Shouldn't Christian's Be Pacifists?

If you want consistency, the bible is not the book for you. All it is is a collection of unconnected books written by people with different believes, and chosen because they served the purpose of the choosers, and any books that did not serve their purposes became heretical.

 

According to Christ. Anyone who does not follow the old laws, or teaches others not to shall be "Viewed as least in the Kingdom of Heaven." He opposed the idea that his followers should abandon the OT. Paul is the only one who said they should and most of the other apostles disagreed.

- - - Updated - - -

According to Christ. Anyone who does not follow the old laws, or teaches others not to shall be "Viewed as least in the Kingdom of Heaven." He opposed the idea that his followers should abandon the OT. Paul is the only one who said they should and most of the other apostles disagreed.

- - - Updated - - -

Well a unborn person is innocent and has done nothing to deserve death. Comparing it to executing a murderer is stupid.

 

First of all the commandment isn't "Do not kill.", it's "Do not murder." Secondly, Jesus Himself instructed the Disciples to make sure they were armed. Pacifism is an extreme position that God has never taken and never expects us to take. The concept that we are to be pacifists only comes from a flawed interpretation of Scipture and not one that reflects the original meaning of it. IT's what happens when one only browses the Bible, instead of studying it. If you study the Bible, you will see that God condemns murder, but supports killing in defence and at times killing to pre-emptively prevent an attack. We are to be prepared to defend ourselves and NOT be a victim. Even the Sermon on the Mount's reference to meekness has within it the definition of "strength under control", not a craven attitude of blind submission.

 

This is a puzzling OP. The following site seems to contradict what you claim: New Testament cruelty

Granted, one can also point to plenty of calls for peace and love and brotherhood but that just serves to illustrate that there are contradictions and how many threads detailing those does this site already have?

 

What is or is not murder is determined by society and its laws / rules, and the same act will get you executed one place, honored another.

 

My bible Standard Edition Newly Cited by the American revision Committee AD1901 says " Thou Shalt Not KIll" Doesn't say anything about murder. This is what we as Protestants were thought in Sunday school and what was preached in church. Maybe someone can look up the ten commandments in their King James version.

 

Which has zero to do with the subject at hand. Killing someone for gain is not the same as killing someone to protect someone.

 

this is another of these good examples of how bizarrely different the average american christian is to their jesus. who was, after all, the following:

a radical non-violent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers, and crooks, wasn't american and never spoke english, was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer, was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest, never asked a leper for a co-pay, and was a long-haired, brown-skinned, homeless, community-organising, anti-slut-shaming, middle-eastern jew.

 

It has everything to do with the fact that its fine to say "dont murder" but something altogether different to say what it is.

The bibilical injunction of dont kill / dont murder is left floating there.
It was not written by lawyers, there are no bright lines to distinguish what is justified from what is murder.


No definition of murder says "killing for gain", you simply made that up.

Killing for defense is gain, killing in war is gain.

If you want to claim there are moral absolutes go for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Well said.

 

Jesus tells his disciples to arm themselves with swords as an allegory regarding their faith. When they don't understand and ask if they should get more weapons he tells them "No", that they have enough. They are too dense to understand his message.
Perhaps you are also a disciple.

 

The ideology can be about anything, it's how that ideology is put into practice, if at all, that matters.

This is just your version of Christianity. Others have a different belief. More than 30 - 40 different ones, actually. Before I could even entertain your opinion of what Christianity is, I'd have to understand why all the other versions of Christianity would, consequently, be wrong.

This only serves to prove the appaling self-contradictions in the Bible, if indeed, this was proof to the contrary, but it seems more to be more spin on plain english. Things like...

None of these people are Jesus, but merely people giving their own opinions.

These things all sound like re-interpretations of scripture to suit a certain frame of mind. Interpretations which vary according to the exact faith you come from. Of course, all of them would be official, but official according to whom? God? How do we know which interpretation God favors and which he does not, if he indeed favors any...if he, indeed, exists?

But Jesus was the servant of God. How can one serve the other and yet completely contradict him in personality and message?

I would say religion has nothing to do with it. People are just being people, and over time they've recruited a bunch of different reasons to do what they do- one of the more famous being religion. But removing religion today would hardly impact the amount of immorality in the world. It would just find another cause through which it can act out.

I think, just as in the past, religion is re-interpreted at the liberty of those who seek to use it. Since main proponents of Christianity happen to be some of the most war-like and avaricious states in the world, having militaries must be justified, not to mention a culture saturated in materialism and idle pleasures.

Matther 5:39

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.…

This seems pretty plain to me. It's not talking about revenge, it refrains from it. It is teaching the person to be kind to your offender in the name of your faith.

I've listened to a number of revisionist lectures on parts of the Bible, and when you chase them down with questions asking to display the souce material which verifies this, it always boils down to mere interpretation and no solid or direct evidence. And it always comes around and bites itself. It's just too contradictory to support unless you support under any condtion.

 

There hasn't been a single successful ideology that doesn't promise some type of better life for it's followers.

 

precisely why same are 'successful'. the promises.

 

and there's your problem, america. saturation materialism and idle pleasures. anything for a giant feed and some couch time in front of the plasma, post-prandial to a gentle waddle around the nearest mega-mall.

in 'better' countries, even the rich are compelled to sort through and separate out every last piece of their refuse into umpteen different recycling receptacles every week. they do this, willingly or unwillingly, because they know it will render the planet habitable for their well educated and not-lazy children. it keeps them real, keeps them off the couch, and reminds them of their place in the scheme of things.

apologies for the off topic rant.

 

Hurray for religion.

 

xtianity does carrot and stick

- - - Updated - - -

can i move there?

 

where? to the cheeseburger eating "aren't austria and australia the same place?", mall waddling, plasma watching home of the fundy? or the recycling liberal lefty skinny-kids-who-know-where-botswana-is home of the atheist?

 

I guess I will stay here.

 

What was Peter doing with a sword?

 

I'm getting this picture in my mind, of some guy standing there a couple thousand years ago, with a sword hanging from his hand, asking himself the same thing.

And of me, asking, what does that have to do, with anything? That may possibly be the most trivial question Im likely to hear for some time. Correct me svp.

 

Being rebuked by Christ for using it.

 

For what reason? Apparently Jesus didn't rebuke him for having it.

 

Jesus needed to be counted among transgressors to give authorities an excuse to arrest him. The swords provided that excuse. Why do you think he told the disciples that their meager two swords were adequate for their defense? Clearly they wouldn't have been.
Simple.
They weren't for their defense. They provided a means to an end, an excuse to arrest him.

 

Jesus was a liberal. America Christians are Republicans, majority of them as seen in TV.

 

Not so. As the son of Man, He affirmed the righteousness of Moses and the prophets, none of whom were pacifists; and of course in His capacity as the voice of God in the OT, He commanded violence and killing aplenty.