Ship of Fools: "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" bumper sticker

Thread: "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" bumper sticker Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025203

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

I like bumper stickers with trivia questions. Saw a fun one last week:

"Who Would Jesus Bomb?"

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.)

Good to see that ordinary people are so interested in historical Jesus studies that they are asking questions with their cars!

(I hope someone stops this person and provides the correct answer. Wonder what the prize is?) [Biased]

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Are you sure that this isn't being asked ironically ... with the expected answer being "No one"? Or is your OP ironical? So complex, I'm ... [Confused]

[ 12. March 2013, 20:13: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

(Yes, I am being facetious.) [Smile]

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).

There are countless threads that could be written on whether one agrees or disagrees with anti-war politics, but the concern I have with them is dragging Jesus into the argument and using his name in contexts that are better suited for nonviolence activists like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

The thrust of the bumper sticker is the implicit claim that Jesus was the patron saint of non-violence, which is controversial. To reach this conclusion, one must over-emphasize the tactics of the Kingdom of God (taking up the cross, whoever lives by the sword dies by it, etc) and overlook the whole strategy of the Kingdom (evil in the world is real, unrepentant bad people are real, and God is taking steps to do away with it).

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 by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.)

You forgot Satan, goats (Matthew 25) and seasonal fruit trees (Mark 11).

Peter would have been in with a chance every now and then, mainly whenever he engaged his mouth before the brain was in gear.

Ninevah is not an acceptable answer, we know nothing came of that.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

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?"

Don't leave out "anybody not in Noah's immediate family"!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Only in America ...

[Roll Eyes]

Whoops, I've been told off a few times for that ...

Short answer. Nobody.

The Sermon on The Mount and the thing about the tower that collapsed in Luke 13 and the Galileans 'whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices' (Luke 13:1-5) suggests that he's not that interesting in judging who is a worse sinner than who ... and hence deserving of being 'bombed'. Yet, 'unless you repent you shall all likewise perish.'

The OP seems to betray a very literal approach to some of the stories of apparent 'bombings' in the OT ... I tend to take these things rather more figuratively or else as a 'God-on-our-side-not-on-theirs' thing on the part of the writers/compilers ... and there's always that puzzling thing in Joshua when the 'Captain of the Hosts of the Lord' appears and when asked, 'Are you for us or for our enemies?' doesn't answer in the affirmative to either - Joshua 5:13-15.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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 [Biased]

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 by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Jesus was the greatest non-violent activist of all time. Gandhi and Dr. King walked His walk. As all Christians should and hardly any have or do.

How one justifies Jesus being ambiguous on war from an undeconstructed narrative of the violent preincarnate God narrative, I don't know.

Without putting the cart of Christian acquiescence and worse to violence before the Horse.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

That sticker would have been appropriate on fuselages of Lancaster and Heinkel bomber planes .

I recently heard an ironic account of how , during WW2 , a formation of British bombers passed an incoming formation of German bombers over the North Sea .
There was no exchange of fire , instead the opposing pilots gave each-other the customary wing salute and continued on their way to drop respective payloads on Churches and civilians.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[citation needed]

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

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...

Oddly enough, most things which persuade people to deface their car with a bumper sticker with an adhesive straight from the maw of Hell merit more discussion than a quick slogan on a bumper sticker.

I would suggest, though, that in the American context this slogan isn't so much a call for opposition to anything the military may do as a call to recognize that unquestioning loyalty to anything done in the name of the military isn't particularly Christian either. The American military (one hopes) has some of the best intelligence gathering capabilities in the world, but they don't quite reach the level of omniscience yet--so whatever God may have done in the OT, and whatever Jesus may have done in the Temple probably shouldn't be used as a justification to bomb the Hell out of some village in a third-world country.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So the German bombers didn't have their customary escort of fighters, did they Rolyn?

[Roll Eyes]

I'd imagine that this story has just as much credence as the one told around here - that the reason the Germans didn't bomb Stoke-on-Trent was that they flew over it and saw the smoke from The Potteries/that the place was a wreck (delete version of choice) and so assumed that the job had already been done.

It dates back to a jokey comment in one of the newspapers in the 1960s apparently ...

And there were a few bombs jumped on Stoke - but not that many.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I could get told off here by suggesting that there is something unspeakably naff about Christian bumper-stickers of whatever stripe.

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 told him he'd got off lightly.

If it was down to me his car would be impounded and crushed in one of those smart industrial crushing machines ...

[Big Grin]

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?!

[Help]

You might as well walk around with a whopping big label on your forehead saying, 'I'm an idiot, take the piss out of me ...'

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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...

Shorter BWSmith: This [video] is not a satire.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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).

How does it do that then? Does it leap off the bumper when a Christian drives past and wrap itself around the Christian's neck strangling them until the Christian believes that? Does it hang around in their car singing obnoxious worship songs until they cannot bear it any more?
A bumper sticker that can actually coerce people must be an amazing thing.

For anyone else who gets worked up over left-wing Christian slogans on placards, here's another one I like:
"Obama is not a brown-skinned socialist who gives away free health care. You're thinking of Jesus".

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I'm surprised no-one has so far mentioned the songwriter David Rovics, who wrote the blistering song "Who Would Jesus Bomb?".

This is savage indictment of the religious political right in the US, highlighting the deep discrepancy between their avowed "love of the Lord" and their often violent actions against Muslims (and anyone else regarded as "enemies of the Lord").

To be frank - I'm surprised that a rightwing religious nutter hasn't tried to take David Rovics out with one of their beloved semi-automatics. Check out some of his other songs - especially "Promised Land", "They're building a wall", "Occupation" and "After the revolution"

I'm not sure I agree with him in all things, but he's certainly a powerful protest voice.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

The bumper sticker slogan reminds me of an old man I used to know who was a conscientious objector in WWII, and who used to ask, “Can you imagine Jesus behind a machine gun?”

To deny any role to Jesus, the eternal Second Person of the Godhead, in the violent activities of God in the OT, is to be guilty of a theological heresy such as Marcionism, or a Christological heresy such as Adoptionism.

And then there’s the book of Revelation, about which I don’t have any pet theory of interpretation, but which on the face of it is eschatological, and describes horrific judgmental violence on God’s part.

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.

On the general subject of bumper stickers, those which hijack Jesus to push for a national health scheme (which I in fact support) or a (usually highly selective) pacifism, are just as mindless and unscrupulous as those which claim Jesus’ unqualified support for the United States (and I am pro-American).

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Kaplan - that rather depends on whether you accept the God of extreme violence. I don't.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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 by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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?

Some people can. We've been there before. I can't. Therefore I don't.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

That's my point - we don't have to.

The kind of God we believe in will always be our own choice. I think the best way to see God's character is to look at Jesus' character, as revealed in the gospels.

Which brings us back to the absurdity of the bumper sticker.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

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 by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, it's not to be guilty of any of those heresies, Kaplan. It's simply to acknowledge that the OT is effectively 'Christianised' through the interpretation we now put on it post-Incarnation. I recognise that this causes some difficulties too, though and the Jewish people wouldn't thank me for saying it, of course.

It's a bit like the more moderate Muslims interpreting Jihad in terms of an inner spiritual struggle rather than war, bloodshed and massacre.

Now you're going to ask me whether I believe that the events described in Joshua, the Pentateuch (Plagues of Egypt etc) are literal or not.

To be honest, in some cases I'm not sure ... but I do find it difficult to apply a literal interpretation to 'fire from heaven' consuming the captains of 50s and their men in the incident with Elijah.

But even if it were literal, we have Jesus sharply rebuking his own disciples when they wanted to call down 'fire from heaven' on those who did not receive them.

As for Revelation, well, it's clearly Apocalyptic in language and tone and so isn't necessarily describing divine scorched-earth policies and blightings, plagues and literal fire ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course, Laurelin, I'm not advocating 'giving the finger' to anyone, YECies or otherwise. If anything, giving a guy like that the finger would only convince him of the rightness of his cause ... after all, he is surely being persecuted for righteousness's sake ...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

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 by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

True dat. Creationism is just a lunatic fringe position in the UK, but is a real political force in the US, so it's a little easier to understand the degree of feeling.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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' and yet the blood and thunder and judgement and smitings and so on were all to be drooled over?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

He he he….

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 by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Go on then, what is your list?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

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

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

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

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

How do you know that Jesus wouldn't want to bomb you, deano?

[Razz]

You see how it works don't you?
Imagine yourself on the receiving end of the 'bomb' and somehow it doesn't seem such a good idea.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Well I've been to Mansfield so that theory is pretty much out of the window.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

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. [Help]

(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. [Cool]

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

To be fair, the Brethren I knew were nowhere near as bad as I've made out with that example ... although there was a mismatch there, of course.

Very broadly and generally speaking, I find that the more 'catholic' traditions tend to emphasise the Gospels and the more evangelical ones to emphasise the Epistles. In the Brethren you could sometimes be forgiven for thinking that the Gospels were purely there to provide a proof-text mine for eschatological speculation ('the signs of the end of the age') and that the Parables and moral teachings had little practical application or value ... although I'm exaggerating there, but you know what I mean.

The more serious point I'm trying to make is that those with a more conservative theology will often accuse 'liberals' of being highly selective when, very often, they are just as selective themselves.

So, for instance, you might get a conservative evangelical railing against the lib'rul tendency to downplay the judgemental and violent aspects in favour of the lovey-dovey, sweetness and light ones, when they themselves might be doing the opposite - ie. adopting a judgemental and often vindictive approach and overlooking some of the social and ethical issues.

Rather than 'bombing' either of them, I suspect that Christ might have a few gentle but very incisive things to say to those at each pole of these tendencies.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

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 by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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.”

I have a shorter version:

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image.”

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

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.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

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. [Razz]

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. [Cool]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Maybe the guy getting the finger all the time just wasn't a very good driver? [Two face]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

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.

I grew up in a pacifist family, and did not think much about Bomber Command until I made a friend whose father was a pilot in it, bombing Peenemunde (good) and other places (hmm), and always returning. I did not realise how many had died until recently (though I knew that on one sortie most of the group were shot down), nor how very young they were (he was about 20), and then my opinion of the government of the time and their raid strategy became very much worse. They knew how many were dying each night, and they kept on sending them. (On Google Earth, their scheme to show overlays of the past has only a few spots in Germany - not Peenemunde, but Dresden, Hamburg, and other names which are familiar, and a closeup of the images shows what the source was. Very questionable use, I think. Our government knew what they were doing there, as well.)

I had an image of the court in the film "A matter of life and death", a huge arena full of those young men - they would fill an average size soccer stadium. And the words from the Kipling poem which accompanies his story about Elizabeth I, "Gloriana", sending young men to die in opposing the Armada, in which the boy Dan accuses her of callousness, and she replies that he would not understand matters of state.
"Valour and innocence have latterly gone hence, To certain death, by certain shame attended...".

Kipling's son's death must have informed that. Bomber Command certainly received that shame which belonged to others. Kipling at least had sent his own son. Those in power sent myriads of other people's children.

And deano, bombs don't target the bad only, or only destroy the terror weapons. Bombs reduce the innocent to ashes and what that POW who was on the radio the other week saw and smelled in the cellar shelter after the firestorm. Jesus bomb, deano? Or are you using de Montfort's logic, that it doesn't matter if you kill the just along with the unjust, because God will know his own?

[ 13. March 2013, 14:26: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I was brought up to see Germans as the enemy. My grandmother would spit at the word 'German'.

Of course, my view softened with time. But it was only when my son moved to Germany and we visited his GF's home town of Heilbronn that it came home to me. Heilbronn was bombed, very much like Coventry. The city centre was completely destroyed and the surrounding boroughs heavily damaged. Within one half hour 6,500 residents perished, most incinerated beyond recognition. The museum there was every much as affecting as those in Coventry.

We were with his GF's parents and we all had tears in our eyes - war is terrible.

War is necessary, sometimes - but only as the best of two evils when there is no other choice. Not as first choice action - ever.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I knew you'd know what hyperbole is, Laurelin, I was just winding you up ... [Biased]

Sorry. I'm a bit of a tease and it can get wearing.

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 ... [Roll Eyes]

The challenge though, is for us who DO believe that it applies to us to actually live by it ... something I signally fail to do.

At least these Brethren types have the excuse that they didn't believe it was applicable to them ...

[Biased]

@la vie en rouge ... [Big Grin]

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

Fine to hear you got to see another side of Germany. I am surprised the museum said much about the city's destruction, though. When I went to school the bombing of German cities never figured in public discourse or museums. While the results were obvious - German cities I grew up in were all made of hideous concrete blocks - the message was: "We got what we deserved and that's all there is to it." Remembering it meant being a Nazi.

Methinks the question in the OP is a wrong question to ask.
It should be "Whom would Jesus bomb?"

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

That said, I agree with the point that was often made back in my more full-on evangelical days that God's dealings with people have always been on the basis of grace ...

I can't remember which thread it was on now but Mudfrog's recently opined, if I understood him correctly, that grace came in at the Incarnation. It predates that. There's the ram in the thicket with Abraham and Isaac, there's Abraham believing God and it being 'credited to him as righteousness ' (however we understand that).

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

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. [Confused]

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.

Yes.

[ 13. March 2013, 15:06: Message edited by: Laurelin ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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).

Inerrancy tends to reinforce this view IMNAAHO; if it's all dictated by God then it's all equally "weighty", but since the Epistles are generally more explicit and directly didactic than the gospels, they appear more "useful" for telling people what to believe.

I always said that if you ask a question, an evangelical will answer you from the Epistles, an Anglican from the Gospels, a Catholic from St Thomas Aquinas, an Orthodox from someone with a funny name, and a fundamentalist from the Old Testament.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quetzalcoatl 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.

Exactly why it torques me.

deano, Jesus would bomb golf courses.

[ 13. March 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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.

I think it's very problematic from a Christian standpoint to claim that there can be actions which are "right" but which would not be sanctioned by Jesus.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Fine to hear you got to see another side of Germany. I am surprised the museum said much about the city's destruction, though.

They do, they have 'before' and 'after' models of the city. Before the bombing, after the bombing and after the rebuild. And a whole room dedicated to the history of it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I was exaggerating, Laurelin, but like all exaggerations there's a grain of truth in it. The Brethren Bible studies I attended as a young man did used to down-play the Beatitudes and so on ... in fact whilst they gave me a pretty good overview of the Bible - where things fitted together and so on - I increasingly look back on them with [Roll Eyes]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
You forgot Satan, goats (Matthew 25) and seasonal fruit trees (Mark 11).

Well, if we're going to go non-human, we have to include the pigs on the hillside as well... [Biased]

[ 13. March 2013, 16:24: Message edited by: BWSmith ]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

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 agree that non-violence is a "better way", but the question then is, a better way to what?

In the Kingdom of God, if all else fails, God will raise us from the dead and punish the evil eternally.

However, if we practice consistent non-violence with muslim extremists (or any of America's enemies for that matter), will there be any end to the violence they inflict on us, until they've either destroyed or taken over the country? Is that God's will?

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The OP seems to betray a very literal approach to some of the stories of apparent 'bombings' in the OT ... I tend to take these things rather more figuratively or else as a 'God-on-our-side-not-on-theirs' thing on the part of the writers/compilers ... and there's always that puzzling thing in Joshua when the 'Captain of the Hosts of the Lord' appears and when asked, 'Are you for us or for our enemies?' doesn't answer in the affirmative to either - Joshua 5:13-15.

Well, the business of all the Canaanite tribes was a joke. The historical evidence for the existence or non-existence of such peoples is complex.

However, in 2 Kings we are certainly dealing with real groups of people that existed when talking about God destroying an entire army of Assyrians (or the destruction of the northern and southern kingdoms being God's will).

So the "figurative bombing" argument might work in the early books of the OT with disputed people that may not have existed (Amalekites) or people that did exist but whose relationship with Israel was complex (Philistines), but at some point, it becomes clear that "real people did die", and the Bible claims that this was God's will, and we have to address that.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
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.

Judge for yourselves:

Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:13-16

Seems to me that the only way one concludes that Jesus didn't hit anybody with the cords is if one asserts beforehand that Jesus wouldn't do such a thing.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
]I agree that non-violence is a "better way", but the question then is, a better way to what?

In the Kingdom of God, if all else fails, God will raise us from the dead and punish the evil eternally.

However, if we practice consistent non-violence with muslim extremists (or any of America's enemies for that matter), will there be any end to the violence they inflict on us, until they've either destroyed or taken over the country?

The bit I've italicised in the middle there is the bit I always suspect has nothing to do with God at all, but has crept into many theologies through the back door marked Human Anger.

America's enemies mostly identify themselves as such due to violence committed against them previously and currently, by America and its associated nations - UK included - whether it be military or economic. They didn't start out that way, nor must they always be so.

quote:
Is that God's will?

Well, the Muslim extremists seem to think so, don't they? Who's going to take the first step towards eliminating their own viciousness from the god they create in their image?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
However, if we practice consistent non-violence with muslim extremists (or any of America's enemies for that matter), will there be any end to the violence they inflict on us, until they've either destroyed or taken over the country? Is that God's will?

I don't think God's Will is particularly concerned with any earthly country. America, Britain or any other "Christian Nation" could utterly cease to exist tomorrow and His Work would still be being done.

Christians have endured centuries of persecution and violence before, so what's to say they won't again?

As for whether we should practice non-violence with our enemies, I'm reminded of Jesus' words about giving our coats as well and going the extra mile (Matthew 5). There's something in the epistles (Romans 12) to that effect as well, if you're one of those evangelical types who heed to Paul more readily than to Jesus...

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I think it's very problematic from a Christian standpoint to claim that there can be actions which are "right" but which would not be sanctioned by Jesus.

Not right in the sense of 'holy' or 'righteous', Bran. Only in the sense of 'the lesser of two evils'. What do you think a nation facing the threat of invasion should do? Allow the tanks to roll in, without resistance?

I did say that these are not easy issues to resolve from a Christian POV. Far from it.

I can't imagine that, as a disciple of Christ, I would ever want to spill another person's blood. The notion is horrific. But let's say there's a guy who kidnaps some teenagers and keeps them hostage with the intent of raping and killing them (which is what happened to some Amish girls just a few years ago). If there was any other way to stop this man except by killing him, by God I'd do it. But if the only way to stop him killing the children is to shoot him - I can see no way round that dilemma.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
War is necessary, sometimes - but only as the best of two evils when there is no other choice. Not as first choice action - ever.

Agreed.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Fine to hear you got to see another side of Germany. I am surprised the museum said much about the city's destruction, though.
They do, they have 'before' and 'after' models of the city. Before the bombing, after the bombing and after the rebuild. And a whole room dedicated to the history of it.

Same in Munich. I was in what I think was the former palace and it was mentioned. Same in Nuremburg, where it was mentioned in a church that was bombed. A church in Hamburg as well. I seem to recall something mentioned in a museum in Ulm.

We also have Dresden, where the myth of German victimhood has only recently given away.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's a bit like the more moderate Muslims interpreting Jihad in terms of an inner spiritual struggle rather than war, bloodshed and massacre.

'Moderate' Jihad means spiritual inner struggle for all but the most extremely radical muslims.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:13-16

Seems to me that the only way one concludes that Jesus didn't hit anybody with the cords is if one asserts beforehand that Jesus wouldn't do such a thing.

The text does not say he hit anyone with the cords. It says He drove out all, both sheep and cattle. There is no mention of his hitting anyone. When the sheep and cattle were driven out, their owners naturally followed.

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

So Jesus may or may not be in favor of bombing anyone, but he definitely supports cattle rustling?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

@ OP

Today apparently, Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone personally, he'd send a drone. And he'd bomb brown people who worship a wrong headed God concept and refuse to do what they are told.

The better question is perhaps who should Jesus bomb?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Judge for yourselves:

Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:13-16

Seems to me that the only way one concludes that Jesus didn't hit anybody with the cords is if one asserts beforehand that Jesus wouldn't do such a thing.

I'm afraid my Bible omits the bit just before, 'So he made a whip out of cords,' where it reads, 'Jesus said, "I would I were able to firebomb the place but this perverse and godless generation hath not yet invented incendiary devices, so I'm afraid I'm stuck using something that only barely qualifies as an offensive weapon at all and that not unless you push it. Fortunately, my future disciples in their true peaceableness of heart will be able to interpret this whip of cords as justifying the use of lethal weapons up to and including nukes".'

Seriously, if Jesus had wanted to set a pattern for lethal violence, he could have used a weapon that was a bit more, well, lethal. It's not like his disciples hadn't got their hands on a couple of swords. Putting the temple traders to the sword would have made sure he sent the message you want him to have sent.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus cleanses the Temple again directly after riding into the town on a donkey. Riding into the town on a donkey is a sign that he comes as a peaceful ruler not as a warlike ruler. So Jesus cleansing the Temple cannot be an endorsement of war.

[ 13. March 2013, 19:55: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I think we need the Infancy Gospel of Thomas about now.

quote:
In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected, Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse. Another child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into Jesus, throws a stone at Jesus, or punches Jesus (depending on the translation).
...
It is also seen in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that from the age of five years old until the age of twelve, the young Jesus had killed at least three people, two children and one adult teacher. The children were not brought back to life and their parents remained blind.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So the German bombers didn't have their customary escort of fighters, did they Rolyn?

This testimony, from a factual TV documentary, was given by a bomber command veteran who actually witnessed it . He remembered the chatter going around as to whether they should use their machine-guns, this was followed by the definite order to do nothing.

My guess is that the incident came at a later stage when war weariness had set in , and fighter escorts on both sides had been depleted.

Truces and comradery between opposing sides during warfare is not uncommon . Whether Jesus gives this sort of thing His Blessing or not I wouldn't like to say.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Fascinating BWSmith. You can't even read what you quote.

And Dafyd: [Overused]

as Laurelin said.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
the blood and thunder and judgement and smitings and so on were all to be drooled over?

I am disappointed in you, Gamaliel.

As C.S. Lewis points out, the fact that Augustine believed that hell was going to be full of unbaptised babies does not mean that Augustine wanted hell to be full of unbaptised babies.

(And incidentally, I am not comparing myself to Augustine - the only thing we have in common is a constant temptation to lust!)

If I had my druthers the Bible would teach universalism, but anyone – not just evangelicals – who takes biblical revelation seriously, has no choice but to recognize that the Christian deity, of whom the Son is a part, has carried out, and is going to carry out, horrific temporal judgments, followed by eternal banishment for Christ-rejectors.

Far from “drooling” (and I know of precious few Christians who have taken, or do take, any pleasure in the damnation of anyone) I find that intensely distressing, but I recognize that the only valid choices are to incorporate it somehow into my theology, however difficult that might be, or give up the faith.

A smorgasbord faith in which we pick only what suits us, ignore difficulties, and invent happy endings, is simply not honest.

Nor does it work to make the Synoptics in general, and the Sermon on the Mount in particular, the hermeneutical touchstone (or rather, sleight of hand) to which we subordinate all the rest of Scripture.

For a start, Paul’s earliest letters (Galatians, Thessalonians) almost certainly predate the Synoptics, so these three Gospels do not necessarily represent the most ancient tradition.

Secondly, to cite Lewis again, it is the Jesus of the Synoptics, not the Paul of the epistles (or for that matter the Jesus of John’s Gospel) who predicts dire judgments on this world at the end of the age, followed by a final judgment which is expressed in the graphic imagery of weeping, gnashing of teeth, outer darkness and fiery furnaces.

The question of whether Jesus uses violence is, of course, completely separate from the issue of whether or not Christians can support violence, and if so, under what circumstances and against whom.

And yes, I am aware the dispensationalist theory that the Synoptics represent kingdom teaching for the Jews, and are not written for Christians, though I never bought into it myself, and it seems to have disappeared from plafforms (not pulpits, look you!) years ago.

It must be acknowledged, however, that those who taught it were trying to deal with a genuine difficulty, which is that the theology of the Synoptics, on the face of it, is different from that of John and the Pauline epistles.

For example, Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount teaches that we forgive in order to be forgiven (Matt. 6:14-15), whereas Paul teaches that we are to forgive because we have been forgiven (Eph. 4:32).

[ 14. March 2013, 00:43: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If I had my druthers the Bible would teach universalism, but anyone - not just evangelicals - who takes biblical revelation seriously, has no choice but to recognize that the Christian deity, of whom the Son is a part, has carried out, and is going to carry out, horrific temporal judgments, followed by eternal banishment for Christ-rejectors.

I'm sure I'm far from being alone in taking Biblical revelation very seriously and yet finding that there is a viable choice not to attribute horrific judgments and eternal banishment to God. Predicting dire judgments and using extreme imagery is not the same as being the source of the predicted or imaged results.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, if you're disappointed with me, then I'm disappointed with you, Kaplan. I've already stated that I was speaking hyperbolically.

Of course I don't believe that the Brethren I knew back in the day used to 'drool' at the prospect of eternal judgement and damnation. All I was highlighting was an apparent anomaly. They (or some of them) were quite prepared to relegate the Sermon on the Mount to an 'earlier dispensation' a it were, yet for some reason they were quite happy to retain the judgemental and violent aspects of those earlier dispensations or in-between-times or whatever they were in their complicated schema.

That's the point I was making. That they were just as selective in their own way as liberals are accused of being by more conservative types.

And sure, I take your point about the C S Lewis point about Augustine and the unbaptised babies issue.

As for the temptation thing - well, there is no temptation that is not common to man and many of us would be in the same boat as St Augustine on that one!

I'm not advocating universalism. I'd prefer the scriptures to teach that too, but they don't. However, I think we can legitimately discuss what eternal judgement means and - without minimising it in any way - consider how it might differ from the popular blood, guts and thunder approach.

I take biblical revelation seriously too, but perhaps I take some of it - notably Revelation and so on - in a more figurative sense than you do.

I don't think that this represents a smorgasbord faith, rather it might represent a more nuanced one where there aren't such black-and-white choices and where we can leave the more 'mysterious' aspects to God.

That may sound like a cop-out but it's not intended to be.

I wasn't elevating the Synoptics nor the Sermon of the Mount above the rest of the NT, simply attempting to redress what might be an imbalance the other way. The more liberal vicar in this town certainly does favour the Synoptics over John's Gospel - which he insists on calling 'the Fourth Gospel' rather than 'John's' - and he appears to hate Revelation with a passion and wishes it had never been canonised into scripture.

That's an extreme view, of course.

I would suggest, though, that there are equally extreme approaches within the evangelical or more conservative camps where there are far too many 'Psalm-John' Christians who like the lovely bits of the Psalms and the main Johannine proof texts about Christ's divinity and leave out the rest.

And then, as has been discussed, there is the tendency of particular types of conservative evangelical to focus on the epistles often to the detriment of the Gospels. Let's face it, neither the Synoptics nor John's Gospel allows fit the kind of neat schemas so beloved of evangelicals.

You could easily read the Gospels (without the epistles) and come up with a completely different soteriology etc to the one that evangelicals have developed - and yes, that would include the dire warnings and fiery imagery etc.

My point is that many conservative evangelicals appear to have retained those aspects and yet neglected other aspects that are clearly there in the Gospels - such as the Sermon on The Mount.

It works the other way of course, with the more liberal types.

So - yes, the theology of the Synoptics is different in some ways from that of John and the Pauline epistles and that's something we all have to wrestle with. In some instances, I'm not sure we can neatly reconcile the apparent discrepancies - but perhaps that's to be expected? How could it not be that way? We've got people struggling to get to grips with and to understand the Christ-event - there are different and apparently contradictory accounts of some of the same incidents, for instance.

What is remarkable is the degree of consensus. I can live with the discrepancies.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

While I'm at it, here's an analogy that might help ...

Kaplan is reluctant to compare himself with St Augustine in any way other than sharing his propensity towards particular temptations ...

I'd be even more reluctant to compare myself with Christ in anything other than a shared humanity - although not a shared divinity of course - although we might accept the Eastern concept that we can can become by grace what God is by nature ... (and be careful how we understand that) ...

You get my drift, I hope.

But the analogy is this ... Just as Jesus used hyperbole ('if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out') then surely it is not unreasonable to interpret some of the more violent and judgemental sayings in the Gospels and the things in Revelation in that way?

I mean, I'm not comparing myself to Jesus, obviously, but I've been using hyperbole all along on this thread. I've accused particular groups of ignoring the Sermon on the Mount and also of 'drooling' over the prospect of eternal judgement.

Now, of course I don't mean that literally. I am exaggerating to make a point. Whatever the vagaries of their theology and approach (and we all have vagaries) - many of these Brethren people lived exemplary Christian lives - or as exemplary as anything you might find anywhere else - this isn't a competition ...

So, by the same token, just as I'm exaggerating and using hyperbole and somewhat apocalyptic or metaphorical language then surely that's what the scriptures are doing in these instances of death and destruction and judgement?

Particularly in Revelation. We don't literally believe that Christ's hair was like wool and a sword emanated literally from his mouth, do we?

It's picture language.

I wouldn't tear Revelation out of the Bible. It ha a great deal to teach us. The difficulty comes when we take it too literally. The Eastern Churches recognised this and that's why they were the last to accept it into the canon.

You've only got to look at church history to see the baleful effects of taking an overly literal approach to Revelation. Think Munster. Think of rather strange and quirky suburban sect pouring over the scriptures on dank afternoons ...

But think also of the base-communities and the activists who've been inspired by it to keep going , to press on towards the day when the Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ and when the marriage supper of the Lamb comes ...

We need to rescue Revelation from the fundamentalists. It can rally us to love and good works. It can rally us to an appreciation of our Coming King in all his glory, to work towards a New Jerusalem.

I could get quite excited by all that.

Taking the kind of line that Kaplan appears to be taking will surely only lead to depression, morbidity and the kind of blinkered, sectarian approach where these quirky old characters poring over the scriptures on a dank afternoon consider themselves and themselves only as the one true remnant or the pure and unadulterated Bride ...

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is what Kaplan believes - but you can see a trajectory that could develop in that direction can't you?

Just as you can see one that could develop into a highly materialised 'social gospel' in the version I've articulated.

Put them together. That way lies health.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Think of rather strange and quirky suburban sect pouring over the scriptures on dank afternoons ...

What do they pour?

The wine of astonishment?

Oil - presumably not that of gladness?

And "suburban"?...."dank"?..."afternoons"?

You won't hold back if you think I'm slipping into over-literalness again, will you?

[ 14. March 2013, 09:18: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Doh!

Apologies for the typo. My bad.

I meant 'poring', of course and as you'll have deduced.

As for why 'dank' and 'suburban'? Well, it might just be a British thing but I've got an impression of some of the more separatist or exotic of the indigenous (as opposed to imported) UK sects consisting of slightly eccentric individuals gathering in otherwise ordinary, unprepossessing settings to pore over the scriptures and discuss arcane eschatological theories ...

I'm not necessarily thinking Brethren here, although it would apply to some of them.

My comments are tinged with some admiration and respect.

Where I live there's a truly wonderful music teacher (he's teaching my wife and daughter) who is an all round lovely bloke - yet who belongs to some odd group which has adopted Adventist views and which meet on Saturdays in a tin-hut with magic-marker black-felt pen notices outside. They meet at 3:16pm on the dot as a deliberate echo of John 3:16.

You wouldn't think he had eccentric views at all if you met him - he just comes across as a very eirenic Christian. Yet he's convinced that the Bible tells us that we should meet on Saturday afternoons ...

I'm not sure they're officially affiliated to the Seventh Day Adventists but they have speakers from there from time to time.

[Biased]

As far as the Brethren go then it'd be similar ... generally stolid burghers and lovely old blokes and old dears who're in no wise any different from anyone else - except they might have some wierd Readers' Digest influenced view of eschatology or some odd pet theories of their own.

I'm sure there'll be equivalents in Australia. Only without the dank suburban afternoons.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I take it that textual criticism is not part of the discussion? That the ideas that Jesus might be part of a scheme to lambaste people in the world all the way to a hell for an eternity of suffering must be read within a historical time period when Jerusalem had been destroyed, which hit hard after they'd also lost their leader?

Some of us consider that the second coming occurs all the time, but is largely missed by those who prefer flames and pain. Particularly when others are the ones on fire.

After reading much of this, I am considering that perhaps we now know why Jesus took trouble to change water to wine. He wanted to get bombed himself. As I do when I read some of this thread in the light of a family history and a local society that contains far too much of this sort of pollytwaddle.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0