Why aren't Christians pacifists?

deadnothingbetter

surferdude wrote:

Do you want a seperation of church and state or not? Do you want a theology?

Christians are just like everyone else. I can't believe someone old enough to post a thread hasn't figured that out yet. As politicians they are just as capable at hypocracy as a non-Christian. They are just as capable at giving into temptation and doing the wrong thing as a non-Christian. They can be nice, they can be assholes. The only real difference between a Christian and an atheist or other non-Christian in public office is that the Christian believes he/she is accountable to God for his/her actions when they die.

that's about the most honest answer i've heard on here.

deadnothingbetter

Ahnimus wrote:

Matthew 1:16 (King James Version)
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

Luke 3:23 (King James Version)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Jacob = Heli?

John 10:30 (King James Version)
I and my Father are one.

John 14:28 (King James Version)
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Jesus != God?

Genesis 1:25 (King James Version)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:26 (King James Version)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:18 (King James Version)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:19 (King James Version)
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Huh?

what?

dude, you're an atheist. why are you trying to interpret the bible?

deadnothingbetter

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Well, you said yourself (and I paraphrase;)), the Old Testament stars Vengeful God, New Testament stars Peace-nik Jesus. I'm assuming they give out different messages (I must admit, I haven't read the Bible. Shocker.)

And what about context? Does faith have context a lot of the time? (Genuine question.)

I don't know, I was pretty indifferent towards the Catholic church until recently, when I saw a couple of articles in a local Catholic newspaper type thingy.

Links: This thingy and these thingies.

For me, I grew up Catholic until I hit my very early teens, at which point I started questioning a lot of it, and went atheist. Reading this kind of crap (the newspaper stuff, not you guys) just kinda reinforces all my doubts about religious zealotry.

well, i'm glad for your honest answer that you haven't read the bible much. but at least you know the difference between the old and new testament... so you do know some.

but if you'd really really really like to know i'll be happy to give some insights... i mean, i don't know everything but i know enough to help you out

deadnothingbetter

slightofjeff wrote:

Yes, yes, I am familiar with the Sermon on the Mount. But there are also passages in the New Testament that refer to governing authorities as "bearing God's sword.
"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Don't sound like "turn the other cheek" to me.

I'm not saying you have to agree with Christian theology. I'm just telling you how Christian theology can rationalize war. It was the question posed in the title of this thread, after all.

yeah, but it's mainly speaking of a "spiritual" sword... i think you're referring to Romans... it's a portion also quoted on that movie Dead Man Walking... to subject yourselves to the govermnments that were placed by God.

it's speaking of everything in general... political government and church government. it's not supporting war in any way. when it speaks about bearing God's sword... it's speaking about the "word of God"....

like it says in Hebrews, "for the word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any double-edged sword..." and also in Revelation when John sees Jesus Christ he sees a "sword in his mouth" a figure of the word of God. so if, let's say, I were to mess up in any way, the leader has the authority to correct me by using scriptures.... not meant literally to stab someone...

deadnothingbetter

slightofjeff wrote:

And, to paraphrase what you said to me earlier, that's only YOUR interpretation.

That's not the interpretation pushed by pretty much any mainstream sect of Christianity. And again, that's all I'm saying. This is how Christians rationalize war. That much isn't up for argument. It is a fact. This is how they do it.

Again, you might think you know what Jesus would do, and you might be right, who knows? But that's not what the mainstream of Christians believe. Your opinion doesn't change the fact that this stuff is what is being taught in Christian churches right now, and has been for centuries.

then if that's what mainstream christians believe, i'm glad i'm not one of them... i guess, at this point i can draw a line between them that know how to read the bible right and those that don't. and those that justify war by mixing those scriptures have it all wrong.

deadnothingbetter

catefrances wrote:

i think jesus was gay. he was always hanging out with those apostles of his.

it doesn't make him gay... it makes him a gangster....

Rhinocerous Surprise

deadnothingbetter wrote:

well, i'm glad for your honest answer that you haven't read the bible much. but at least you know the difference between the old and new testament... so you do know some.

but if you'd really really really like to know i'll be happy to give some insights... i mean, i don't know everything but i know enough to help you out

Well, as I said, I was raised Catholic, so I know a fair amount... Me and a friend gave our religion teacher hell a few years ago, because we knew a lot about religion, but were blatantly atheist, and just kept stirring shit up.:D

So I guess it's not so much the Bible that I'm wondering about. My question to you is exactly the one I posted. Does faith have a context? Does the message one takes from the Bible (Old vs. New Testament, forgiveness vs. "church discipline") vary from situation to situation ?

chopitdown

El_Kabong wrote:

or why aren't they more environmentaly conscious? the bible said the world is his gift...look at how his great gift is treated! ppl like ann coulter and others will argue the dominion over it all...that doesn't change the fact: imagine if you gave your child a really big gift...something unique, one of a kind and they treat it like shit, like it doesn't matter...?

i'm sure god didn't want us to have to BUY water to drink b/c the water sources are all dirty and polluted (not to mention the soil, air, food sources....)

I think there are a lot more christians who are environmentally conscious than you think. It's just not their main political priority. http://www.ctlibrary.com/34178 You don't have to be at rallies or protests in order to be environmentally conscious.

chopitdown

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

People that profess to be good honest people don't promote violence as a means to solve their problems. Period. However the media has fed it wonderfully to you to rationalize and justify for years now

back to your plate of hay..

i love the sheep comments, b/c from what i'm reading on here the people who don't like christianity or religion sure all sound the same and repeat the same things.

Collin

deadnothingbetter wrote:

what?

dude, you're an atheist. why are you trying to interpret the bible?

This is funny. Why don't you (a christian) interpret the verses he cited. And in case you didn't know, education is good. So it pays to learn about both sides.

Anyway, what would Jesus NOT do?

Spunk graffiti.

ArmsinaV

Wow. What a collection of responses...

Basically, I understand the Christian theological perspective on war and just war. I've been a Christian all my life and plan on remaining one. I know Romans 13 is used to sort of justify the idea of letting the authority of government have its role and the church should go along with its own business. I'm not so sure that's really the way things should be and I'm not sure the NT ever really endorses violence at all, including ROmans 13.

I'm thinking more and more that because Christians have misunderstood salvation and the church's purpose, we have become so focused on the afterlife that it skews our handling of this world. The idea of salvation through Jesus - when you bring it up to most any Christian or non-Christian - is that you go to heaven, when you die. That's a part of it, but I think we are missing out on a huge aspect of salvation. That is, that the church is to represent the kingdom right now, on earth, here, immediately.

The church is what Jesus came and died to establish. If you know anything about the New Testament, that is the case. Jesus' goal - and everything he says in scripture shoudl be seen accordingly - was to establish a kingdom to bring salvation for Israel. (Not the modern day country, the Jews of his time). Everything he said, all the parables, all the healings, it ALL had at the least a symbolic tie into redeeming Israel to God. He was killed not because he was some hippie liberal who embraced the outsiders. (That's a part of his ministry, but people who claim Jesus was conservative or liberal are simply projecting their own culture on Him. He lived as a first-century Jew and in that culture.) He was killed because of his church and what it did. I think we forget to be the church he died for. We forget to be it today.

Jesus didnt' tell people, "Repent and Believe" as in confess your sins individually to go to heaven someday when you die. He told them, repent of your false view of god's Church on earth, and believe that my church is what God always intended. That's what was so exciting and radical and revolutionary. Is that what the church is today or is it simply a section of the culture that has adopted other ideologies or movements?

Anyway, my point is that the church is to deliver the world in the same way Christ delivered Israel. And it's hard for me to think the first Christians would endorse some of the nationalism and militaristic mindset of some of us to do that. The church spread in the beginning largely because of the martyrs who were massacred by the Romans. They didn't organize and fight back - which is what I would be tempted to do. They let themselves be killed in the worst ways imaginable, and the church spread like wildfire. Can we learn something from that?

Whatever the case with this issue, I think the church has lost her way in terms of being God's kingdom today, right now. So many have interpreted that to mean some physical, literal gain or institution. Rather, I think it means something far more spiritual and community oriented.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Discussion of religion and beliefs with Richard Dawkins:

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/aqqmRKSb/Great_New_Richard_Dawkins_Interview

Eliot Rosewater

deadnothingbetter wrote:

i don't think it's that the bible can't get it's shit straight... i think it's lack of reading correctly.

funniest.
post.
ever.

Eliot Rosewater

chopitdown wrote:

i love the sheep comments, b/c from what i'm reading on here the people who don't like christianity or religion sure all sound the same and repeat the same things.

I for one have found myself repeating myself. Does that make me a sheep? Or does it make my questions that I ask over and over unanswerable by any Christian out there? So.... I repeat, http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4622663&postcount=26

Eliot Rosewater

ArmsinaV wrote:

Wow. What a collection of responses...

Basically, I understand the Christian theological perspective on war and just war. I've been a Christian all my life and plan on remaining one. I know Romans 13 is used to sort of justify the idea of letting the authority of government have its role and the church should go along with its own business. I'm not so sure that's really the way things should be and I'm not sure the NT ever really endorses violence at all, including ROmans 13.

I'm thinking more and more that because Christians have misunderstood salvation and the church's purpose, we have become so focused on the afterlife that it skews our handling of this world. The idea of salvation through Jesus - when you bring it up to most any Christian or non-Christian - is that you go to heaven, when you die. That's a part of it, but I think we are missing out on a huge aspect of salvation. That is, that the church is to represent the kingdom right now, on earth, here, immediately.

The church is what Jesus came and died to establish. If you know anything about the New Testament, that is the case. Jesus' goal - and everything he says in scripture shoudl be seen accordingly - was to establish a kingdom to bring salvation for Israel. (Not the modern day country, the Jews of his time). Everything he said, all the parables, all the healings, it ALL had at the least a symbolic tie into redeeming Israel to God. He was killed not because he was some hippie liberal who embraced the outsiders. (That's a part of his ministry, but people who claim Jesus was conservative or liberal are simply projecting their own culture on Him. He lived as a first-century Jew and in that culture.) He was killed because of his church and what it did. I think we forget to be the church he died for. We forget to be it today.

Jesus didnt' tell people, "Repent and Believe" as in confess your sins individually to go to heaven someday when you die. He told them, repent of your false view of god's Church on earth, and believe that my church is what God always intended. That's what was so exciting and radical and revolutionary. Is that what the church is today or is it simply a section of the culture that has adopted other ideologies or movements?

Anyway, my point is that the church is to deliver the world in the same way Christ delivered Israel. And it's hard for me to think the first Christians would endorse some of the nationalism and militaristic mindset of some of us to do that. The church spread in the beginning largely because of the martyrs who were massacred by the Romans. They didn't organize and fight back - which is what I would be tempted to do. They let themselves be killed in the worst ways imaginable, and the church spread like wildfire. Can we learn something from that?

Whatever the case with this issue, I think the church has lost her way in terms of being God's kingdom today, right now. So many have interpreted that to mean some physical, literal gain or institution. Rather, I think it means something far more spiritual and community oriented.

I can buy that.

chopitdown

don't gimme no wrote:

I for one have found myself repeating myself. Does that make me a sheep? Or does it make my questions that I ask over and over unanswerable by any Christian out there? So.... I repeat, http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4622663&postcount=26

it's not the questions that frustrate me, and you'll notice i wasn't quoting you.

The question is a tough one though. If Jesus Christ was perfect, and our goal is to build a more Christ-like character...if we're taught to ask ourselves "what would Jesus do?"...then shouldn't we be against war and against killing at all costs, even if it comes down to letting someone kill us, maybe even crucify us?

Jesus did teach to turn the other cheek, but he also taught to stand up for what is right. He drove the moneychangers out of the temple. The question your asking has been debated in Christian circles for a long time. There are a few denominations that are very pacifist; the majority hold the view that you should never WANT war, never WANT violence; however, there are unavoidable times. Take for instance WWII (it's an easy one) there was a terrible person doing terrible things and killing people, i don't believe God wants us to look at injustice and not do anything about it. No where does God say to sit on your hands and watch others suffer and be killed. I would agree that a pre-emptive war is a lot harder to justify, and it should always be the last resort. My thought for a person, not a country, is that you should do everything in your power to not resort to violence against someone else and you shouldn't go around picking a fight; but if someone won't just back down sometimes you have to resort to violence to protect yourself and your family. But there are people who would disagree with my view, and that's ok.

deadnothingbetter

don't gimme no wrote:

funniest.
post.
ever.

you're opening a whole can of worms here, dude.

surferdude

Threads like these make me laugh, the poster of this type of thread is the type of person who then turns around and asks "why didn't the catholic church do more in WWII?".

Part of growing up is realizing we are all hypocrites and our actions do not always demosntrate our beliefs. That part of being human is to do our best while never being perfect. Most of us do okay until we have contrasting beliefs and wants, i.e. I want to live and believe killing is wrong, how do I react in a fight or die situation?

A bigger part of growing up is to occassionally stop pointing out the hypocracy in others and look inwards. And then work to resolve these and limit them. Sometimes I think Pearl Jam must have a very young audience based on some of these threads.

deadnothingbetter

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Well, as I said, I was raised Catholic, so I know a fair amount... Me and a friend gave our religion teacher hell a few years ago, because we knew a lot about religion, but were blatantly atheist, and just kept stirring shit up.:D

So I guess it's not so much the Bible that I'm wondering about. My question to you is exactly the one I posted. Does faith have a context? Does the message one takes from the Bible (Old vs. New Testament, forgiveness vs. "church discipline") vary from situation to situation ?

i'm having a hard time understanding your question. does faith have a context? in what way? i can speak about faith in a biblical way, or i can speak about it in a philisophical way... or tie them both together. Does the message vary from situation to situation? Like how? i'm not sure what you're asking. i mean, i could say, no, the message doesn't vary from situation to situation. the message is still the same... but i need to make sure what you're asking before i can answer you with a more elaborate one.

deadnothingbetter

Collin wrote:

This is funny. Why don't you (a christian) interpret the verses he cited. And in case you didn't know, education is good. So it pays to learn about both sides.

Anyway, what would Jesus NOT do?

Spunk graffiti.

well, it only depends...

he used two contexts one that said, "I and my Father are one."

and the other scripture was Jesus speaking to God one on one. These are very spiritual meanings. As you know, i'm always wasting my time sharing scriptures here and giving their meanings, so is that what you're asking me to do? Cause that's what it requires. And i'm sure that many will disagree with me, even other Christians, but Jesus is not God. and the scripture that say I and my Father are one doesn't mean that. it's a spiritual meaning.