Christian Warfare

[ChristineM]

I find the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2 ) has two important parts:
1) Tell others about the good news of God's Kingdom - Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8; Daniel 2:44.
2) Live by Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35
To have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, to now love neighbor MORE than self, more than the old Golden Rule - Leviticus 19:18

I was talking about chrisian (or other religions( governments. In this case Christianity imposing its will on government to pass laws that benefit chiristians to the detriment of non christians.

However your post "Tell others about the good news of God's Kingdom" what happens in the case the othere person does not wish to know your version of good news because they have their own superior version?

 

[ChristineM]

Luke forewarns us at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 that after the apostles would be off the scene, then 1st-century Christianity would ' fall asleep ' so to speak, because the apostasy would settle in.
And as Jesus said at Matthew 7:21-23 that MANY would come in his name but prove false.
'Christendom' ( so-called Christian ) the fake 'weed/tares' will come to its end.
In the past God used the political world as His arm of the law such as in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful Jerusalem.
So, it should come as No surprise when God once again uses the political as His arm of the law to go up against corrupted religion starting spiritual house cleaning with the falsely claimed religious 'house of God'- 1 Peter 4:17

And Matthew 7 tells you not to judge

 

[Redemptionsong]

So mercy today, murder of all who doesn't follow him tomorrow. Billions will be murdered.

Nice.

It's about recognising God in Christ. God is truth.

 

[firedragon]

It's about recognising God in Christ. God is truth.

Not relevant.

But okay. Cheers.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The people of Ukraine are mostly Christians. Are you telling them to lay down?

And you quote Paul, not Jesus, who urged his men to arm themselves, and who will return with sword flicking from his mouth.

What many do not understand is that the new covenant did not come into effect until after Jesus had ascended to heaven.

Were you aware of this?

 

[oldbadger]

What many do not understand is that the new covenant did not come into effect until after Jesus had ascended to heaven.

Were you aware of this?

What many do not understand is that Deists don't believe that Jesus ascended anywhere.

Were you aware of this?

But Christian history is steeped full of invasion, enslavement, theft, murder and war. And I have not heard or read too many Christians extending their empathy and support for the Ukrainians.

 

[paarsurrey]

I find the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2 ) has two important parts:
1) Tell others about the good news of God's Kingdom - Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8; Daniel 2:44.
2) Live by Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35
To have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, to now love neighbor MORE than self, more than the old Golden Rule - Leviticus 19:18

And did Jesus write Galatian?:
"Galatians 1 is the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It is authored by Paul the Apostle for the churches in Galatia, written between 49 and 58 CE.[1] This chapter contains Paul's significant exposition concerning the significance of God's revelation of Jesus Christ.[2] "
Galatians 1 - Wikipedia

No, never no. It was done by Paul as Wikipedia tells me and it must have been, most probably done by Paul after when Jesus went out of Judea, out the hands of Jews and Roman. Right?
Kindly correct me if I am wrong, please?

Regards

 

[Windwalker]

None of this matters to me.

I don't agree that Jesus did the right thing; I don't think it was the right response. Others may differ.

It mattered enough for you to state your opinion of it in the first place. Now that you've been corrected in your misrepresentation of it, none of it matters? The correct response would be, "I guess I misspoke in stating my opinion. I stand corrected."

 

[ppp]

It mattered enough for you to state your opinion of it in the first place. Now that you've been corrected in your misrepresentation of it, none of it matters? The correct response would be, "I guess I misspoke in stating my opinion. I stand corrected."

I don't see any sign that Rival accepted your correction as being a correction. And for good reason. It wasn't. It was just an ad hoc false analogy on your part.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't see any sign that Rival accepted your correction as being a correction. And for good reason. It wasn't. It was just an ad hoc false analogy on your part.

It was? I'm just saying the story does not say Jesus whipped people with the cords, nor that he destroyed their property, nor that they were running a legitimate business that Jesus unjustly attacked. I'm not sure how that qualifies as an "ad hoc false analogy". Can you explain?

Also, my post did not say he accepted being corrected. I said the correct response would have been to do that, instead of just saying none of it really mattered to him, while it seemed to matter enough to begin with. I think you misread my post.

 

[Windwalker]

Aside from the incidents in the Gospels where he inflicted violence himself (e.g. attacking money-changers with a bullwhip,

FYI, it does not say he attacked people with it. This is the story from John 2:14-17:

In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
​

Note how that John specifies what he used the whip on, so people would not assume he used it on people? Also, I don't think calling what he made "a whip out of cords" the same thing as a "bullwhip". I think his whip was a lot less brutal than a heavy-assed bullwhip. Think or say what one will about the story, but at least get it right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FYI, it does not say he attacked people with it. This is the story from John 2:14-17:

In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
​

Note how that John specifies what he used the whip on, so people would not assume he used it on people? Also, I don't think calling what he made "a whip out of cords" the same thing as a "bullwhip". I think his whip was a lot less brutal than a heavy-assed bullwhip. Think or say what one will about the story, but at least get it right.

Ah - the bullwhip was improvised. You really got me there. That negates my whole point.

And I'm sure you're already aware of the other Gospel accounts of the story describing Jesus driving people with his whip.

BTW: since you just skipped over it in my post, I take it you don't have any disagreement with the other things I said about Jesus and violence... e.g. his almost-gleeful bloodlust for expected future violence, which he gets into at many points in the Gospels. Right?

 

[Windwalker]

Surprising he didnt read the part in the NT where Jesus would order the death of those who dont follow him.

Help me out here. Can you show me the verse where Jesus orders the death of those who don't follow him?

Any tom, dick or harry who has read anything about Gandhi would know that he was a Hindu. Non-dualist. Had Jain influence. And followed the school of Waishvanism.

But he also said this about Jesus, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” So he obviously was quite familiar with Jesus' teachings and agreed with them, which would support the view that Jesus himself taught non-violent resistance.

If Jesus taught violence, such as ordering the death of those who don't follow him, as you claim, it is highly doubtful Gandhi would say "I like your Christ", would it?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What many do not understand is that Deists don't believe that Jesus ascended anywhere.

Were you aware of this?

But Christian history is steeped full of invasion, enslavement, theft, murder and war. And I have not heard or read too many Christians extending their empathy and support for the Ukrainians.

Christians don't walk about with T shirts announcing their works of faith, but, as it happens, l do know Christian missionaries in Moldova who are housing Ukranian refugees.

What deists believe is not relevant to the question of what the scriptures teach. The scriptures clearly teach that the new covenant did not come in to effect until after Jesus had died (and ascended).

 

[ppp]

It was?

Yes. The only connection between the brothel and the money changers were a) your feelings about either and b) your characterizations based on your feelings about either. An analogy that depends on your inciting a sense of repugnance is nothing more than an Argument from Icky. Your finding something to be icky does not make it wrong.

I'm just saying the story does not say Jesus whipped people with the cords, nor that he destroyed their property, nor that they were running a legitimate business that Jesus unjustly attacked.

There is nothing about those sentences that represent a reasonable expectation of human reactions or interactions.

I'm not sure how that qualifies as an "ad hoc false analogy". Can you explain?

What you referenced here was not an analogy, false or otherwise.. See my first paragraph in this post for discussion of your false analogy.

I don't see any sign that Rival accepted your correction as being a correction.

Also, my post did not say he accepted being corrected.

There is a subtle, but important difference between what I said, and what you are attempting to refute. Can you spot it?

 

[PureX]

What do you think?

I think it's too extreme, and it's also counter-productive.

We do not live in a perfect world. And because we do not, it becomes both foolish and counter-productive to demand such perfection from ourselves. All it does is allow those who truly desire peace to be destroyed in the name of perfectionism. Leaving those who would destroy them free to continue doing so.

 

[Harel13]

Violent or an an Avenger for the sake of righteousness.
Jesus takes the decisive action of Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-15 for the sake of the figurative humble 'sheep' at Jesus' coming Glory Time found at Matthew 25:31-33,37.

Semantics. In Talmudic Judeo-Aramaic we say "Ihn, hakhi nami", which is like saying "same dif.".

In other words, you agree he was violent, but believe violence can occasionally be justified.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Violent or an an Avenger for the sake of righteousness.

"Avenger" generally implies "violent."

 

[ppp]

In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

What exactly was wrong here? I mean actually wrong. All this says is that he was indignant that people were selling animals in the temple. But people get indignant all of the time over inconsequential stuff. There is nothing that justifies that indignation. Was Jesus a Karen?

 

[ppp]

"Avenger" generally implies "violent."

Avenge me, with daisies. Arrrrrrghhhh.