewpoint, scholars would likely not attribute this statement to Jesus. The long monologues of the Gospel of John are often understood in terms of the theological dispositions of the author or the purported Johannine community, with basis upon genuine words or general ideas from Jesus but heavily fleshed out with soteriological philosophizing on the part of the Evangelist.
As far as sacred scripture goes though, it is of course considered to be inspired writ for Christians (whatever one's view of divine inspiration might be).
Upon reading it closely and remembering the verse from my past study, I see that it is less about the Father judging than it is an appeal to conscience. Note that Jesus says, "the word that I have spoken" shall be the judge of a person that does not believe in Jesus' words. I misspoke, therefore, earlier on when I said that Jesus referred judgement to the "Father". How does a word spoken judge someone? Of course, it cannot literally so Jesus must be suggesting that his words will one day serve as an appeal to conscience.
Jesus is here being depicted as self-confident in his message: He will not personally judge anyone, rather his message itself is testimony enough and on the "last day" people will have to face up to it when it calls their conscience to account.
I think there are actually more troubling soteriological verses than this one, given that it merely says that Jesus' "words" will serve as judgement after death and does not indicate whether that "judgement" will be in the negative or the positive.
In other words, if it is to be read as a "threat" then it is a rather weak one in the context of New Testament literature since it does not even say that they will be judged negatively. Note that other passages in the Bible say that everyone - those who believe in the Gospel and those who don't - will be "judged" on the basis of their works (or "faith" if you use some of St. Paul's references, which is not as exclusive as it might appear but that is a different topic!). This passage merely confirms that: they will be judged...but so will everyone according to the other Christian scriptures, so is there anything particularly "threatening" about that when seen in this way?
It should not therefore be read as a threat at all but in context. Jesus' message has been challenged by his opponents throughout the Gospel of John. Here, as the preceding verse tells us, "many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God." (12:42-43)
He then makes this statement, clearly addressed to the Pharisees in the main, as a statement not so much about their lack of belief in his message but rather as a testimony of his own authority.
Note the verse directly after 47-48:
He is defending his own authority to say what he says, rather than making a threat or statement about their unbelief.
Why does he feel the need to do this? Because throughout the text of the Gospel his authority has continually been questioned. At one point, stones are thrown at him and he is accused thus:
Therefore the author of the Gospel is attempting to respond to such rebuttals by stressing Jesus' authority given by the Father to say and do what he does, even though it appears blasphemous.
So I don't see this as a threat. I see it more as a statement about Jesus' authority to claim the high Christology that he does for himself in the Gospel, and by default, an expression of the Johannine community's defense of its very high Christology.
So, what do I think in a nutshell this verse is all about? Simply:
It is a statement defending the high Christology of the Fourth Gospel, by suggesting that Jesus' message will serve as judgement for people because it is from the Father and Jesus therefore has the authority to preach it because of this divine origin. It does not indicate expressly whether that judgement will be negative or positive, nor the exact nature of it (ie he makes it clear that he won't be the one doing the judging, nor does it explicitly say the Father, which leaves it open to much speculation).
Compare it with this parallel verse from Mark:
As you can see, this verse and the one in John both grant a divine authority to Jesus' message which they claim will be the only thing left from this world at the end of time, meaning that its divine origin and eternity serve as testimony of its truth. That is what this verse and the one in John is saying: they are both statements upholding the authority of Jesus' message, saying in effect "the truth of the gospel that I preach stands for itself" or "its truth is self-evident". Its a confident statement either from Jesus himself or his disciples about their belief in the authority of the Gospel message and its permanency for all time.
Last edited:
Yes, I don't read that as a threat either, but as you say an appeal to conscience. Ever have those moments of realization in your life when a certain light bulb goes off over something you've done, and the words others may have said to you come ringing true? It's like that. So when someone in the "last day", which I understand metaphorically as that moment when all illusion is stripped away and you stand in full awareness of reality beyond your own darkened imaginations, the light of that is so bright it blasts away all the impurities of our minds like a nuclear fire, leaving only Truth to be seen and realized.
So what I hear being alluded to here is that as that happens, the realization of what was said will become clear and the conscious mind (in whatever form that will be), will gain that knowledge in themselves. The words purify. That's the judgement. It separates the chaff from the wheat in our consciousness. And that can happen while you are alive.
So what I hear being alluded to here is that as that happens, the realization of what was said will become clear and the conscious mind (in whatever form that will be), will gain that knowledge in themselves. The words purify. That's the judgement. It separates the chaff from the wheat in our consciousness. And that can happen while you are alive.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
I think we should all take pride in the war tactics as outlined in the scriptures of our forefathers, no need to sugar coat it. Every story needs a little beheading, vigilante justice, and a good emotional release of a well executed revenge.
Be proud of your people's victories! less you end up as a vegetarian groveling at the feet of an elephant. (Ha! see what I did there? Now the Abrahamic sides can unite and have at it at the Hindus!).
Op solved.
Excellent post
Your understanding fits in well, actually, with the eschatology outlined in the Gospel of John. What in other gospels is anticipated in the future, in John it is stressed to be a present reality in the life of the believer:
Hence why in an earlier chapter of the Gospel we find it stated by the Evangelist:
Here the judgement is a present day reality, a now rather than in the afterlife.
In the Christian mystical tradition, the "judgement" was - interestingly enough - understood as a judicial figure of speech as opposed to an actual judgement day with a celestial lawgiver deciding the fate of the person. Thereby we find one of Eckhart's most radical disciples stating in a treatise from 14th century Germany:
"Judgement" is therefore a form of self-judgement whereby our own conscience enlightens (or fails to enlighten) us. As we appear from that inner reading of our heart, with Christ's "words" as our witness, so we will "remain".
The above is likewise the official stance of the modern Catholic Church regarding "judgement":
So the "last day" is that moment when you listen to your conscience and allow it to wake you up from your ignorance and the emptiness of your life to receive salvation.
This more mystical interpretation also fits in with the Fourth Gospel since Jesus states in the Last Supper Discourse near the end:
If one takes this as a succinct summary of all Jesus' monologues throughout the course of the Gospel, rather than just to his preceding words in the discourse, it means that everything before this in the Gospel is to be interpreted according to the spirit, in a metaphorical rather than in a literal fashion.
Even the miracles in this Gospel are described as "signs" rather than the more literal synoptic phrase "deeds of power".
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the context is that Jesus is telling his disciples that 'they' will be hated and persecuted. He was preparing 'them' to receive opposition...the same sort of opposition that he himself received.
So really the 'sword' that he was talking about was a 'sword' that will come against his followers. He certainly wasnt instructing his followers to take up swords against their families or fellowman. He was warning them that even their own families (non believers) would take up the sword/persecute them.
That's interesting. Thanks.
Actually, he didn't change much. He's supposed to slaughter most of us at the end of days and throw all the non-believers into a lake of fire. I guess this is just a "cooling off" period between the gorefest of the OT and now. Even gluttons have to take a break from stuffing their faces from time to time. Although he did kill a few people in the NT. Old habits die hard.