Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe not...doesn't Revelation say he came like a lamb last time but next time he's going to be the lion or something to that effect? (Somebody correct me.)
I'm thinking that belief would be enough to tip some Xian extremists right over the edge and start packing some heat.
Jesus will, during end times, stand up to sin. Alot of Christians think this means that it will be time to be violent. Alot Christians think wrong.
"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."
It is not in human hands to make violence on others. It might not even be in God's hands, except in terms of refusing to help.
At end times, people will make war on each other, destroy the environment (several references to crops having famine, or water turning foul), and judge others with harsh judgement.
But as it is said in Romans 2:
Quote:
1You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. 2And we know that God, in his justice, will punish anyone who does such things. 3Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God’s judgment when you do the same things? 4Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin? 5But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6He will judge everyone according to what they have done. 7He will give eternal life to those who keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. 8But he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who refuse to obey the truth and instead live lives of wickedness.
God doesn't need to punish us. He is in fact saving us from the natural consequences of our own actions. This includes me, too. I am one of God's children. I am forgiven when I forgive others. I am judged if I judge others. It's like karma. Normally, God removes the punishment. But people who continue to be judgemental *******s, and ask "why do bad things happen to good people." Well, ummm maybe you're not a good person. Maybe you should do less judging and more loving.
Point is, I don't care for Muslims, but I can agree to live and let live as long as they do. We aren't to suddenly decide to become crazed murderers. God indeed will visit wrath, but if we are the ones to attack, it will be us that suffer. Same goes for other people. Nobody actually wins when brother visits war on brother. Even in cases of unhealthy sibling rivalry.
If Jesus was a pacifist, He would have passionately preached to the Roman soldiers to drop their swords and leave their armies. And He certainly wouldn't have picked up a whip and chased the money changers out of the temple. There is a time when anger and war are justified. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing".
I will agree with you that I do not think Jesus was a pacifist(I tend to think the real Jesus underneath the stories was an apocalyptic teacher who consorted with and sympathized with Zealots, and probably was not averse to some violence if it would destabilize the Romans and the Jews who acted in their stead). But if we credit the New Testament account, to take all of Jesus' teaching that does indicate he taught a passive, pacifistic lifestyle (turn the othercheek, walk two miles, render unto Ceasar, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, put away your sword, etc...) and argue that these explicit teachings of Jesus are overturned by the fact that Jesus was not recorded in scripture telling Roman soldier to leave the military is a very poor argument. You are essentially arguing that the absence of a particular instruction overrides a large number of positive instructions, which seems really backwards. If anything, pacifism should be the overriding ideal, and violence only permitted in specific and exceptional circumstances.
Plus, reasoning from a negative in this instance puts you in a very inconsistent position. One can easily make the case that is Jesus had intended to condemn homosexuality, he would have said something explicitly. Since he didn't it must be ok... One could do the same for a great variety of "sins" that were part of the Old Testament or were mentioned by Paul but never addressed by Jesus. If the fact the the New Testament does not record Jesus condemning the centurion's participation in the Roman army means he condoned violence, the all the other things that the New Testament does not record Jesus condemning should also be condoned, or at the least permitted.
One can make a case for violence from other bits of the Bible, but I don't see it in the teachings of Jesus.
argue that these explicit teachings of Jesus are overturned by the fact that Jesus was not recorded in scripture telling Roman soldier to leave the military is a very poor argument. You are essentially arguing that the absence of a particular instruction overrides a large number of positive instructions, which seems really backwards. If anything, pacifism should be the overriding ideal, and violence only permitted in specific and exceptional circumstances.
Pacifism is not a mandate to force others to disarm. Especially since, in many case, this is a paying job for these people. Jesus did not confront the military authorities, in any way. Not to tell them to lay down their arms, not to turn weapons into branches and vines, and not to defy paying taxes or Roman wars.
The people who believe in forced disarmament, generally believe in control, not nonviolence. A visual example:
And yes, Jesus didn't appear to care about homosexuality.
The Amish (who are Bible believing fundamentalists) own guns. They use them for hunting. Some enjoy target shooting.
They are pacifists.
They were the victims of gun violence. A gun-wielding man entered an Amish school house and slaughtered five of their children.
They are still pacifists. Their response was to pray for the soul of the gunman and reach out his family, not buy Glocks and ammo for protection. They did not repeat Bible verses to justify arming themselves against future attacks. They did not tell each other there is a time anger is justified. They certainly did not tell each other Jesus would be OK with violence. They forgave the killer and had compassion for his family.... because they believe that's what Jesus would do.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 12-07-2015 at 08:54 PM..
Pacifism is not a mandate to force others to disarm.
Of course not. Pacifist can't force anybody to do anything. That's the whole point of pacifism! I don't think the point of this thread was whether Jesus advocated gun (or sword?) control. He lived in a world where weapons existed, individuals could own them, but for the most part anything beyond something sufficient for self defense was the purview of the authorities. The Romans would look askance at a non-soldier running around in armor, carrying a gladius and pilum, but clearly individuals could and did own swords, knives and the like. His world was not that different from ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Especially since, in many case, this is a paying job for these people. Jesus did not confront the military authorities, in any way. Not to tell them to lay down their arms, not to turn weapons into branches and vines, and not to defy paying taxes or Roman wars.
You are correct, there is no record in the New Testament of Jesus confronting the Roman military for not following his teachings. Quite possibly because he did not have much of anything to say to non-Jews (see Matthew15:24)...
But he is on record as espousing non violence in response to assault and coercion. If struck, he instructed his followers not to retaliate but to present the other cheek. If forced to carry a burden for a mile, his followers were instructed to carry it two voluntarily, for a representative of a pagan, violent, repressive regime. He specifically numbers the meek, the merciful, the persecuted, and the peacemakers among the blessed. He instructs Peter to put away his sword, because using violence even in self defense only begets more violence (Matt 26:52). He trusts in divine intervention rather than human strength even for defense. It is very hard to reconcile this pervasive theme of love your enemies, of actively doing good to those that hate you (Luke 6:28) with the idea that "Followers of Jesus" need to be armed and primed to take the lives of those who would threaten them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
The people who believe in forced disarmament, generally believe in control, not nonviolence...
Sure. I agree that Jesus did not teach forced disarmament. He taught voluntary disarmament in the face of hatred, persecution, and even death...
Which is why it is a bit incongruous that Christians appear the be the biggest proponents of an armed populace, to say nothing of the notions of persecuting others for their religion. That all sound a lot more Old Covenant to me, you know kill all the men, rape the girls, and burn the town all for the glory of God...
Funny, I could have sworn I keep being told none of that applies because we are under grace now.
For the record, I am not a pacifist (nor am I a Christian), and I don't think that it is a required position for the religious to hold. I think that compelling justifications for the use of force can be made, but my point is that "Jesus didn't tell the Romans not to kill people!" is not one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
And yes, Jesus didn't appear to care about homosexuality.
On this we agree. Although, I would guess that he did not approve of it, even though nothing is mentioned in the New Testament. At the very least, it was seen in the Jewish world as a corrupting influence from the Greeks. I imagine Jesus had a similar view, after all he was a Jew...
The Amish (who are Bible believing fundamentalists) own guns. They use them for hunting. Some enjoy target shooting.
They are pacifists.
They were the victims of gun violence. A gun-wielding man entered an Amish school house and slaughtered their children.
They are still pacifists. Their response was to pray for the soul of the gunman and reach out his family. They did not respond by arming themselves with Glocks and ammo for protection. They did not tell each other there is a time anger is justified. They did not tell each other Jesus would be OK with violence.
This x 100!
The first Muslim I ever met was a older gentleman, who as a child, lived through the bloody Algerian War. He was both a devout Muslim and a fervent pacifist, who believed that there was always another, better way than violence and bloodshed. He had had his fill of death and violence, and would rather suffer it than inflict it on anyone.
Pacifism is a choice, and can be justified within a great many religious traditions. Some even demand it. A non-pacifistic stance can be biblically justified, people do it every day. But it is really not reasonably possible to do so using only the recorded teachings of Jesus. In the Gospels, Jesus is overwhelmingly teaching voluntary pacifism and reliance on the providence of God, not the weapons of man, for one's safety.
-NoCapo
P.S. Does anyone else find it odd that the spellchecker chokes on the work "biblically" on a religion forum? Seems like a kind of important word to be in its dictionary...
Which is weird because most fundamentalists think clairvoyance is from the devil.
I don't think most fundamentalists have ever even heard of the word "clairvoyance."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although, I would guess that he did not approve of it, even though nothing is mentioned in the New Testament. At the very least, it was seen in the Jewish world as a corrupting influence from the Greeks. I imagine Jesus had a similar view, after all he was a Jew...
