Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 15, 2018 at 2:27 pm (This post was last modified: September 16, 2018 at 5:00 am by vulcanlogician.)
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.
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?
Kind of hard to say. Sometimes Jesus sounds like a hippie, and sometimes he says he's come with a sword to set family members against each other. Not to mention when he comes back, he's going to kill a lot of people with fire. He's also the one who decided non christians who die will be sent to a place often described as a lake of fire. At least when OT God killed you, he stopped there.
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
September 15, 2018 at 3:07 pm (This post was last modified: September 15, 2018 at 3:37 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(September 15, 2018 at 2:42 pm)Chad32 Wrote: At least when OT God killed you, he stopped there.
Well, the OT God didn't torture you for eternity, true. But he didn't always just "stop there" when he killed you. Sometimes he killed your livestock and sold your daughters into sex slavery.
Christianity and Jesus are like clay: you mould it to be whatever you want it to be and then tell all other people that they don't understand the real message of the Bible and your Christianity is the real one.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Yeah. Jesus hasn't mattered in a long time. Now it's just about doing what your local pastor says, and make sure to give money to the church.
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
(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.
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?
I like the Aikido version of pacifism. I won't be violent but I will not allow violence to be commited upon me. Jesus was a dolt that suffered for naught. Allowing yourself to be tortured and murdered is not pacificism. Pacifism is not participating in violence.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
(September 15, 2018 at 3:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Does what fucking jesus "said" ( assuming he said anything ) really matter? Jesusism is a cult. They do what their leader says.
Sometimes you gotta give your opponents a little slack, and approach an argument on their terms in order to make a point to them.
September 15, 2018 at 4:30 pm (This post was last modified: September 15, 2018 at 4:31 pm by Brian37.)
No religion is pacifist. Like any entity humans are involved in, political, economic or religious, those groups and even sub sects of those groups seek to keep or gain. It is true depending on time, frame climate and geography if a certain group or sub sect can seek and do seek "peace", but ultimately it is still about maintaining and or gaining. And knowing times change, "peaceful" now, does not mean peaceful forever.
If Buddhism, for example were a "peaceful" religion, you would not see the history of conflict in Asia and the Orient between those sects of Buddhism.
I wouldn't get stuck on labels. Most humans are decent, but it is easy to sell any group of humans a utopia be it economic, political or religious. The key isn't to compare the flaws in any group, but to ultimately understand our species is far older than any of our modern labels, and we are all capable of both great cruelty and great compassion.
I am no fan of old mythology of any label, but it still isn't a matter of camps, but understanding we are still the same species.
Christianity is unto pacifism as bacon is onto vegetables. It has been noted above that there are bible passages that commend peace and there are ones that demand violence. That is because, like islam, christianity is a religion created by committees over a long period of time who were demanding radically different things of their followers, hence the schizophrenic messaging.
