Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by BWSmith:
Give up? The correct answers are: (drumroll...)

- The money changers in the Temple
- Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin
- All Jerusalem (70 AD)

(Would have also accepted "Herod" (either Antipas or 'The Great'), as well as the Philistines, Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Amalekites, Israel (722 BC), Judah (586 BC), and entire family of King Ahab.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by BWSmith:
Also, given Jesus' further complete faithfulness to the God of the OT (who effectively "bombed" quite a few people, including Israel and Judah), one would have to answer the real question of "When God destroyed all those people, with which particular destruction did Jesus disagree with God?"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think there might be some truth in the sentiment of the sticker. What about the story of the good Samaritan? The woman caught in adultery? "Blessed are the peacemakers?"

It seems often, whilst Jesus never condemned the law, nor the figures of the Old Testament, he showed us a better way, which was non-violent.

I'm sounding like a proper liberal here, but oh well, so be it.

---

Reality has a known liberal bias

As I read it, Jesus didn't directly attack the money lenders. The whip was used to drive the animals out, and he overturned the tables the money lenders were using. It was an act of non-violent civil disobedience, like the destruction of GM crops trials or the disruption of coal deliveries to a power station. It was a protest, not a violent act.

[ 12. March 2013, 21:15: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by BWSmith:
The bumper sticker is a play on the "What Would Jesus Do?" slogan. It is employed by American anti-war activists to coerce self-professed Christians (with a shallow view of the actual Jesus of history) into believing that "following Jesus" requires opposition to American military policy (in one form or another).

...

What that implies for us today is complex, and merits more discussion than a quick slogan on a bumper sticker...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by BWSmith:
Given that the Jesus of the Bible directly attacked the money-changers of the Temple, and indirectly attacked Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (and framed his entire message on the impending destruction of Jerusalem), it's not accurate to claim that Jesus was a "pacifist" seeking non-violence for its own sake.

Also, given Jesus' further complete faithfulness to the God of the OT (who effectively "bombed" quite a few people, including Israel and Judah), one would have to answer the real question of "When God destroyed all those people, with which particular destruction did Jesus disagree with God?"

So in short, I think it's clear that "Who Would Jesus Bomb" has clear answers in both the Old and New Testaments. What that implies for us today is complex, and merits more discussion than a quick slogan on a bumper sticker...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by BWSmith:
It is employed by American anti-war activists to coerce self-professed Christians (with a shallow view of the actual Jesus of history) into believing that "following Jesus" requires opposition to American military policy (in one form or another).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

In other words the triune God of Christian orthodoxy, of whom Jesus is a part, has carried out, and will carry out, violence equaling or exceeding anything ever committed by bombs or machine guns.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

In other words the triune God of Christian orthodoxy, of whom Jesus is a part, has carried out, and will carry out, violence equaling or exceeding anything ever committed by bombs or machine guns.

---

Why?

Yes - OT folks believed in a God who would carry out such violence.

But we don't have to, do we?

Yes - God allows violent earthquakes etc, but they are a consequence of the way the universe works - not deliberate cruelty.

Can you really believe in, or worship, a God who would target innocent folks with bombs and machine guns?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Over on another board I came across an American cleric (I will spare the details) who complained that he was regularly called a moron, insulted and even 'given the finger' by people who took exception to him driving around with a bumper sticker advertising a Creation Museum.

I mean, how lacking in self-awareness and theological literacy do you have to be to drive around with a bumper-sticker advertising a Creation Museum. A Creation Museum?!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Over on another board I came across an American cleric (I will spare the details) who complained that he was regularly called a moron, insulted and even 'given the finger' by people who took exception to him driving around with a bumper sticker advertising a Creation Museum.

I mean, how lacking in self-awareness and theological literacy do you have to be to drive around with a bumper-sticker advertising a Creation Museum. A Creation Museum?!

---

I don't have a high opinion of the Creation Museum. But I seriously have to wonder about folk who get so incensed by a daft bumper sticker that they would actually 'give the finger' to someone who sported one. Seriously? So the guy is a YEC and has a bumper sticker advertising the Creation Museum. This might make me smile and roll my eyes, but I wouldn't abuse somebody verbally over it.

Perspective! (Of course the YEC getting bent out of shape needs it, too.) But people have a right to publicly express their opinions/convictions, including those we find daft. Who is his bumper sticker hurting, for goodness sake?

I can think of far more offensive things.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

Do you really want my list? Because the list of where I want to bomb exactly matches the list of places that I think Jesus would bomb!

It’s a long list. Not empty by any means.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Ira... Nah. I can't be bothered with another Hell call, and this thread has Hell call written all over it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know you're not a dispensationalist, Kaplan, but don't you think it's a sad state of affairs when the Brethren I knew used to preach that we didn't have to take any notice of the Sermon on the Mount because that applied to a different 'dispensation' ...

---

WHUT. I grew up in the Brethren and never heard anything so monstrously silly. (There were other issues, to be sure ...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I suggest you make that list, then visit each place on it. You'll change your mind in every case.

---

Very wise.


I'm nailing my colours to the mast and I say, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus Christ will not bomb anybody, neither does He sanction us bombing other people.

I'm not a pacifist, btw. I believe that a nation-state has a right to defend itself against an aggressor. I'm thinking of Bomber Command. Of the 55,000 young men who perished on those missions ... and the bombs they dropped on German cities, so that the Nazi war machine could be dealt a serious blow. Were those young men evil? - no, of course not. Was my country right, to try to take out the Nazi war machine? - no question in my mind about that. Is it terrible to think of the German civilians who died in those raids? - yes, it is. (And I blame their government more than the Allied forces.)

But to claim this was a holy act? - you have to be kidding me. Jesus sanctioning bombing? No freaking way.

Gah. These issues are difficult, and not black-and-white.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Because the list of where I want to bomb exactly matches the list of places that I think Jesus would bomb!

It’s a long list. Not empty by any means.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Because the list of where I want to bomb exactly matches the list of places that I think Jesus would bomb!

It’s a long list. Not empty by any means.

---

As someone wiser than myself once said:

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In other words the triune God of Christian orthodoxy, of whom Jesus is a part, has carried out, and will carry out, violence equaling or exceeding anything ever committed by bombs or machine guns.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed, and yes, Laurelin, I was exaggerating to make a point about the Brethren. It's a rhetorical device called hyperbole. I use it a lot here on the Boards and I often get 'called' on it. Perhaps someone ought to introduce a 'I'm-speaking-hyperbolically' smiley.

---

I know what hyperbole is! Sheesh.

Often used it myself, in other contexts.

I've encountered enough theological silliness in my time to think that the example you gave was a real one. Never mind.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
I'm thinking of Bomber Command. Of the 55,000 young men who perished on those missions ... and the bombs they dropped on German cities, so that the Nazi war machine could be dealt a serious blow. Were those young men evil? - no, of course not. Was my country right, to try to take out the Nazi war machine? - no question in my mind about that. Is it terrible to think of the German civilians who died in those raids? - yes, it is. (And I blame their government more than the Allied forces.)

But to claim this was a holy act? - you have to be kidding me. Jesus sanctioning bombing? No freaking way.

Gah. These issues are difficult, and not black-and-white.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was exaggerating about the Beatitudes thing, of course, but I have heard and read Brethren people say that it doesn't apply to us ...

---

So if you've actually heard people say this, you weren't, in fact, exaggerating, or at least all that much.

Anyway, whatever. Now that I think about it, I suppose I haven't heard the Beatitudes preached on nearly enough. There used to be, almost, the impression in some evangelical circles that the Epistles were the theological 'meat' whilst the Gospels were more like the 'bread and butter' ... a shocking approach to Scripture, really, from so-called 'inerrantists' (what could be more weighty than the words of Jesus Himself?!) but a view that has been challenged by evangelical scholars and teachers (thankfully).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
It rather depends upon your hermeneutic, doesn't it? The orthodox hermeneutic is to interpret everything in the Bible as leading up to or pointing to or fulfilled in the Gospels. Jesus is the definitive revelation of the Father. Other revelations do not trump Jesus. If there is a seeming discrepancy, then you take the Gospel at face value and reconcile the other passage to it.

So the Gospels at face value proclaim that God is the Prince of Peace who comes riding on a donkey, and the foal of a donkey, to Jerusalem, and Revelation or Judges at face value proclaim God as a God of retributive violence on a vast scale. The Catholic response is to take the Gospel passage as normative. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Any interpretation of Revelation or Judges that implies Jesus was only pretending or biding his time or issuing a temporary dispensation, and that Jesus is therefore really a God of violence is not orthodox.

---

But Gamaliel also makes a very good point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On a more serious note, I would meet Kaplan part way in saying that there is a danger in becoming somewhat Marcionite if we see the God of the OT as different to the gracious God of the NT ... but I'm with Dafyd. There's a progressive revelation going on and Jesus trumps everything that came before.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was exaggerating about the Beatitudes thing, of course, but I have heard and read Brethren people say that it doesn't apply to us ...

---

So if you've actually heard people say this, you weren't, in fact, exaggerating, or at least all that much.

Anyway, whatever. Now that I think about it, I suppose I haven't heard the Beatitudes preached on nearly enough. There used to be, almost, the impression in some evangelical circles that the Epistles were the theological 'meat' whilst the Gospels were more like the 'bread and butter' ... a shocking approach to Scripture, really, from so-called 'inerrantists' (what could be more weighty than the words of Jesus Himself?!) but a view that has been challenged by evangelical scholars and teachers (thankfully).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

On the other hand, the creationists in the US are actively trying to sabotage science education, and in a sense, science itself. I don't think this is something trivial really. It's an attack on human knowledge itself.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know you're not a dispensationalist, Kaplan, but don't you think it's a sad state of affairs when the Brethren I knew used to preach that we didn't have to take any notice of the Sermon on the Mount because that applied to a different 'dispensation' ...

---

WHUT. I grew up in the Brethren and never heard anything so monstrously silly. (There were other issues, to be sure ...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I suggest you make that list, then visit each place on it. You'll change your mind in every case.

---

Very wise.


I'm nailing my colours to the mast and I say, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus Christ will not bomb anybody, neither does He sanction us bombing other people.

I'm not a pacifist, btw. I believe that a nation-state has a right to defend itself against an aggressor. I'm thinking of Bomber Command. Of the 55,000 young men who perished on those missions ... and the bombs they dropped on German cities, so that the Nazi war machine could be dealt a serious blow. Were those young men evil? - no, of course not. Was my country right, to try to take out the Nazi war machine? - no question in my mind about that. Is it terrible to think of the German civilians who died in those raids? - yes, it is. (And I blame their government more than the Allied forces.)

But to claim this was a holy act? - you have to be kidding me. Jesus sanctioning bombing? No freaking way.

Gah. These issues are difficult, and not black-and-white.

---