Christian Warfare

[firedragon]

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


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?

Mahatma Ghandi made a lot of statements. First, read, and then make assertions.

I never said "Jesus taught violence" mate. It was a response to someone else. And I never said that Ghandi said to anyone Jesus preached violence.

And in your own cut and paste, you should note Ghandi didnt like you Christians. You should investigate it and understand why he didnt like "you Christians".

So rather than creating a strawman, try to understand whats being said by someone. Anyway since you dont seem to know the verse in Luke, I took a snapshot and attached here.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

He originally suggested that Jesus was out of line to attack the moneychangers, as if that were considered okay what they were doing in the temple. My analogy was to get him, or anyone, to think about how would someone who was Jewish (which I believe he has identified himself with at some point), feel about having a whore house or a drug den inside of a synagogue. It doesn't reflect my personal feelings about these things, but was appealing to the sensibilities of something most people who have some sense of the "sacred" in their lives could relate to, like having sex on the altar sort of thing, or peeing on someone's grave. Most people have a sense of what sacrilege looks like.

So my analogy is spot on for just that, when you consider what Jesus said about defiling the sacred. "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves". How is saying having a whore house in the basement of a church, or synagog, or temple, any different than what Jesus said? Opium den/den of thieves...?

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

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Jesus was out of line for attacking something that was considered sacrilegious being done in the temple? Should he not objected or something?

 

[Windwalker]

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?

See my previous post. The objection was the defling of the sacred. Thing of someone wiping their butt with their country's flag; peeing on someone headstone; smashing a sacred idol, and such.

Do you understand the role that the sacred plays in human culture, and how the defiling of these sorts of objects destroys the sacred nature of them? That's what the story was meant to convey, how that their practice of religion defilied the sacred nature of it. Are you saying screw all things sacred in life? Would you take offense if someone called your mother a whore, for instance?

If nothing is considered sacred, why should you object? The reality is, pretty much everyone holds some things in life to be sacred, in so-called "skeptics". So it's not hard to understand that story of Jesus in the temple, nor my analogy about having a drug den in the basement of a church. They are accurate comparisons about defiling the sacred.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He originally suggested that Jesus was out of line to attack the moneychangers, as if that were considered okay what they were doing in the temple. My analogy was to get him, or anyone, to think about how would someone who was Jewish (which I believe he has identified himself with at some point), feel about having a whore house or a drug den inside of a synagogue. It doesn't reflect my personal feelings about these things, but was appealing to the sensibilities of something most people who have some sense of the "sacred" in their lives could relate to, like having sex on the altar sort of thing, or peeing on someone's grave. Most people have a sense of what sacrilege looks like.

So you finally concede that the story does describe Jesus attacking the moneychangers.

 

[Rival]

He originally suggested that Jesus was out of line to attack the moneychangers, as if that were considered okay what they were doing in the temple.

Both things are equally wrong. What they were doing and Jesus' response were wrong.

I'm a she.

 

[ppp]

He originally suggested that Jesus was out of line to attack the moneychangers, as if that were considered okay what they were doing in the temple.

First, you haven't established that it wasn't okay, just that you, and the depictions of Jesus in the story don't.
Second, even if they were doing "something wrong", that does not justify assault and vandalism.

My analogy was to get him, or anyone, to think about how would someone who was Jewish (which I believe he has identified himself with at some point), feel about having a whore house or a drug den inside of a synagogue.

First, it is a brothel. Please stop using derisive slurs against your fellow human beings.

Second, as I pointed out before, that just because you liken it to having a brothel or drug den inside of a synagogue, does not mean it actually is like having a brothel or drug den inside of a synagogue. Your likening the two does not make them alike.

Third: As I pointed out before, and will continue to do so, you have not demonstrated that there was anything wrong with having money changers and animals in the temple. All that you do is express your repugnance with false analogies. If I think that an action is immoral, I do not have to liken it to other things to explain why it is wrong.

So, again, and again. And again.
Why was there anything wrong with having money changers and animals in the temple?
Do you even know why they were their to begin with? (I didn't ask if you can guess. I asked if you actually know?)

 

[Wildswanderer]

There are many ways in which one can offer help and protection without resorting to violence. Have you ever read any books by Richard Wurmbrand or Corrie ten Boom?

Not if it's an imminent life and death situation.
I'm not a pacifist. I don't want to hurt anyone, but I also am prepared to if absolutely necessary.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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?

Maybe l can explain what the temple incident was about, since it appears to have become a reason to accuse Jesus of violence.

Jesus came to build the spiritual temple of God.

If you imagine the stone temple to be the spiritual body of Christ, it follows that it was to be kept spotless and without sin. The Holy Spirit does not act sinfully. The Holy Spirit also reacts angrily to evil, wishing to 'cast it out'.

So, in casting the traders ('thieves') out of the temple precinct, Jesus was making a spiritual point. Do not allow things that are unclean into the temple of God (the Church as a whole, and the individuals within it).

The trade in animals for sacrifice in the temple was itself a necessary business, but these traders had moved inside the holy precinct to do their trading. The distinction between sacred and profane had been blurred.

Righteous anger is perfectly legitimate when directed at evil. It's important, however, that righteous anger does not translate into violence against flesh and blood. This would turn a spiritual war into a physical battle.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not if it's an imminent life and death situation.
I'm not a pacifist. I don't want to hurt anyone, but I also am prepared to if absolutely necessary.

I accept that others will have reached a different conclusion.

 

[Windwalker]

Mahatma Ghandi made a lot of statements. First, read, and then make assertions.

Yes, and he made that statement I quoted. I read it, and made my point with it, which point still stands.

I never said "Jesus taught violence" mate. It was a response to someone else. And I never said that Ghandi said to anyone Jesus preached violence.

What you originally had said was in response to @Redemptionsong saying,

"He trained as a lawyer in London and he read the New Testament. It's likely that his views on non-violence were influenced by what he read of Jesus."​

You responded to that objecting thusly,

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

You did in fact say Jesus taught violence, as you claimed above that Jesus ordered the death of those who don't follow him.

The point which you seem to have missed here is this. Ghandi said "I like your Christ". Clearly Gandhi did not think Jesus was violent, ordering the death of those who don't follow him, as you claimed. Gandhi knew what the Bible said, in order for him to say he like Christ. He wouldn't have said that, if you were right here.

And in your own cut and paste, you should note Ghandi didnt like you Christians. You should investigate it and understand why he didnt like "you Christians".

I quoted the entire quote because I happen to agree with him! I was not misquoting him, or only quoting mining him. Why do you assume otherwise?

I'll quote the whole thing again, because I like it so much. “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Very true.

So rather than creating a strawman, try to understand whats being said by someone. Anyway since you dont seem to know the verse in Luke, I took a snapshot and attached here.

View attachment 60657

That verse in Luke 19:27 is part of a parable. It is a metaphor to speak of the judgment in the last day. It's about God judging the world. You have that in Islam too, don't you?

But to Gadhi again. I'm quite sure Gandhi understood that was a parable too, and not that Christ was violent. After all he said, "Ik like your Christ". If Christ were violent, he wound not have said that.

Finally, regarding Gandhi being influenced by Christianity, I can't say much to that. But I'm sure he found parts of it he could in fact relate to. As do I. Otherwise, pray tell, why would he have said, "I like your Christ"?

 

[InChrist]

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I am of the belief that I should not fight, or resort to physical violence. At points in the past, as a younger soul, I tried to justify defensive warfare, but as an older person I have become convinced of the rightness of non-violence.

The passage of scripture that plays loudly in my ears is Ephesians 6:10-12. It says,'Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places'.

Some people regard non-violence as a form of cowardice, but my belief is that it is better to sacrifice one's life non-violently, than to sacrifice it attempting to take the lives of others. Jesus set an example of non-violence.

I'm not so naive as to think that there isn't great pain involved in the non-violent response to evil. It raises many difficult questions, but I believe the long term consequences of non-violence benefits all mankind.

What do you think?

Definitely agree with Ephesians 6:10-12 that our battle is spiritual, rather than against flesh and blood people.
I agree for the most part concerning a path of non-violence, although sometimes it may be necessary to come to the defense of the weak and defenseless God had put in our lives to protect and care for.

 

[Harel13]

The trade in animals for sacrifice in the temple was itself a necessary business, but these traders had moved inside the holy precinct to do their trading. The distinction between sacred and profane had been blurred.

If I post here a map of 1st century CE Jerusalem, would you be able to point out where exactly the traders were, plus attach the relevant Jewish laws that state that what they were doing was wrong?

 

[ppp]

Maybe l can explain what the temple incident was about, since it appears to have become a reason to accuse Jesus of violence.

What it was about is not relevant to whether or not he committed violence. A violent action is a violent action whether it is justified or not.

The trade in animals for sacrifice in the temple was itself a necessary business, but these traders had moved inside the holy precinct to do their trading. The distinction between sacred and profane had been blurred.

This is the first relevant response to my question. Thank you. You say that the trade was wrong because it had been moved from the proper place (inside the temple?) to an improper place inside the temple. Where was the trade moved from, and where was the trade moved to? With a ciitation please.

So, in casting the traders ('thieves') out of the temple precinct, Jesus was making a spiritual point.

Having read the accounts in the four gospels - especially John -- if you are claiming that the Bible does not depict Jesus as engaging in assault and vandalism, I do not believe that you are correct. In fact, I am very comfortable in saying that you are making a false statement.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, and he made that statement I quoted. I read it, and made my point with it, which point still stands.

So are you claiming that Ghandi was purely influenced by the New Testament alone in his so called "Ahimsa"?

What you originally had said was in response to @Redemptionsong saying,

"He trained as a lawyer in London and he read the New Testament. It's likely that his views on non-violence were influenced by what he read of Jesus."
You responded to that objecting thusly,

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

Yeah. But I do not say "Jesus said it". I am quoting the NT, which I do not believe is Jesus's words.

I'll quote the whole thing again, because I like it so much. “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Very true.

Thats great. Good for you. But its irrelevant to the conversation. Because as I said, which you conveniently missed, that Ghandi was a Hindu, Advaita, with Jain and Vaishnavism influence. Thats I said to read.

That verse in Luke 19:27 is part of a parable.

Okay. Every child knows its a parable. But if you say this parable is not about Jesus himself and his second coming, openly say "This is not about Jesus and his second coming".

Are you saying that??

 

[firedragon]

But to Gadhi again. I'm quite sure Gandhi understood that was a parable too, and not that Christ was violent.

Very good. So you are saying that Ghandi was saying you Christians dont follow the Christ depicted in the NT.

Correct? Do you not follow Jesus as a Christian? Do you agree with Ghandi?

Great.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Yes they do. In so many ways.
They wear the cross, show fish symbols on their cars, put up posters outside their chapels and churches and more. At least, they do where I live.

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).

You don't get to tell Deists about what they consider to be important.
Any covenant produced after Jesus is nothing to do with Jesus if it was not based exactly upon his words and deeds, so 'New Covenant' is nothing to do with Jesus.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Definitely agree with Ephesians 6:10-12 that our battle is spiritual, rather than against flesh and blood people.
I agree for the most part concerning a path of non-violence, although sometimes it may be necessary to come to the defense of the weak and defenseless God had put in our lives to protect and care for.

I very much agree with your second point. The ten Boom family were able to do this, without the use of violence. I admire this faithfulness.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes they do. In so many ways.
They wear the cross, show fish symbols on their cars, put up posters outside their chapels and churches and more. At least, they do where I live.


You don't get to tell Deists about what they consider to be important.
Any covenant produced after Jesus is nothing to do with Jesus if it was not based exactly upon his words and deeds, so 'New Covenant' is nothing to do with Jesus.

When does a covenant, or testament, come into effect? Is it when a person is dead, or when they're alive?

 

[Redemptionsong]

If I post here a map of 1st century CE Jerusalem, would you be able to point out where exactly the traders were, plus attach the relevant Jewish laws that state that what they were doing was wrong?

I can describe the temple courts, to demonstrate the area that was considered sacred. Since we are not told which part of the temple precinct the traders had occupied, one can only surmise that it was an outside court, most likely the court of the Gentiles.

The problem was making money in an area dedicated to the worship of God.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What it was about is not relevant to whether or not he committed violence. A violent action is a violent action whether it is justified or not.


This is the first relevant response to my question. Thank you. You say that the trade was wrong because it had been moved from the proper place (inside the temple?) to an improper place inside the temple. Where was the trade moved from, and where was the trade moved to? With a ciitation please.


Having read the accounts in the four gospels - especially John -- if you are claiming that the Bible does not depict Jesus as engaging in assault and vandalism, I do not believe that you are correct. In fact, I am very comfortable in saying that you are making a false statement.

Anger directed at an activity without inflicting injury (on the traders) is not violence against a person.

The statement being made, forcibly but not violently, is that the temple should remain holy and undefiled.