(September 16, 2018 at 12:28 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: For everything there is a season.  A time for war, and a time for peace.

I don’t think that this passage, is saying, that you have to be a pacifist in every situation. But that temperance is a virtue. I think that perhaps a more biblical outlook, might be, not to seek revenge, rather than total pacifism.

The season for getting rid of Christianity is long overdue.

Traditional Christianity... no. Absolutely no.

1 Corinthians 1:27-28
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

To sum it up. Its like a bunch of Judas people used as tools. The ignorant. You in power have the knowledge, they however are the tools to expand the kingdom... you know Europe right with nobles, intellects in higher power. Kind of a good reason why the catholics didnt want the peasants to have the bible so that everyone could read it during the protestant reformation.

Also there is this

Ephesians 6:12
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Meaning the authoritarian stance on fighting against evil influences.

So Christianity is sorta like Communism, it works well on paper but not really in practice in terms of stuff that is in it. Like Catholic/orthodoxy follows like Sunni islam mafia religious culture... but atleast protestantic christianity is debatable snce the only authority is the bible, so it atleast doesnt follow an establishment outside god's word. Meaning it is more individualistic than the established church in that sense

Islamic ones have atleast the practice part in a more coherent matter its just some stuff is well... you question the abnormal stuff in it, just like when religious mafia culture gets too much power you question if that is a smart idea, what values of ideas that are by default bad etc.

If it were me i'd suggest a new religious cult of obvious good and evil. How does one not know if abrahamic religions doesnt send you to death for thinking such and such about people. Or thinking it was more made for spite than truth.

Either case i thought you atheists were against religion in politics? Or is it ok if they are cuckolds for your communist/marxist political views. I would rather prefer politics be politics

^^^

What a fucking idiot! Lol. This is what happens when you inform yourself with misinformation, folks.

You and the entire alt right can suck my dick, Sora0213. Remember that.

***

Special thanks to: whoever brought the banhammer down.

Even posing the question seems ludicrous to me. Wonder why that is??

(September 16, 2018 at 4:11 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(September 16, 2018 at 12:28 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: For everything there is a season.  A time for war, and a time for peace.

I don’t think that this passage, is saying, that you have to be a pacifist in every situation. But that temperance is a virtue. I think that perhaps a more biblical outlook, might be, not to seek revenge, rather than total pacifism.

Okay. Fine. But what about someone who sees pacifism as one of the ways they obey Christ? Would you say they have the wrong idea? Or would you see a commitment to pacifism as something that is perfectly in line with Christ's teachings?

I think that pacifism is a bit of an extreme of ideology. That being said, it's certainly better than a view to the contrary. I can understand the pacifist idea, but I do think that it is wrong. There are certainly some views withing the teachings of the Bible that are compatible, but I don't see that being taught. For instance, in the passage that you cited, it's certainly friendly to the pacifist ideal. But it takes quite a bit of eisogesis (reading into the text) to get to pacifism from there (as well as ignoring somethings). I would ask the one pointing to this, 1) Where they a pacifist before? 2). Would they be willing to change their mind, if shown otherwise in the Scriptures and early Church history. So I think that there wrong, that reading into the text, rather than from it, but I have compassion, because I do think that their heart is in the right place (at least from one point of view).

Turn the other cheek seemed fairly explicit.  Sup, god get that shit wrong too? How many tries will it take for him to get the religion right?

Poor god.  He's such an inept communicator that he needs a bevy of liars to make Trumptards feel better about being christards!

You'd think that a "god" could do better, wouldn't you?

(September 17, 2018 at 12:19 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:  But it takes quite a bit of eisogesis (reading into the text) to get to pacifism from there (as well as ignoring somethings).

How do you determine that one is doing eisogesis rather than exegesis?

(September 15, 2018 at 2:27 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I'm not talking about "in practice." Fundamentalists like to brandish their guns. The religious right commonly supports whatever war a Republican president gets us involved in. Historically speaking, there are no shortage of bloody wars waged in the name of Christianity. It is obvious that Christians (by and large) regard pacifism with little esteem. 

But are Christians supposed to be pacifists? It seems to be part of Jesus' teachings. If followed correctly, is Christianity a pacifistic religion or not?

Quote:Matthew 7:38-42

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h]39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Does this verse command pacifism? Leo Tolstoy certainly thought so. And the Quakers hold pacifism as one of their central precepts, undoubtedly out of obedience to this set of instructions from the Sermon on the Mount. 

As some of you know, I am very interested in pacifism, chiefly as a moral means to make positive changes in the world (via civil disobedience and passive resistance as per Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi). Philosophically speaking, I've given much consideration to the idea that nonviolence is at the root of all moral ideals.

I'd like to hear from the Christians: Does Jesus in fact preach pacifism in Matthew? I've heard plenty of interpretations that say "no." Martin Luther said the verse "represents an impossible demand like the Law of Moses." That it was in fact meant to show that "no one can possibly live in full accordance with the Law." --"We're all sinners..." yada, yada, yada. Sounds like a cop out to me. Not unlike when a Christian on another forum explained to me that the commands in Matthew were meant to demonstrate "the person of Christ," and not to be interpreted as imperatives.

If any of you wishes to hear an argument that Christianity is indeed a pacifist religion, and that Christ's commands in Matthew were meant to be followed, I have quoted a (somewhat lengthy) passage from Tolstoy below wherein he attempts to make the case. I understand if you don't have time to read all that. I just included it for sake of thoroughness. I'd still like to hear Christians' opinions on the subject, regardless if you read it or not.

---

Leo Tolstoy Wrote:After much useless study of the works that have been written in proof of the divinity or non-divinity of this doctrine, and after many doubts and much suffering, I was left alone with the mysterious Book, in which the doctrine of Christ is taught.  I could not interpret it as others did, I could not abjure the Book, and yet I could not find a new and satisfying interpretation.  It was only after losing all faith in the explanations of learned theology and criticism, and after laying them all aside in obedience to the words of Christ (Mark 10:15), that I began to understand what had until then seemed incomprehensible to me.  It was not by deep thought, or by skillfully comparing or commenting on the texts of the gospel, that I came to understand the doctrine.  On the contrary, all grew clear to me for the very reason that I had ceased to rest on mere interpretations.  The text that gave me the key to the truth was the thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, ‘You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.  But I say to you, do not resist evil…’  The simple meaning of these words suddenly flashed full upon me; I accepted the fact that Christ meant exactly what He said; and then, though I had found nothing new, all that had hitherto obscured the truth cleared away, and the truth itself arose before me in all its solemn importance.

I had often read the passage, but these words had never until now arrested my attention:  ‘I say to you, do not resist evil.’

In my conversations since with many Christian people, who know the gospels well, I have observed the same indifference to the force of this text that I had felt.  Nobody specially remembered the words; and, while conversing with persons upon the text, I have known them to take up the New Testament in order to assure themselves that the words were really there.

The words, ‘Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,’ had always presented themselves to me as requiring endurance and self-mastery such as human nature is hardly capable of.  They touched me.  I felt that to act thus would be to attain moral perfection; but I felt, too, that I should never be able to obey them if they entailed nothing but suffering.  I said to myself,  ‘Well, I will turn my cheek – I will let myself be struck again.  I will give up my coat – they shall take my all.  They shall even take away my life.  Yet, life is given to me.  Why should I thus lose it?  This cannot be what Christ requires of us.’  Then I said to myself, ‘Perhaps in these words Christ only purposes to extol suffering and self-denial, and in doing so He speaks exaggeratingly and His expressions are therefore to be regarded as illustrations rather than precise requirements.’  But as soon as I comprehended the meaning of the words, ‘do not resist evil,’ it became clear to me that Christ does not exaggerate, that He does not require suffering for the mere sake of suffering, and that He only expresses clearly and definitely what He means.  He says, ‘Do not resist evil,’ and if you do not resist evil, you may meet with some who, having struck you on one cheek, and meeting with no resistance, will strike you on the other; after having taken away your coat, will take away your cloak also; having profited by your work, will oblige you to work on; will take, and will never give back.  ‘Nevertheless, I say to you, do not resist evil.  Still do good to those who even strike and abuse you.’

Now I understood that the whole force of the teaching lay in the words ‘do not resist evil,’ and that the entire context was but an application of that great precept.  I saw that Christ does not require us to turn the other cheek, and to give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer; but He teaches us not to resist evil, and warns us that doing so may involve personal suffering.  Does a father, on seeing his son set out on a long journey, tell him to pass sleepless nights, to eat little, to get wet through, or to freeze?  Will he not rather say to him, ‘Go, and if on the road you are cold or hungry, do not be discouraged but go on’?  Christ does not say ‘Let a man strike your cheek, and suffer,’ but He says, ‘Do not resist evil.  Whatever men may do to you, do not resist evil.’  These words, ‘do not resist evil’ (the wicked man), thus apprehended, were the clue that made all clear to me, and I was surprised that I could have hitherto treated them in such a different way.  Christ meant to say, ‘Whatever men may do to you, bear, suffer, and submit; but never resist evil.’  What could be clearer, more intelligible, and more indubitable that this?  As soon as I understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had appeared confused to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible; what had seemed contradictory now became consistent, and what I had deemed superfluous became indispensable.  All united in one whole, one part fitting into and supporting the other, like the pieces of a broken statue put together again in their proper places.

This doctrine of ‘non-resistance’ is commended again and again in the gospels.  In the Sermon on the Mount Christ represents His followers – i.e., those who follow this law of non-resistance – as liable to be persecuted, stoned, and reduced to beggary.  Elsewhere He tells us that the disciple who does not take up His cross, who is not willing to renounce all, cannot be His follower, and He thus describes the man who is ready to bear the consequences that may result from the practice of the doctrine of non-resistance.  Christ says to His disciples,  ‘Be poor, be ready to bear persecution, suffering, and even death, without resisting evil.’  He prepared for suffering and death Himself without resisting evil; He reproved Peter, who grieved over Him because He proposed to yield in this way; and He died, forbidding others to resist evil, remaining true to His own doctrine and His own example.  All His first disciples obeyed the same law of the non-resistance of evil, and passed their lives in disability and persecution.

We may bring forward, as an objection, the difficulty of always obeying such a law; we may even say, as unbelievers do, that it is a foolish doctrine, that Christ was a dreamer, an idealist who gave precepts that are impossible to follow.  But, whatever our objections may be, we cannot deny that Christ expresses His meaning most clearly and distinctly; and His meaning is that man must not resist evil; he who fully accepts His teaching cannot resist evil.

http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_htm/To...hap01.html

---

I find Tolstoy's advocacy of pacifism quite compelling, despite its Christian trappings. In addition to the Hindu doctrine of ahimsa, Gandhi was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy's idea that pacifism is a moral force that can change the world. And through Gandhi, the world was able to witness the efficacy of Tolstoy's ideals. Pretty impressive, really. This demonstrates well that the idea of "resist not evil" transcends Christianity. But I am also wondering if it really originates from Christianity to begin with. Perhaps these are just Tolstoy's own ideas, clothed in Christian raiment. After all, he was branded a heretic and excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church (an excommunication that stands to this day, despite an appeal by Tolstoy's great-great grandson to the Church in 2001).

So, to repeat the question- 

Christians: Is Christianity a pacifistic religion or not? 


If it isn't, what doctrinal teachings exempt a Christian from following the commands of Jesus found in Matthew 7?

Or if you think that Christianity is in fact a pacifistic religion, what do you make of all the gun toting and war mongering?

Christianity isn't about judging action but the reason for the actions. it does you shall not murder, but it does not say you shall not kill. The action in both murder and killing as it pertains to the law is the taking of human life. But to murder is to take a life on your own accord having your own reasons.. Killing is the taking of a human's life within the social frame work of a given society. So it is ok to take a life so long as the reason jives with the social law.

(September 17, 2018 at 9:50 am)Drich Wrote: Christianity isn't about judging action but the reason for the actions. it does you shall not murder, but it does not say you shall not kill. The action in both murder and killing as it pertains to the law is the taking of human life. But to murder is to take a life on your own accord having your own reasons.. Killing is the taking of a human's life within the social frame work of a given society. So it is ok to take a life so long as the reason jives with the social law.

So, for all your huffing and puffing about "pop morality", God -- the source of all moral good and the giver of divine commands regarding how we ought to live -- prohibits murder (which is a moral truism, since it contains within itself the concept of wrongdoing) but gives a pass to killing that is in accordance with "social law" -- i.e., pop morality.

Lol, ok.