What is the future of Christianity?

[path_of_one]

Just thought I'd add, I'm with AdD on this one. "Turn the other cheek" is an Aramaic idiomatic expression that roughly translates to "do not fight," but in its context of "It is said an eye for an eye, but I say..." I have always interpreted it to teach non-violence.

Despite our very human (and I think fallible) desires for revenge, that is not true justice, and I think it only perpetuates a cycle of violence. There is a difference, in my opinion, between individual self-defense in dire circumstances and revenge. We often thinly mask our desire for revenge by saying we are promoting justice, but I believe that is incorrect. You might want to check out the "capital punishment" thread in the politics section- that speaks somewhat to these issues.

Personally, I would try to defend myself if my life or physical well-being was seriously threatened. But I would not defend my property and such with violence. They're just things. If I were about to be abducted or raped, for example, I would try to fight back. But if someone merely hit me, I would not fight back (not physically). If someone stole something, I would not fight back. I would never ever try to kill anyone, no matter how bad the circumstances. I have to always ask myself: is causing the pain of this other individual worth the cost of having that deed on my soul when I stand before God? Unless it is life threatening... no.

I feel that non-violence is the highest path to take, as evidenced by Jesus dying on the cross. God's Son could have easily defended himself and been wrathful. Instead, he forgave his transgressors. I promote peace and forgiveness, and I've learned to forgive some very big physical transgressions against me. Personally, I found if you are stuck in anger and vengeance against someone who harmed you, you are allowing that person to keep harming you and keep you from progressing spiritually. Not saying it is that way for everyone, but it certainly was so for me.

Finally, I must say that it is a bit offensive to keep insisting that Christ's teachings do not apply today. They apply for millions of people. They certainly are applicable to me. I do not argue with Muslims that Mohammed's teachings are now irrelevant. Each religion has its own teachings that its adherents find useful and beautiful. Please respect that.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, path of one!

There is a difference, in my opinion, between individual self-defense in dire circumstances and revenge.

This is what I was trying to say. And that it can be difficult sometimes for an individual to discern. Revenge is not right. Defense is.

We often thinly mask our desire for revenge by saying we are promoting justice, but I believe that is incorrect.

This too, is correct. I have not participated on the capital punishment thread, in part because I doubt my position would be well received. While there is valid concern on the subject per human judgement, I do believe there is a higher level of judgement that leads to legitimate justice. I will grant that in the most strict reading of the matter, humans are not capable of Divine Judgement or Justice. I do think that there have been times when humans may have been instruments of Divine Justice. Just as I doubt that every moment in history called Divine Justice (or something equal) actually is. I also believe that many many little moments of Divine Justice are dealt through humans to humans every day, the vast majority having absolutely no clue they were so used. In this sense, I suppose justice almost equals one version of karma. Justice too, has a positive, rewarding side. Justice is not only retribution of bad/evil/wrong, it is also recompense for good/righteous/right.

[juantoo3]

Quote:
Which "authority figure" told people they had to give up their life, their family and their possessions and lose everything that they think have in order to really have anything?


Jesus. That passage did cross my mind when I wrote my part. And I did question myself. Which is why you see the later qualifiers, specifically the intent behind the wrong done.

Besides, Jesus is not a bully. There is a difference between surrendering all that is you into the "hands" of a being you trust and who has your best interests at heart, and being forced to surrender all that is you to a bully whose intent is your demise and destruction.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am thinking Jesus taught very much against revenge. Exact quotes escape me now, but it seems to me Jesus specifically named revenge and said it was not something to seek, to "leave it in the hands of God." I am not even speaking of revenge, I am speaking of (self-) defense.

I recall Jesus telling the disciples to put away their swords after he was betrayed and given over to the authorities. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Interesting conversation!
lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Besides, Jesus is not a bully. There is a difference between surrendering all that is you into the "hands" of a being you trust and who has your best interests at heart, and being forced to surrender all that is you to a bully whose intent is your demise and destruction.

Who were the "bullies" in the story? You have choices: the Sanhedrin, Pilate, the Roman soldiers. What did Jesus give up to them? What did he say about how these bullies should be judged?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I recall Jesus telling the disciples to put away their swords after he was betrayed and given over to the authorities. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Interesting conversation!
lunamoth

Yeah. There's the great story at the Garden of Gesthemane where Peter slices off the ear of soldier come to get Jesus. Certainly that was self-defense. What happens? Peter's jaw probably dropped as Jesus rebukes him and offers an act of love (healing) to the soldier who has come to arrest him for his execution.

[lunamoth]

I've only been able to skim the thread so I'll probably just be repeating what others have already said.

I think when Jesus said turn the other cheek He meant to turn it (No revenge allowed). Total non-violence is the high calling He set for His followers. I agree with those above who point out that returning violence for violence just perpetuates the cycles we are in and it takes tremendous courage to truly be non-violent. Its one of those living in tension things (Juan ). There is what we are called to do and there's the best that we can do, always realizing that we will often fall short but must continue each time to keep trying.

I think this teaching is vital for today.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

This idea that governments can't be Christian is quite interesting. Juan and I have gone down this road before. Tolstoy argued that any form of government was not only not Christian, but an obstacle/enemy of the followers of Christ.

lunamoth

[Faithfulservant]

jt3 I also have not posting on the Capital Punishment thread for the same reason. I personally believe that God appoints the rulers and the moral laws are the same ones that God gave us to keep us from harming each other.


Romans 13:1-6 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing.

God is the final judge for our spirits but we are still subject to laws and consequences in the flesh on this earth.

If someone attacks me and I take revenge and attack them back Im subject to the same laws as the attacker. Theres a difference in self defense and revenge. Self defense I would stop the attacker so he could not harm me anymore but I would then allow the authorities to handle him. I do not believe Christ was telling us to stand there and let ourselves be abused he was warning us against vengeful action.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

If someone attacks me and I take revenge and attack them back Im subject to the same laws as the attacker. Theres a difference in self defense and revenge. Self defense I would stop the attacker so he could not harm me anymore but I would then allow the authorities to handle him. I do not believe Christ was telling us to stand there and let ourselves be abused he was warning us against vengeful action.

Aside from pointing out when people were mistaken in what they were teaching (and perhaps overturning the moneychangers' tables, but that would be a bit of a stretch) where in the gospel stories does Jesus act in self-defense or advocate it? I know of several opportunities he did not take to defend himself.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Who were the "bullies" in the story? You have choices: the Sanhedrin, Pilate, the Roman soldiers. What did Jesus give up to them? What did he say about how these bullies should be judged?

There is one more choice, the adversary.

Now, at what point in my life am I likely to give my life as a sacrifice? I will not say it cannot happen. Indeed, many fine young men and women have given their lives on the battlefield that I may enjoy the life I now lead. But the odds of me being given over to execution as blood sacrifice for atonement of sin for the people of the world, is not very likely to happen. At least, at this point in my life, I don't feel God is grooming me for any such thing.

So equating my life with that of Jesus is kinda like apples and oranges.

He had a God-given destiny to fulfill. I doubt my God-given destiny is anything nearly so lofty.

So I speak from the trenches of laymen, of ordinary citizens who lead ordinary lives, trying their best to get by in a world that is not always friendly or conducive to peaceful interaction. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that the ideal to strive for, always, is peace.

Sometimes, peace is just not possible. It is in these rare moments that defense is required. If we do not know how to defend ourselves, we have lost before the battle has begun. Sun Tzu would be very pleased with such an outcome, as an opposing general. To defeat the enemy without lifting a sword, that is the ultimate in warfare.

Politicians get an awful lot of flak, most of it deserved. But true leadership, by a true civil (or military) leader, is an awesome responsibility. A leader can not satisfy everybody always. The best they can hope for is to steer a course for the best for the most, in good ol' Mill's Utilitarian style. Whether or not this is righteous Christian reasoning, it is the kind of reasoning that led this nation and others through two world wars and then some.

So, back to Jesus' example, aside from Gethsemane. When Jesus perceived a group of men intending Him harm, He disappeared in the crowd. He separated Himself from the situation. He was quick to forgive, both personal offenses and offenses to others. He did not preach war, but He did teach about being prepared. On a couple of occasions He mentioned the Temple being destroyed. When it finally was, it was by warfare. There are other things He said that depending on interpretation, can be seen as advocating preparedness for battle. Paul seems to continue on some themes, such as "battling against (unseen?) powers and principalities." Not to mention the armor of God. So a great deal of the teachings in the Bible have military themes and applications.

I know I am rambling somewhat, and I really need to go back and support myself with the passages I am calling forward. But at this point I will stand by my understanding, which is that peace and forgiveness are always the preferable option. However, in those rare instances when peace is not an option because forgiveness is insufficient to assuage the attacker, then defense is right and proper. Not to mention heroic. For there is no greater gift a man can give, than to lay down his life for his friend.

We are not all like Gandhi. We do not have that capacity exercised. And as long as there are people in the world who do not have that capacity, there is the very real possibility that one of them may inpinge on your life at some point. If the matter can be forgiven, by all means do so. But if the intent does not cease there, and it is evident that the attacker means continued and greater harm, then it is time to kick dragon tail and take names.

My continued two cents.

[juantoo3]

where in the gospel stories does Jesus act in self-defense or advocate it?

How about the temptation in the wilderness?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

There's a difference in self defense and revenge. Self defense I would stop the attacker so he could not harm me anymore but I would then allow the authorities to handle him. I do not believe Christ was telling us to stand there and let ourselves be abused he was warning us against vengeful action.

I agree with you FS and also Path of One, Jt3, who distinguish self-protection in the moment from vengence. If I were being attacked I certainly would try to protect myself, hopefully by getting away or not using violence. But, as soon as the threat to life is past, any further violence by the victim would be vengence. Then the problem becomes one of how to help the abuser/attacker or how to keep him/her from harming others in the future.

But FS, your quote about obeying governmental authority: some governments base their rule in terror and evil. Do you tell the Nazis you're hiding Jews in your attic?

pondering,
lunamoth

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Aside from pointing out when people were mistaken in what they were teaching (and perhaps overturning the moneychangers' tables, but that would be a bit of a stretch) where in the gospel stories does Jesus act in self-defense or advocate it? I know of several opportunities he did not take to defend himself.

Jesus defended himself using scriptures.. Would you like examples? Was He physical in his defense? No Even though He is a man He is also God and is not subject to the same base flesh reactions we have.. The fact that He suffered as He did by choice proves that to me. You can also read that He did in fact have the armor of God intact when He was standing in front of Pilate and the Jews defending Himself.

WWJD is an impossible thing to achieve for me because I am not God and I feel at peace with my beliefs..

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But FS, your quote about obeying governmental authority: some governments base their rule in terror and evil. Do you tell the Nazis you're hiding Jews in your attic?

Yes and thank God that the reign of terror was cut short and justice prevailed... I also have beliefs that God allows into power those that are led by satan for reasons beyond our understanding. If you look at the world response to the Jewish nation after the holocaust and that they were recognized as a lawful state you can maybe see the good in something so awful.. Would I tell the nazis that I had Jews in my attic? heck no. That would be wrong morally and Would I deny Jesus Christ as my savior lest I die by execution a martyrs death. No I would not.

[Abogado del Diablo]

As demonstrated, sasa, almost no Christian accepts "turn the other cheek" as a teaching they are supposed to follow anyway. I doubt very many ever have.

So I don't think you could say that it was ever much of a part of "Christianity." But the fact that almost nobody agrees with it, doesn't make it not true -either in the past or today. It's as True today as when it was written, regardless of peoples' disagreement with it.