Christians must be nonviolent --how?

There is one point that I disagree on what is an accurate description of the sources of Christianity, Checco.

Dualism is, in a strict manner of speaking, heresy. Believing in the devil as a real spiritual being that can challenge god goes against the monotheism that Christianity is founded on.

Augustine, who had been a dualist through Manicheanism, spend a lot of time fighting what was considered a heresy at the time.

Ironically, popular Christianity and Roman Catholicism does indulge in dualism, thinking that the devil exists and dukes it out with God. Some people will get angry if one correctly denies the existence of the devil.

But again, this is popular Christianity, not the pure stuff.

Extra fun stuff:

Akolouthos has a very good counter-argument to you, Checco. I don't know how much he agrees with you on the historical and pagan sources of Christianity; I do agree on most of them them.

However, the most important part of his counter-argument is asking you to re-assess the religion within its own system. I will add to this that you should examine it from an objective point of view as well.

Look for the core moral teachings. View many of the narratives as stories with symbolic and deep meanings.

I told this to Janus and I will repeat myself here: Roman Catholicism allows a huge variety of religious practices and beliefs. Each one has something to offer to different people. Look at it in a positive way,and you will find positive attributes. After all, isn't that the basis of what tolerance is all about?



Edited by hugoestr - 09-Nov-2007 at 21:51

Originally posted by Akolouthos Originally posted by Brian J Checco And, by the way, this is the second time you've called my academic credentials into question. The first time, you saw I knew what was up and promptly apologized. It's pleasant to think that a second will be forthcoming. Really, it's really rather insulting. I think that I've proven my street-cred on these forums in almost a year of posting, and consider my opinions and research to be held in fairly high regard here amongst our "academic" community. However, being a student of English at this point in my college career, I usually prefer to respond to posts that I find to be full of manure in a sarcastic and satirical manner. Satire is a subtle and nuanced art. I'm wondering now if indeed you have been grasping the underlying knowledge implied within said posts. A postcard from "academia," BC     Thanks for the postcard, oh great academic; I'll get to reading it after I have sifted through the vast amount of documentation you provided in your last post (hey, at least you mentioned an author this time, even if he is a bit of a nutter; you will be aware, I assume, of his reputation).   One initial note: Do not confuse an acknowledgement that you can display scholarly acumen, with an apology for taking offense that you have consistently failed to do so. I don't know that you demonstrated that you "knew what was up." As I recall, I simply noted that you demonstrated "a good deal of knowledge about the basic doctrinal points of Catholicism" ; unfortunately, you have failed to exhibit even this basic knowledge in most of your contemptuous -- and contemptible -- posts.   As I noted, I am not calling your academic credentials into question (although I am questioning your familiarity with Christian documentary evidence); I am simply stating that it would be better for you to exhibit them. You should attempt to display the scholarly ability that has led to the "street-cred" that you feel you enjoy in threads dealing with matters theological. As you have repeatedly shown, a familiarity with the most superficial aspects of a topic does not necessarily lead an individual to a scholarly analysis.   Oh, and for the final time -- and please read this carefully -- I do not feel obligated to explain the excesses of the Western Church post schism; if you wish to discuss the excesses of the Eastern Church, of which there are many, we may do so as soon as you begin to comport yourself as a scholar in topics relating to the Christian Church.   How's that study of the Christian concept of Logos coming?   Cheers, Akolouthos

Ah, so the great critic of satire and sarcasm has come around to embrace the one true faith; a conversion of mythic proportions! One could almost say a Gnostic has been turned into a Christian.

Logos, how could one summarize it? I don't have the texts in front of me, and I'm sure you'll be forgiving in this matter, but as best I've understood it, it has to do with reason, being the Greek root for the contemporary English 'logic.' Aristotle had 'logic' and 'reason' as what separates man from beast; Aquinas (an interesting 12th/21st century dichotomy) has it as what enables man to understand God's intentions (the difference between  Natural/Divine order and conventional/man-made law in Summa Theologica).  Then there's the 'Word' debate; what was God? The Word? Or did he have the Word? Or was the Word spoken in vacuum, and no one was there to hear it but man; and he interpreted it as best his limited faculty could fathom?
A central problem in this debate, a logical inconsistency, is that if God speaks to Man, and Man is left to interpret it, how could man perfectly interpret and understand God's Word? And the next logical questions being, "How could an institution, comprised of an aggregate of imperfect individual humans, claim to have accurately interpreted the word, and present it in a fool-proof way to another aggregate of imperfect individuals?"

I'll be a bit postmodernist in this, and address the individual points in an ad-hoc manner, but I never claimed to be a great scholar. The "academia" in 'a Postcard' was in quotation marks; commonly used to emphasize the lack of seriousness, one might imply 'the sarcasm,' behind a particular remark. The line prior to a 'a Postcard' may be more relevant now than I had I had meant it prior. That said, a mere grad student has never been qualified as a great academic before either, to hear tenured professors tell it.
And sure, Laurence Gardner is suspect (as are all other historians who have been knighted, of course, and by a Protestant monarchy, no less); especially when his research is utterly at odds with a position that not only have you set academic stock by, but have also pledged your eternal soul to (Akolouthos; Greek for "Acolytye?" As in a religious standpoint? An entrenched position, one could surmise?). Obviously, authors with views that you view as, dare we say, "heretical," will be considered a 'nutter' by you and scholars you adhere to. Nothing to be done there, old chap. Loggerheads, as they say.

In terms of apologetic positions; you have stood by two, and seem to renounce them both. I am fairly certain that you can't take seriously that "Scholarly Journal" position- I mean, honestly? I'm sure you'll fastidiously select the sections of this reply that you will respond to, but, gosh, I want to hear some feasible justification for that one. As I earlier contended, most scholarly journals do not embark upon policies of extermination and Inquisition. Very few execute even one person, let alone thousands.

Contemptuous? I'm okay with that. Contemptible? Strong language, my dearest friend. I appreciate the fact that it was straight forward, so that I might better discern your mind on the matter; but if my satirical and sarcastic position was so contemptible, you'd ought to do some penance for committing the same sins. I feel that some part of the contempt you attribute to my post has come through in your reply. Alas, the other cheek seem not to have been turn'eth there.

And, lastly, if we'd better not describe the excesses of the post-schism Church, there are plenty of excesses pre-schism. I freely admit the brilliant conversion schemes perpetuated by Padraig and Augustine (of British fame; not of Hippo); but one could cite the conduct of the Teutonic Order against the Lithuanians and Old Prussians as a prime example of a Catholic "missionary" institution that somehow seemed to be unable to practice a credo of non-violence; one might almost say a "non-Chistian" outlook (how does one come by a defensible position for Christian militant orders, by the way?). As I had hinted at earlier, though not stated explicitly, look at the Christian persecution of their own "brethren" sects in the early post-Sack-of-Jerusalem period (the first Christian diaspora); I take the position that once the Church began to solidify it's position that it cast numerous other factions into the realms of heresies. The Arian "heresy" easily comes to mind. The excommunication of the Judean-Gnostic sects could serve to reinforce my points.  And, as others have agreed with, to turn a blind-eye on the Eastern mystery cults that Christianity so obviously evolved from or adapted, is to refute certain "objective" histories.
As per earlier, I apologize for my lack of direct citation; one acquires information from so many sources, and lives so disconnected a lifestyle, that one does not always possess those texts. I am envious of the likes of you, who always possess their full libraries at any given moment. Maybe one day mine will expand and find itself concentrated enough to be considered "scholarly."
Sincerely,
Brian J Checco

Edit- I just remembered that the Teutonic Crusades were post-Schism (though we seem to have been using post-Reformation and post-Schism interchangeably in this post [the quote I believe Ak referred to was post-Reformation]); but, having cited pre-Schism incidents as well, I don't see it as being particularly detrimental to the post as a whole. C'est la vie.


Edited by Brian J Checco - 10-Nov-2007 at 10:20

Checco,

Edited by Akolouthos - 10-Nov-2007 at 15:25

Originally posted by edgewaters Originally posted by arch.buff If by "in its roots" you are refering to Christ and his Apostles than I would say that you would be very hard-pressed to prove the eloquent statements quoted above. I don't regard mythical figures in a historical context, regardless of what pseudepigrapha is employed. By "in its roots" I would mean the Church Fathers who coined the religion.

I'm rather curious as to why Christianity is apparently not defined as by what people actually practice, what is actually preached, and what the actual reactions to these teachings are; so apparently, we are then getting down to actual doctrinal dictates of the early Christian church, the philosophical ideas behind the dogma which was solidified at Nicea? If this is the case, I'm more than happy to be participate. I am beginning to see that part of the misunderstandings in this thread have come from the fact that I have been arguing practiced Christianity, as opposed to the doctrinal underlying subcontexts.
Is my interpretation correct in this light?

Hi, Brian,

Yes, we got to evaluate the religion by what they actually not believe, not because we want to whitewash, but because most of us will agree that on what the people actually believe or how they have behaved.

So we can move on and focus on the ideas of what it should be.

Ironically, popular Christianity and Roman Catholicism does indulge in dualism, thinking that the devil exists and dukes it out with God. Some people will get angry if one correctly denies the existence of the devil.

What are you talking about? Of course if you believe in orthodox Christianity you have to believe in the devil. It is not dualism in philosophy, although it may incorrectly be dualism in practice. The devil is not a being that can challenge God as an equal. The devil is the ultimate terrorist. He knows that he does not have the means to challenge God directly so he takes out his anger against God against God's greatest creations, mankind. And he does so by terrorizing our very souls.

Christianity is doctrinally dualistic; the Manicheanistic heresy is mostly due to the fact that the Persians thought of it first.

As I listed above it is not dualistic.

The Judean conception of the afterlife was that of sheol. Which is to say Hades. The afterlife of the pre-dualistic Ancients was that of haziness, of the forgettign once one passed the Lethe waters. In the Judean perception of the world, all waters flowed off the edges of a flat world; and those waters also signified forgetfulness, much as the Lethe waters did (that the Phoenecian conception and the Greek were highly interconnected is not purely coincidental; Phoenecians being Phillistines, from a historical perspective). Thus, in a pre-Christian Judea, the conception of afterlife was that everyone went the same place, regardless of earthly doings.

Why can't this be the Christian concept as well?

In the Christian conception, we view a heaven-hell dichotomy oddly reminiscent of Zoroastrianism... coincidence? Perhaps. When viewed with Mithraism in context? And the extent of Rome's wars? Doubtful that coincidentiality becomes.

Of course it's not a coincidence, Christianity has borrowed heavily from pre-Christian traditions. However there are many more differences between the Persian cults and Christianity than there are similarities.

Another question is, how do we then interpret the presence of Satan in the wilderness? The Satan of the Book of Job as God's attorney (the Devil as Advocate, we could say) is obviously not the same Satan we see in the Temptation; this Satan is more reminiscent of Angra Mainyu, "the malevolent" in the Zoroastrian position.

Could it be then that these devils are separate individuals? Perhaps the Satan in the wilderness was Christ's own mortal personality tempting his divine person by giving him the "easy" path rather than the right path. Remember this was at the time that Christ was just coming to terms with the fact that he was the incarnation of God.

But the dualism of Christianity stands as nearly undeniable; at least if the Gospels are to be taken as a primary source of Church doctrine...

I'm sorry I was under the impression that the Gospels mainly spoke of the fact that man had ruined their own souls (without the help of any outside Satanic force) and that in order to set them on the right path, God sent to earth the New Law and New Covenant to bring mankind back to righteousness?

However, if you look at Christianity with more logical rigor, you will find out that this duality is just not part of the religion simply because it runs counter to the basic premise that there is only one abstract God that humans cannot describe or depict.

QFT.

We know "Thou Shalt not Kill," but Moses and the Israelites ran around smiting their way through the deserts and commiting genocide in Canaan, so I'm fairly confident we can take that one with a grain of salt.

The direct translation of that passage is "Thou Shalt not Murder." Meaning that one should not intentionally harm another with spite or evil intent. In war soldiers are not murdering their enemies (unless they surrender first) because both sides agreed that their actions may well lead to their deaths and both sides accept the consequences of their actions.

Granted there are instances in the early history of the Hebrews where they slaughtered entire nations but these can be listed to one of two things either they didn't fully understand and fulfill the commandments of God (which is kind of a cop out I know) or by "destroying the nations" they killed all of the soldiers and resisters and took slaves and "adopted" the rest into the nation or Israel.

Mind you the not understanding the dictates of God still holds some merit, since the Jews themselves were nearly destroyed by the Chaldeans (perhaps as punishment?).

What are you talking about? Of course if you believe in orthodox Christianity you have to believe in the devil. It is not dualism in philosophy, although it may incorrectly be dualism in practice. The devil is not a being that can challenge God as an equal. The devil is the ultimate terrorist. He knows that he does not have the means to challenge God directly so he takes out his anger against God against God's greatest creations, mankind. And he does so by terrorizing our very souls.

Actually, Janus, you don't have to believe in the devil. Neither one of the founding creeds, either that of the Apostles or the Nicene creed have a line saying, "I believe in the Devil..."

It is a popular belief, and most priests who know better just go with the flow because teaching a strictly monotheistic theology is hard because it is so abstract. Besides, most will say that "the devil" is a nice symbolic representation of our negative impulses, the same way we have justice being represented by a semi topless chick with a blindfold and a scale.

You are right that the right translation is thou shall not murder, but

1. according to this simple interpretation from a Jewish site,

This is one of the three cardinal sins in Judaism, for which an individual is obligated to give up his life. This means that if Person A approaches Person B and says to him, "I will kill you if you do not kill person C," Person B should allow himself to be killed, rather than murder Person C.

http://www.ou.org/chagim/shavuot/aseret.htm

This to me seems to say that one should rather die than being forced to kill, as, let's say, a war. I am sure that there is a dissenting view on my interpretation by a wise rabbi, but they have dissenting interpretations on all of the text

b) The context that Jesus uses when making this statement is in that where he says that he is expanding the meaning of the law. Here is the whole passage:

13: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ... 21Ye 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. 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

So it seems to be expanding whatever limiting meaning there was before, and that even being angry with others qualify as "murder."

I will add that just war seems to have a stronger historical origin than scriptural. When it was necessary for Christians to kill for the state, then it arises

You had previously asked me to provide evidence about the early church pacifism. Here it is, from a blog:

Fourthly, Christian pacifism stems from a clear understanding of the distinctive mission of the Church. Christians are Christians first, citizens of their country second. In fact, Peter tells us that we are a holy nation, a people belonging to God, and Paul tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. The Church of Jesus Christ is not called to be involved in the wars the non-Christian world wages against each other. Rather, we are called to be an outpost of the Kingdom of God, living by the standards of that Kingdom even now. Paul spells out for us what that looks like:     Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord�s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.     Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not think you are superior.     Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God�s wrath, for it is written: �It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord. On the contrary:     �If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.�     Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:9-21, excerpts) I find it interesting that the early Christians almost unanimously interpreted the New Testament as forbidding followers of Jesus to participate in war. For example, the �Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus�, dating from about 215 AD, has the following to say about those who wish to become catechumens (i.e. those who are learning to become Christians):     A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God (Hippolytus 16:9-11). Many other early Christian writers take the same line. Tertullian wrote,     �the divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword.� (On the Chaplet 11-12). Origen wrote,     �You can not demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.' (Against Celsus VIII.7.3 about 240 AD) Justin wrote     �We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for ploughshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness to men, faith, and the expectation of the future given to us by the Father himself through the Crucified One.' (Dialogue with Trypho 110.3.4 about 160 AD) To sum up: Christian pacifism rests on the example of a God who loves his enemies, on the call of Christians to follow the Lordship of Jesus Christ and put his teaching into practice, and on the power of the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts of the most evil of people and turn them to God. Christian pacifism also takes seriously the call of the Church to be a distinct society with a special mission to bear witness to the Kingdom of God. In the early years of its life, before Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, this mission was almost unanimously interpreted as excluding participation in war. No doubt many readers of 'Brutally Honest' will disagree with the position I have outlined here. I�m fine with that, and I will attempt to answer your objections! However, be patient with me � like everyone else here, I have a day job as well, so I may not get to your responses immediately! Next time I write, I hope to address the second part of the question: Is it possible for a sincere Christian to (a) support the just war theory, and (b) support the Bush administration�s policies in Iraq?

Note: the author of this piece is a conservative Republican.
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2006/09/christian_pacif.html