Christians must be nonviolent --how?

Though the early christians could easily get riled up into a mob and destroy pagan institutions like temples/libraries etc.  Unless you are taking about the very early christians- like during the principate when they were persecuted by the majority pagans.  Then I agree.

Even if there is no hope of winning you still fight! You fight to the end, and you take as many of the enemy screaming into hell with you as possible.

Originally posted by Adalwolf Even if there is no hope of winning you still fight! You fight to the end, and you take as many of the enemy screaming into hell with you as possible.

I believe that self-defense is justified under the doctrine. I got to check if self-defense in a hopeless situation is allowed though.

Besides Jesus was not a coward.

Edited by pinguin - 01-Nov-2007 at 17:22

Hi, Arch Buff,

Let me respectfully disagree with you here. Paul�s epistles are a genre unto themselves. We must remember that he wrote letters to the different Churches addressing their conditions. It seems, by the context, that there was a disagreement about whether should Christians obey authorities and pay taxes. The context of the quote says that you should.

However, early Christians, Paul included, understood that this submission to authority only went so far. We should remember that Christians were persecuted because they wouldn�t participate in the official religion. It wasn�t that the Romans believed in it but that they considered participation in these ceremonies what we would call today a loyalty oath. It meant that you were a good loyal Roman subject. So the living interpretation of this passage seems to have been being obedient to the government until it ran across your faith, which is the moment when one must take a strong stand.

Furthermore, the next section of chapter 13 says:

Originally posted by NIV 8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

As for Luke 3:14, this is the quote from the King James Version:

14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

It seems that the meaning is quite consistent with what Jesus said

Which to me it seems insists on the teaching on Jesus for love and nonviolence.

Moreover, justifications for wars in the Old Testament have dubious validity after the New Testament. And even if Paul did endorse war, we are Christians, not Paulists. Whatever commandment Jesus gave outweighs Paul, John, and the rest of the writers of the New Testament.

I don�t think that there is a lot of controversy on this issue: Jesus clearly said that we shouldn�t respond violence in kind. It is one of the clearest passages of the Gospels, where Jesus is speaking in a clear language and literally giving a command to his followers.

But I agree with you that it does seem mind blowing when you begin to read it not as a nice suggestion but as a command. It is quite amazing when one reads it and realizes that Jesus actually meant it. It is even more amazing when Jesus made this point before in a different way, when he says,

Originally posted by KJV Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

So even just being angry, violence of intention, is committing a wrong that can put one in peril of judgment.
You don�t have to answer right away. Read it and think about.
I came to the conclusion that Jesus meant it literally when I read about a soldier in Iraq who became a born again Christian, read the Sermon of the Mount and realized that he it is meant to be literal. Before that it hadn�t occurred to me either.

P.S. Just War IS better than unrestrain war, but no war, as Jesus commanded, outranks Just War.

Good to see this ^ reminder and inclination towards peace.

41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. 42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where "'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'

 

Eucharist

Edited by Seko - 01-Nov-2007 at 19:46

He, he. Funny Seko.

1. Mutilation Jesus
Most people seem to have interpreted that section as being a rhetorical point. There is actually an early Christian thinker that the Catholic Church denied him official sainthood because he took this part too literally--the liked girls too much, so... chop chop. Or so does the legend says.

2. Cannibalism

Yes, you are right: it makes no sense that Jesus gave himself as a sacrificial lamb only to be sacrificed at every mass.

Even worse: the Hebrew God had outlawed human sacrifice since... Abraham. So God demanding a human sacrifice to cleanse the sins of human makes no sense within the Jewish religion which Jesus belong, and to which he never renounced.

The cannibalistic Eucharist that we have today is probably a syncretic blend of the mystery cults that existed at the time of Christianity. These were popular at the time, and they had the themes of a God that self-sacrifices itself for humans in order to give them eternal life. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? There were some cannibalistic elements in them as well, at least in the cult of Dionysus if I remember correctly.

Here is the wiki article on the subject. Give yourself one point for every parallel with the common Jesus story that you find:

Dionysian mythology had a strong influence on the gospel, as Martin Hengel points out: "Dionysus had been at home in Palestine for a long time". But it was most likely not simply a "borrowed story", but rather a reaction to the commonly known Dionysian culture. There are especially many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were born by a virgin mortal (although virgo was initially a social status, not a biological one),[citation needed] but fathered by the king of heaven, to have returned from the dead, to have transformed water into wine[citation needed] (the wine in antiquity was thicker than today, and usually mixed with water, otherwise it was as thick as blood; the parallels to John 2:8 are eg. Ovidius, Met. 3.690-691,[vague] and 6.488: "et Bacchus in auro ponitur" where the god is made identical with the wine) and to have been liberator of mankind. The modern scholar Barry Powell also argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus were influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of possible influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned.[22] Furthermore, it is worth noting that the story of Jesus turning water into wine is only found in the Gospel of John, which differs on many points from the other Synoptic Gospels. That very passage, a Bible commentator suggests, was incorporated into the Gospel from an earlier source focusing on Jesus' miracles.[23] John might also have referred in the marriage of Kana to Dionysus on purpose, in order to emphasize the legitimacy of Jesus, eg. by saying that Jesus could turn water into wine, which Dionysus never did (who, however, had invented wine pressing in the first place).[24

The Roman Church insisting that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus must have been a political decision that made sense at the time but seems absurd today.

When it comes to Christianity, and most religions for that matter, we must remove a lot of layers of popular religion to get to the juicy ethical core.

Maybe we can start a thread called ask the Catholic so that we can answer those questions that we all wanted to know but were afraid to ask? I will do so

Granted I didn't know if I should have posted here or in the other thread, thanks for bearing with me.

Edited by Seko - 01-Nov-2007 at 21:08

Originally posted by hugoestr He, he. Funny Seko. 1. Mutilation Jesus Most people seem to have interpreted that section as being a rhetorical point. There is actually an early Christian thinker that the Catholic Church denied him official sainthood because he took this part too literally--the liked girls too much, so... chop chop. Or so does the legend says. 2. Cannibalism Yes, you are right: it makes no sense that Jesus gave himself as a sacrificial lamb only to be sacrificed at every mass. Even worse: the Hebrew God had outlawed human sacrifice since... Abraham. So God demanding a human sacrifice to cleanse the sins of human makes no sense within the Jewish religion which Jesus belong, and to which he never renounced. The cannibalistic Eucharist that we have today is probably a syncretic blend of the mystery cults that existed at the time of Christianity. These were popular at the time, and they had the themes of a God that self-sacrifices itself for humans in order to give them eternal life. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? There were some cannibalistic elements in them as well, at least in the cult of Dionysus if I remember correctly...

Hugo,