|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Violence: what is it, and is it always bad?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
A major tangent has emerged on the Constantinianism thread (from about here), where Alan Cresswell said quote:
we can't simply state "Christianity does not permit violence" (...) We need to tackle the questions raised by Jesus who acted violently, and pre-emptively taking time to make the whip, driving out the merchants from the Temple
Since then, in essence, opinions have been divided between those who seem to think that Jesus was not violent because there is no evidence he actually struck anybody, and those like Alan (and me) who seem to think his actions could be described as violent even if no actual hurt was caused, without this being necessarily sinful.
(Several people have observed that the precise definition of violence also appears to vary from language to language).
To me, on the face of it, excising violence of all kinds from Scripture appears problematic; I also think there are more ways of being violent than physical ones, and these include some of the nastier ones.
Can we discuss what we think about violence here (and possibly consign to Kerygmania any further detailed discussion of individual, specific biblical texts)?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
you can't really post the first part and also abscond with that final sentence, Eutychus. You're taking Jesus's actions as a role model for your argument and then declaring that your basis for all of this is completely out of bounds.
Stating categorically that Jesus whipped people (and didn't use this just to move all the animals) out of the temple, and "man-handled" the money lenders as well as turning their tables over - is a bit of a dodgy position to take. The eye witness statements are not consistent enough, for starters. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Interesting symbology, though.
I think that sometimes - violence appears necessary... Would Ghandi have stopped Hitler? Probably not. Do we over-use it? Yes. Do we make a cult out of it? Yes - from "boys" mags of the 50's through to the CGI violence of modern films and computer games, I think there is a certain numbness that drives a higher baseline of violence.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Kerygmania is destined to take apart a specific text, or possibly in this case a group of texts (Jesus in the temple). I hope somebody might either find a non-limbo'd Keryg thread or start a new one. My aim is broader, and I think more purgatorial.
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Stating categorically that Jesus whipped people (and didn't use this just to move all the animals) out of the temple, and "man-handled" the money lenders as well as turning their tables over - is a bit of a dodgy position to take.
How you can think that is my position from what I posted is beyond me.
My entire point in respect of this passage is that in my view, just because there is no physical contact between a proponent and a recipient does not mean a confrontation is not violent.
I would like to explore what we understand by violence and how we understand a range of Scriptures on the subject, as Alan suggested.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think one of the problems is the word in English, as Eutychus has indicated. And of course that fact that it shares a root with the verb "violate".
So automatically there are many justifiably negative associations with the word itself.
I think it may be possible to divide thinking between the justifiable application of force, and the unbridled use of force as a kind of lashing out. The term "domestic violence" is for example normally used in the latter context.
I think there are circumstances under which the use of physical force is justified. If you are on the receiving end, however, you may well regard that as violent treatment. Where is the line between justified and unjustified?
So I think the word itself is tricky, and the use of it (and its synonyms) in the biblical material is even trickier! I'll be interested in responses here. My own understanding of this topic is definitely "work in progress".
[ 22. March 2015, 17:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
You could look at "violence" from the perspective of someone on the receiving end of it. If you feel your physical welfare is being threatened, you'll probably reckon you are on the wrong end of "violent" behaviour.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
When I was in Honduras, I did some work about the prevention of domestic violence. Honduran law defines four categories of domestic violence:- physical
- sexual
- psychological
- patrimonial (breaking stuff)
It's possible to be violent without the other person suffering physical harm.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Under Honduran law, Jesus was violent.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Jesus did say he came not to bring peace but a sword. In Matthew 10:3436, Jesus said He had come at this time not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword, a weapon which divides and severs. As a result of His visit to the earth, some children would be set against parents and a mans enemies might be those within his own household. This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated by their family members. This may be part of the cost of discipleship, for love of family should not be greater than love for the Lord. A true disciple must take up his cross and follow Jesus (Matthew 16:24). He must be willing to face not only family hatred, but also death, like a criminal carrying his cross to his own execution. True followers of Christ must be willing to give up, even to the point of hating all that is in our lives, even our own families, if we are to be worthy of Him (Matthew 10:3739). In so doing, we find our lives in return for having given them up to Jesus Christ.
The Matthew community was no doubt experiencing families turning in on each other as the result of Christian conversions. It seems that Jesus was saying to expect to be on the receiving end of violence if you become a Christian.
But then there comes a question, can there be justifiable violence. Jesus did not seem to have any problems relating to soldiers, simply telling them to expect no more than their pay (ie not to plunder). He healed the servant of one Centurion, remarking he had never seen such great faith as the Centurion had.
The church has long struggled with the question of what is a just war. Basically, it comes down to:
Just Cause--to correct an evil if there is no other way (ie ISIS comes to mind)
Comparative Justice--the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh the injustice of another party
Competent Authority--the decision to go to war must be initiated by proper civil authority (such as a declaration of war by Parliament/Congress)
Right intention--to correct a wrong, not material gain
Probability of Success--Jesus himself told a parable about what king in his right mind would want to go to war unless he was sure he could win.
Last Resort. Someone said war is the result of failed diplomacy.
Proportionality--The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The problem with this question is that we can come at it from diametrically opposite places. The one that bothers me the most is that when I, as a person committed to avoiding violence, discuss this principle, I am usually asked a variation of "suppose a person breaks into your house and is about to attack and kill your family and you, would you not respond with violence to protect them?" To which I have started answering "you would do such a thing? break into my house and threaten my family and me with violence? you are a troubled sick person."
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The one that bothers me the most is that when I, as a person committed to avoiding violence, discuss this principle, I am usually asked a variation of "suppose a person breaks into your house and is about to attack and kill your family and you, would you not respond with violence to protect them?" To which I have started answering "you would do such a thing? break into my house and threaten my family and me with violence? you are a troubled sick person."
That seems awfully passive-aggressive. You're avoiding a difficult question by being provocative and twisting their words.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Beeswax Altar: Under Honduran law, Jesus was violent.
Indeed.
quote:
Gramps49: Last Resort. Someone said war is the result of failed diplomacy.
This is my position. Violence should be a last resort and if you have to use it, you've probably failed elsewhere.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That seems awfully passive-aggressive. You're avoiding a difficult question by being provocative and twisting their words.
Yes it is. But we have the twisting of the topic by such questions to set the parameters such that the only reasonable answer can only be a violent one, which is what the questioner wants. Then they do an "ah ha!, caught you out!".
The better question is why someone would plan violence in the first place such that they would wish to break into a house and threaten.
I think that humans have violent motivations and non-violent motivations by our very nature. I have thought the Germans got it right when they acknowledged schadenfreude and the "inner asshole" (Innerer Schweinehund) all humans carry with them, cf "inner child". (link is German, I don't find it in English to this picture.)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The better question is why someone would plan violence in the first place such that they would wish to break into a house and threaten.
It is indeed a good question and a sobering one. The the fact of the matter is that some do so wish, and some of those do so do. So I don't see that asking how we should respond to them to be a "twisting" question. It's "testing point" question. It's all well and good to be anti-violent when there's nothing at stake. But if your theology (or philosophy or whatever-it-should-be-called) of nonviolence can't handle the difficult cases, then it's not fully developed. It suggests you need to do more thinking about how to live out your philosophy in this world, the dangerous one, the one in which people sometimes break into homes and threaten one's family.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Beeswax Altar: Under Honduran law, Jesus was violent.
Indeed.
quote:
Gramps49: Last Resort. Someone said war is the result of failed diplomacy.
This is my position. Violence should be a last resort and if you have to use it, you've probably failed elsewhere.
Peace in our time. Sometimes you can't not fail, if your adversary doesn't want a diplomatic solution, or if their demands are too egregious to accept.
[ 22. March 2015, 20:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I was in Honduras, I did some work about the prevention of domestic violence. Honduran law defines four categories of domestic violence:- physical
- sexual
- psychological
- patrimonial (breaking stuff)
It's possible to be violent without the other person suffering physical harm.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Under Honduran law, Jesus was violent.
Is he? If Jesus didn't whip/touch any humans in the cleansing of the temple (something we've debated on the other thread) I don't see how Jesus' actions would hit any of the other Honduran categories either, with the possible exception of "patrimonial" if something got broken when he overturned the tables.
[ 22. March 2015, 20:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That seems awfully passive-aggressive. You're avoiding a difficult question by being provocative and twisting their words.
Yes it is. But we have the twisting of the topic by such questions to set the parameters such that the only reasonable answer can only be a violent one, which is what the questioner wants. Then they do an "ah ha!, caught you out!".
The better question is why someone would plan violence in the first place such that they would wish to break into a house and threaten.
I think that humans have violent motivations and non-violent motivations by our very nature. I have thought the Germans got it right when they acknowledged schadenfreude and the "inner asshole" (Innerer Schweinehund) all humans carry with them, cf "inner child". (link is German, I don't find it in English to this picture.)
Here's what
The Boydster has to say on this one. He re-frames the question in the light of what Jesus meant by "non resistance." Nice short piece.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The better question is why someone would plan violence in the first place such that they would wish to break into a house and threaten.
It is indeed a good question and a sobering one. The the fact of the matter is that some do so wish, and some of those do so do. So I don't see that asking how we should respond to them to be a "twisting" question. It's "testing point" question. It's all well and good to be anti-violent when there's nothing at stake. But if your theology (or philosophy or whatever-it-should-be-called) of nonviolence can't handle the difficult cases, then it's not fully developed. It suggests you need to do more thinking about how to live out your philosophy in this world, the dangerous one, the one in which people sometimes break into homes and threaten one's family.
I agree-- Walter Wink does a good, albeit challenging!-- job of parsing out what it means to commit to living non-violently in a violent world.
I agree with other shippies that turning the question back on the questioner is at best evasive, and at worst passive-aggressive. Those of us who advocate for non-violence need to consider how we would live that out, what the boundaries are, and why.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Just while I'm on it, the Philokalia talks about directing our "violence" towards demonic powers. If you feel like getting mad, get mad with the devil.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
Yes. The definition being put forward here and on the Constantinian thread re violence being ANY sort of force or compulsion, including non-physical force, is going to get ludicrous pretty fast. Any sort of law itself is, by definition, compulsion-- "forcing" you to comply with it's demands or face retribution in the form of fines or imprisonment. Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
What about psychological violence?
I think you could argue what Jesus did in the Temple was psychologically violent. I'm not sure that makes it morally wrong, though, especially given that it was him.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
By whose definition? Not by WHO's definition:
quote:
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", but acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional meaning of the word. This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
(wikipedia, emphasis mine)
It is surely a legitimate question to ask where non-violent abuse shades over into violence. Although I'm not sure it helps the argument of the apologists here to say "Jesus was merely abusive, not violent per se." One could possibly assert that overturning tables is not violent (although I'd disagree), but it's hard to see how it's not abusive.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
. But if your theology (or philosophy or whatever-it-should-be-called) of nonviolence can't handle the difficult cases, then it's not fully developed. It suggests you need to do more thinking about how to live out your philosophy in this world, the dangerous one, the one in which people sometimes break into homes and threaten one's family.
I have considered this question most of my life.
I recall specifically formulating my first major response to violence to other boys at my boarding school, with the resolve to get up about 5:00 a.m. and leave my room to avoid having to punch those who came searching for newboys to hit after wake-up. The game was to hold you down and 3 or 5 of them to take turns punching your upper arm, in their hope to get tears and calls for mercy, which of course was fuel for their evil little fires. There are interesting and oddly intimate conversations between the tormenters and tormented, an unholy evil shared between perpetrator and victim in a shared, disordered scene.
When they weren't punching arms, they liked to rap our heads with knuckles to create goose eggs. All accompanied by general beatings. I learned that punching back did work, once. If this was chosen, you had to pick one nose and hit as hard as you could. Satisfying in the moment and in the brave retelling to your dorm mates, and, it also allowed better coping with the beatings received on subsequent occasions. By retaliating, we learned that there was a comforting image of a bloodied nose to draw on. But I reasoned it was better to get up and out of the dorm before the old boys showed up.
Your point is a good one about the developed thinking required. However, I think it asks for a perfection for nonviolent response in an absurd world which shows no perfection, and of people like myself who at best moderately capable of goodness, and are often without any control at all in given situations. I remember reading the book and subsequently seeing the play and movie Kiss Of The Spider Woman, which speaks poignantly of these issues.
[ 22. March 2015, 21:19: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I was also wondering about how the clearing of the temple would be approached today.
Negotiations? Police intervention with minimum use of force? Any table-turning would surely have been incidental rather than a deliberate part of the action?
Most churches would probably simply set up a committee...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was also wondering about how the clearing of the temple would be approached today.
Depends greatly on how dark you think Jesus' skin was.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
cliffdweller: If Jesus didn't whip/touch any humans in the cleansing of the temple (something we've debated on the other thread) I don't see how Jesus' actions would hit any of the other Honduran categories either, with the possible exception of "patrimonial" if something got broken when he overturned the tables.
Perhaps. But if I was a vendor and I'd set up my table (something that seems to have been allowed or at least condoned by the Temple authorities) and someone would suddenly come in and overturn my table (with my stuff on it), yes I would call that violent.
My stuff could have become dirty so that I couldn't sell it anymore (e.g. sacrifical meat), some of my coins could have gone lost in the dust ... And if it is true that I was driven out of the Temple, I would have lost my stuff. Under Honduran law, I think this would fall under 'patrimonial violence'.
Last month I was in a supermarket in Brazil. There was a dispute between two customers about who was the first at check-out. This ended up with one customer clashing his shopping cart against the other customer's. No-one was physically hurt, but all bystanders agreed that this was a violent action.
I'd even say that one custumer violently clashed his shopping cart against the other customer's. And I think that would be correct English.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
What about psychological violence?
I think you could argue what Jesus did in the Temple was psychologically violent. I'm not sure that makes it morally wrong, though, especially given that it was him.
Wiki (quoting, among others, The British Journal of Psychiatry) defines psychological abuse as "Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder." I see no indication that the cleansing of the Temple induces any of these sorts of psychological impact on the moneychangers or anyone else.
Wiki goes on to say (again, quoting BJP) "Such abuse is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as abusive relationships, bullying, and abuse in the workplace." In this scenario, any imbalance of power would be to Jesus' detriment, not the moneychangers.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
See what LeRoc wrote.
I think you are desperate not to see any violence at all in the cleansing of the temple episode because you cannot countenance Jesus being violent.
You are trying to fit the text to your assumption. If I was a vendor, hell yes I'd be traumatised. But that might be what others might term a "wake-up call". It's still a violent confrontation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Here's the scene, from the Campus Crusade Jesus film I think (utterly cheesy in many places). Notice Jesus doesn't actually hit any people (or animals, I think!).
I know it's not-brilliant acting, but can anybody imagine this event going down markedly differently to this? Or argue that it did not involve violence in some shape or form?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
See what LeRoc wrote.
I think you are desperate not to see any violence at all in the cleansing of the temple episode because you cannot countenance Jesus being violent.
You are trying to fit the text to your assumption. If I was a vendor, hell yes I'd be traumatised. But that might be what others might term a "wake-up call". It's still a violent confrontation.
I think you're playing fast & loose w/ the meaning of "trauma". Upset, yes. Angry, sure. But traumatized? I don't think this fits the diagnostic criteria.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As far as what the moneychangers actually felt (still less shoehorning it into contemporary pigeonholes) we are both speculating. But I know how I'd feel, and I can't imagine onlookers thinking that it was anything but violent confrontation, even if no physical violence against people was involved.
Certainly, as hinted above, I can imagine other ways the exchange could have taken place that would have been a lot less violent than what the text records.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I found a couple of interesting things in that (fictionalised version of the Gospel texts) film clip Eutychus linked to.
But, possibly most interesting was the Temple authorities appearing with armed guards. It's similar to the "would you call the cops, and what would they do?" comments earlier. We know from elsewhere in the Gospels that there were armed guards attached to the Temple - they appear in Gethsemane to arrest Jesus. We also know the Romans were not averse to sending soldiers into the Temple to restore order or break-up potential rebellion, indeed I've read in several places that the Romans maintained a garrison practically next to the Temple on the (not to unreasonable) basis that if trouble was to break out in Jerusalem it would start at the Temple. Why didn't all these armed, trained troops just march in and pull the whip out of Jesus' hand and drag Him off to at least cool off in the cells a few hours? If Jesus was striking out at people with His home-made whip that wouldn't have fazed soldiers in armour, if He was only waving it around to scare the animals clearly showing no intention to use it on people then the soldiers would have had even less reason to stand back.
I think this is relevant in relation to this comment:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In this scenario, any imbalance of power would be to Jesus' detriment, not the moneychangers.
Jesus was clearly the person with power here. He was calling the shots, and even the priests with their armed guards to back them up could do nothing but ask Him a question. Why? What power did He have that would hold trained soldiers back from arresting a carpenter with a few bits of rope as His only weapon? The answer, surely, is the same that forced the priests to find a traitor and arrest Him quietly at night. Jesus had the support of the common people. He came into the Temple with two weapons that day, His whip of cords and the knowledge that He had the support of the crowds. Someone with the support of the common people holds considerable political power, often enough to overrule the power of wealth.
It's interesting here to think about the Roman Empire. In Rome there were two political groups. The Senate, composed of the rich and powerful landowners. And, the Emperor who held his position over the Senate almost entirely because of the support of the people (and, of course, in particular those sons of ordinary citizens who served in the Legions). Support that was secured by providing the people with a daily ration of grain and occasional bits of spectacle ("bread and circuses").
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
See what LeRoc wrote.
I think you are desperate not to see any violence at all in the cleansing of the temple episode because you cannot countenance Jesus being violent.
You are trying to fit the text to your assumption.
Yes (well, desperate may be a bit of hyperbole). But that assumption is based on the rest of what we know about Jesus from the gospels-- both from his words and from his actions, particularly his actions in very close proximity to this event. I maintain that is not eisegesis, but rather good exegesis-- to consider any one text in light of the whole.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, the context also includes Jesus who said He does what He sees His Father doing.
That would include cleansing His people by sending assorted boils, snakes and other nasties. It would include cleansing the Promised Land by ordering His people to commit genocide. It would include cleansing the world by drowning everyone except 8 people in a boat.
Cleansing the Temple waving around a few bits of rope and tossing some tables about is pretty tame in comparison.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Feeling clueless today (which is possibly a sign of impending virus, oh noes). Why is it so important to deny that Jesus was/is/will be ever violent?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
Have you ever had a firearm pointed at you? I assure you, it's a violent act, even when committed by the police.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What about psychological violence?
I think you could argue what Jesus did in the Temple was psychologically violent.
Exactly.
As far as the morality - violence is always regrettable. Sometimes, however, it is the proper response.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cleansing the Temple waving around a few bits of rope and tossing some tables about is pretty tame in comparison.
wait... wasn't that MY point???
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Feeling clueless today (which is possibly a sign of impending virus, oh noes). Why is it so important to deny that Jesus was/is/will be ever violent?
As I said, it's important to me, because I see it as inconsistent with what he taught and the way he lived his life, and in particular, the way we see him acting in close proximity to the cleansing of the Temple. Since I want to strive to imitate Jesus, however ineptly, it's important to me to understand how he acted and why.
But as you can see on this thread, other people-- yourself included, presumably-- see it differently. I would assume either you/they don't see the pacifist pattern I see in Jesus' teaching and action (here I'm heavily indebted to Wink and Boyd) or they see something particular about the cleansing of the Temple that falls under some understanding of "just war" (which I find problematic, although obviously not as problematic as war w/o any ethical criteria).
ymmv. probably does.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cleansing the Temple waving around a few bits of rope and tossing some tables about is pretty tame in comparison.
wait... wasn't that MY point???
I thought your point was that in cleansing the Temple Jesus was not committing violence. And, your support for that position was ultimately that such an act was inconsistent with the rest of Jesus ministry. That context of Jesus not committing violence means you favour an interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple in which Jesus drive out the animals (without, presumably, causing injury or distress to them, or in any other way acting violently towards them) and the marketeers simple follow their stock, and approached the tables of the money changers and asked politely "would you please step back while I turn your table over and spread your cash across the floor, because I wouldn't want it to land on your foot".
Did I get that wrong?
My point is that a violent act cleansing the Temple is consistent with a God who throughout the OT commits violent acts (or, instructs His people to do so) in an attempt to maintain the purity of His people and the world. It's just that on the scale of violence it is mild (to put it mildly) compared to genocide of entire city states.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
By whose definition? Not by WHO's definition:
quote:
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", but acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional meaning of the word. This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
(wikipedia, emphasis mine)
Am I the only one who can't parse this definition? Doesn't this definition seem to be saying that violence requires intent but does not have to be meant as violence by the person committing it?
Count me among those who see an overall pattern of non-violence in Jesus's actions but don't have a problem describing this act as violence.
In an imperfect world violence can sometimes be justified in self-defense or in defense of those who are weaker or more vulnerable.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That context of Jesus not committing violence means you favour an interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple in which Jesus drive out the animals (without, presumably, causing injury or distress to them, or in any other way acting violently towards them) and the marketeers simple follow their stock, and approached the tables of the money changers and asked politely "would you please step back while I turn your table over and spread your cash across the floor, because I wouldn't want it to land on your foot".
Did I get that wrong?
Just a wee bit of snark. I've been known to indulge in that a time or two myself.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Alan Cresswell.
Which demonstrates the problem very well, Alan.
I think the issue of making sense of violence in scripture is very much bound up with the deeper question of making sense of scripture as a whole.
I'm pretty attracted to the notion of a developing revelation about the nature of God in scripture and tradition; from henotheism to monotheism to trinitarianism. Although there isn't a neat progression, far from it, it's possible to argue that there is a kind of dawning realisation going on.
Something similar is also going on in the dawning understanding of the position of the "outsider". Gentiles will be enlightened by the chosen people, will be absorbed into the chosen people as part of an inclusive Israel. If the chosen people are to be a light to the Gentiles, then the Gentiles are no longer disposable as a part of herem; the devoting of the land and the people back to God away from the idol-worshipers, whose lives are clearly discountable because "they" are not "us". That is henotheism; tribal-God-think.
In the New Testament the "us" are the poor in spirit, the not-wise, the lost, the strayed. The "they" are the proud, the mighty, the rich, who will be brought low as the lowly are lifted up. And so Jesus' wrath is directed to the "they" who think they are "us". In line with the prophets, Jesus identifies the proud, the mighty, the rich and the exploiters as the ones deceived about their own righteousness, their chosenness. So the poor hear him gladly. And that is the context for the temple cleansing. Jesus takes the law into his own hands because those who should have protected the house of prayer from exploiters are part of the exploiters. And brings the wrath of the existing authority down on his head.
I think any theology of violence in scripture will probably need to contextualise the violent acts in scripture within this greater narrative; that God is not a akin to a tribal prince or only interested in one "ethne" (people group). He is there for all. And he is particularly a restorer of justice to those oppressed, whoever the oppressors are.
That's just a rough sketch of how we might revisit violence in scripture first, before considering issues such as justifiable force.
(big xpost!)
[ 23. March 2015, 00:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
In an imperfect world violence can sometimes be justified in self-defense or in defense of those who are weaker or more vulnerable.
Neither of which seems to be the case here, though.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That context of Jesus not committing violence means you favour an interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple in which Jesus drive out the animals (without, presumably, causing injury or distress to them, or in any other way acting violently towards them) and the marketeers simple follow their stock, and approached the tables of the money changers and asked politely "would you please step back while I turn your table over and spread your cash across the floor, because I wouldn't want it to land on your foot".
Did I get that wrong?
Just a wee bit of snark. I've been known to indulge in that a time or two myself.
Nice dodge. Will you answer the question?
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Have you ever had a firearm pointed at you? I assure you, it's a violent act, even when committed by the police.
I have. A Kalashnikov. It was certainly traumatizing for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the New Testament the "us" are the poor in spirit, the not-wise, the lost, the strayed. The "they" are the proud, the mighty, the rich, who will be brought low as the lowly are lifted up. And so Jesus' wrath is directed to the "they" who think they are "us".
Interesting. In the Orthodox Church we are taught to identify with the proud, mighty, and rich, inasmuch as we are sinners in need of cleansing, and not perfected saints. We are told, if you identify with the Publican in the parable and not the Pharisee, you've missed the point, and are thinking better of yourself than you ought to. By identifying with the Publican, you prove you're the Pharisee. If you identify with the Pharisee, you can then repent.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
Yes. The definition being put forward here and on the Constantinian thread re violence being ANY sort of force or compulsion, including non-physical force, is going to get ludicrous pretty fast. Any sort of law itself is, by definition, compulsion-- "forcing" you to comply with it's demands or face retribution in the form of fines or imprisonment. Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Huh
So
A supposedly non-violent show of force (a sit*in at a segregated lunch counter) wasn't really NON "violent," after all
???
If mom and dad require a youngster to do her/his homework (or *ELSE* !!!), is that then "domestic violence" - "child abuse"
???
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
What about psychological violence?
I think you could argue what Jesus did in the Temple was psychologically violent. I'm not sure that makes it morally wrong, though, especially given that it was him.
Jesus' prophetic act in the Temple courtyard certainly annoyed the authorities
but I doubt that the were somehow psychologically traumatized
Really
???
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was also wondering about how the clearing of the temple would be approached today.
Negotiations? Police intervention with minimum use of force? Any table-turning would surely have been incidental rather than a deliberate part of the action?
Most churches would probably simply set up a committee...
As with so much in life, it depends
As a parish pastor, I would handle the situation with a pastoral deescalation if the person is a congregant with whom I have a pastoral relationship
OTOH, if the person is a stranger off the street armed with, say, a machete and a can of wasp spray, I would call the police and evacuate the building ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That context of Jesus not committing violence means you favour an interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple in which Jesus drive out the animals (without, presumably, causing injury or distress to them, or in any other way acting violently towards them) and the marketeers simple follow their stock, and approached the tables of the money changers and asked politely "would you please step back while I turn your table over and spread your cash across the floor, because I wouldn't want it to land on your foot".
Did I get that wrong?
Just a wee bit of snark. I've been known to indulge in that a time or two myself.
Nice dodge. Will you answer the question?
No dodge. I'm saying, yes, I believe Alan understands my position, with the exception that I don't think Jesus politely asked the moneychangers to step back. That was Alan being a wee bit snarky/ hyperbolic, but we both recognize that, I think, and as I'm prone to doing the same, I'm not going to get too offended-- just alerting him that I noticed. There are a world of possibilities along the continuum of "politely requesting them to leave" and "beating them within an inch of their death so they flee in genuine fear for their lives." Mine is a bit closer to the former than most other posters here, but I think we all see it somewhere in the middle of that continuum rather than at either extreme.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
Yes. The definition being put forward here and on the Constantinian thread re violence being ANY sort of force or compulsion, including non-physical force, is going to get ludicrous pretty fast. Any sort of law itself is, by definition, compulsion-- "forcing" you to comply with it's demands or face retribution in the form of fines or imprisonment. Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Huh
So
A supposedly non-violent show of force (a sit*in at a segregated lunch counter) wasn't really NON "violent," after all
???
If mom and dad require a youngster to do her/his homework (or *ELSE* !!!), is that then "domestic violence" - "child abuse"
???
Well, obviously that's not my position-- it's the one I'm arguing against. I'm just trying to parse out the position of those who are suggesting that any show of force, any compulsion, including non-physical compulsion, is "violent."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
Yes. The definition being put forward here and on the Constantinian thread re violence being ANY sort of force or compulsion, including non-physical force, is going to get ludicrous pretty fast. Any sort of law itself is, by definition, compulsion-- "forcing" you to comply with it's demands or face retribution in the form of fines or imprisonment. Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Huh
So
A supposedly non-violent show of force (a sit*in at a segregated lunch counter) wasn't really NON "violent," after all
???
If mom and dad require a youngster to do her/his homework (or *ELSE* !!!), is that then "domestic violence" - "child abuse"
???
Well, obviously that's not my position-- it's the one I'm arguing against. I'm just trying to parse out the position of those who are suggesting that any show of force, any compulsion, including non-physical compulsion, is "violent."
Yes
I was joining with you in pointing out the problem ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I believe Alan understands my position, with the exception that I don't think Jesus politely asked the moneychangers to step back. That was Alan being a wee bit snarky/ hyperbolic, but we both recognize that, I think, and as I'm prone to doing the same, I'm not going to get too offended-- just alerting him that I noticed.
I'm glad you noticed, though it was hardly disguised. I'd have hated to have wasted the good material on someone who missed it.
quote:
There are a world of possibilities along the continuum of "politely requesting them to leave" and "beating them within an inch of their death so they flee in genuine fear for their lives." Mine is a bit closer to the former than most other posters here, but I think we all see it somewhere in the middle of that continuum rather than at either extreme.
I can't think of anything that isn't either a carrot (there was somewhere better to be) or a stick (staying here would be unpleasant) that would compel the moneychangers to leave. One or two might have scurried off to round up the temple guard. But, for the majority what would cause them to leave their tables with all their money? I honestly can't see any 'carrot' that would do that. Which leaves a 'stick', something that made them believe that practically anywhere would be a better place to be, with sufficient urgency that leaving their tables and at least some of their money behind would be a good idea.
Clearly, a credible threat to their physical wellbeing would be something that would cause most sane people to be somewhere else. But, what would cause them to leave their tables and their money that wasn't a threat of physical force? Until someone gives a credible option I see no alternative to the explanation that Jesus was engaging in a violent outburst, that the money changers expected to suffer cuts and bruises from that whip if they didn't flee.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
