Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:I cannot see Him killing ANYONE.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who would Jesus kill?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:That's a predictable response, but still an misleading one. Whatever one may think the crucifixion was about, it certainly was not about letting the Romans and/or the Jewish establishment have their way. Much less was it about limply accepting genocide or religious and cultural elimination. Considered purely on political terms, I would say it even was an offensive move. Jesus clearly was seeking the public confrontation, rather than avoiding it. If you already lived as dhimmi under a powerful tyrannical Muslim regime that is asphyxiating Christianity, then publicly offering you neck for decapitation by the Islamic authorities might be a similar move to what Jesus did. When such Muslim forces are still trying to overrun your people in order to subjugate you in this manner, then it is not the time yet for such desperate measures. Then you stand up and fight, or at a minimum get out of the way of those that still do.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well considering that the same bloke who said "turn the other cheek" did indeed "offer his neck for decapitation", good luck with arguing that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:So who would Jesus kill?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's a predictable response, but still an misleading one.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well considering that the same bloke who said "turn the other cheek" did indeed "offer his neck for decapitation", good luck with arguing that.
quote:I cannot see Him killing ANYONE.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who would Jesus kill?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I don't think anyone is actually saying that, are they? It's just that these are not exactly easy issues to resolve.
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Christians were wrong for the first three centuries, then they got their minds right?
quote:Wringing one's hands over how awful we've been (and there's no doubt we have been, and continue to be) doesn't strike me as being all that effective either. Sorry.
How effective that's been. Not limp at all. Being utterly gutlessly supine in the face of Caesar be he Roman, German, American, Jewish or Arab.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Which is your answer.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:I cannot see Him killing ANYONE.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who would Jesus kill?
quote:You mean, who did Jesus kill, by virtue of orthodox Incarnation-Trinity? The Amalekites, for example.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So who would Jesus kill?
quote:Christians in the first three centuries were not in a position to defend "Christendom", because they had not established it yet. They continued to aggressively undermine the reigning system in the way Jesus had pioneered, until they finally took over the Roman empire. Then they had to switch gears, and did with the development of "just war theory" - soon with plenty of inspiration from our Muslim friends.
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Christians were wrong for the first three centuries, then they got their minds right?
quote:Is a bit of an oversimplification isn't it? You might argue that the slaughter of the Amalekites was ordered by YHWH through the intermediaries of Samuel and Saul, but not that the slaughter was at YHWH's hand directly. But you might argue that YHWH was in fact directly responsible for the death of the Egyptian first-born.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You mean, who did Jesus kill, by virtue of orthodox Incarnation-Trinity? The Amalekites, for example.
quote:Indeed ... and I certainly don't want to become like the perpetrators ...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(And, of course, I agree with you. I'm a fallen human being, with enough compassion to identify with the victims of violence, and not enough to identify with the perpetrators)
quote:I am not a fan of Club Marcion and would never dismiss the OT as 'just bronze age mythology'. All the same, there's no denying that Jesus's MO is quite a bit different (and superior) from that of the Canaan jihad (which, in any case, let's not forget, was a one-off in Israel's history). The message of the Prophets, by way of contrast, is higher, deeper and richer, and applicable to all of us, not just Israel in a certain time and place. It's not that I dismiss the OT, or think that silicon age interpretations are all that. It's that I think there is a higher Covenant still, of which Jesus is the mediator, which builds on the Old Covenant but also surpasses it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
YHWH also slew Onan and zapped Uzzah, for example. And carpet-bombed Sodom and Gomorrah. But you know, all that is just bronze age mythology, which Martin60 et al. have declared to be vastly inferior to the iron age scripture. And that in turn is vastly inferior to the silicon age interpretation thereof.
quote:The question has already been answered. Marcion was a heretic. The parables of Jesus taken as a whole are entirely consistent with the OT. Never once does Jesus argue that all violence is wrong. On the contrary, the just rulers in the parables of Jesus use violence all the time. Indeed the just kings in the OT use violence to defend their people. Not one single time does Jesus question their use of violence. Who would Jesus kill? The NT taken as a whole suggests Jesus will kill a multitude of people when His kingdom comes. Do I think Jesus would use violence to prevent ISIS from committing genocide if Jesus was an earthly ruler. My answer based on scripture, tradition, and reason is absolutely he would.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The question's still there if you want to answer it. If it's too hard for you, there's no shame in admitting it - I find it almost impossible.
quote:You are beholden of circumstance, namely the particular one of Jesus' life. However, I'm also exceedingly unlikely to put a bullet through the head of an ISIS fighter. I'm an academic who is well insulated from that sort of thing by social structures, at least for now. But it would be wrong to take my own living circumstances as proof positive that it is generally immoral to put a bullet through the head of an ISIS fighter. I can appreciate that there are circumstances where a soldier might do that licitly. Just like Jesus does not tell soldiers to throw down their arms and kill no more. He rather tells them to do their job with integrity (Lk 3:14).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The question's still there if you want to answer it. If it's too hard for you, there's no shame in admitting it - I find it almost impossible.
quote:Or He might have sat on his haunches, drawing in the dust. Oh, hang on...
Originally posted by IngoB:
I expect Jesus would have stepped in within a civilian setting, if necessary with deadly force, where innocent life was under threat and the defence would have done more good than harm.
quote:MO=Modus Operandi? Politically speaking, Jesus established a kind of social guerrilla warfare against both the Roman occupiers and the Jewish establishment. He did not seek a direct confrontation, that is correct. But again, politically speaking that was simply good strategy. Countless failed Jewish rebellions showed that going one-on-one with them was just suicide. But the gospel and indeed the rest of the NT is about as in your face and confrontational to both Roman and Jewish powers as an underground movement with a long-term plan could make them, and when we (post-)Christians today say that we don't want to make a martyr of somebody we are basically identifying how Christians used self-sacrifice to boost their numbers and destabilise their opponents in what back then was a completely novel and counter-intuitive approach.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
All the same, there's no denying that Jesus's MO is quite a bit different (and superior) from that of the Canaan jihad (which, in any case, let's not forget, was a one-off in Israel's history).
quote:Applicable to all of us, you say?
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The message of the Prophets, by way of contrast, is higher, deeper and richer, and applicable to all of us, not just Israel in a certain time and place.
quote:Oh, I agree with that. I just don't think that it is a "pacifist" New Covenant. God for one continues sniping the wicked (ask Herod, Ananias and Sapphira) and in the final harvest of God's wrath we will see that "blood flowed from the wine press, as high as a horse's bridle, for one thousand six hundred stadia." (Rev 14:20) It's of course silly to calculate how many people you have to bleed dry to get that much blood, but I'm pretty sure that this is supposed to mean mass death. Incidentally, who starts the carnage? Why, it is "one like a Son of Man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand." (Rev 14:14)
Originally posted by Laurelin:
It's that I think there is a higher Covenant still, of which Jesus is the mediator, which builds on the Old Covenant but also surpasses it.
quote:Yes, how dare every single article about violence not mention every single violent person or group?
Originally posted by Laurelin:
So poor old Andrew, Justin and George get demonised, while there's not a peep in the OP about the warmongering, sadistic sexual violence and death-cult of IS. Funny old world, isn't it?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Hear.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm struggling to see why we're so appalled by IS if we see God like this.
quote:This is a fair point. However, it is a practical point, not one of principle. And as far as human practice is concerned, we should be careful not to demand perfection as necessary condition for action. Humans rarely fail to fail, but that does not relieve us from the duty to keep trying.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given that, it is extremely hard to take seriously claims by religious leaders that "this" conflict is going to turn out any different to all those other bad conflicts in the last 20 years.
quote:Oh, hang on, what? Jesus was not defending innocent life against an assailant there, he was messing with the Jewish sentencing of someone who was guilty (and deserved death, in terms of normal judicial practice), when placed into the position of a judge by Mosaic law. That's very interesting, but also very much a different matter.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Or He might have sat on his haunches, drawing in the dust. Oh, hang on...
Originally posted by IngoB:
I expect Jesus would have stepped in within a civilian setting, if necessary with deadly force, where innocent life was under threat and the defence would have done more good than harm.
quote:Madness is repeatedly trying things that don't work and expecting the results to be different.
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is a fair point. However, it is a practical point, not one of principle. And as far as human practice is concerned, we should be careful not to demand perfection as necessary condition for action. Humans rarely fail to fail, but that does not relieve us from the duty to keep trying.
quote:Because IS is not God, and only God is master of life and death.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm struggling to see why we're so appalled by IS if we see God like this.
quote:I didn't say it would stop them. I said it was following the example of Christ.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, if you want to sit on your haunches in front of some ISIS unit, drawing in the dust to stop them - why don't you just go right ahead?
quote:Right, but surely the point is that if we can't discount the actions of IS as inherently ungodly (i.e. God wouldn't ask people to do shit like that, because that's nasty and God isn't), then what standard can we use to measure the IS claim that they are working for the deity? Doesn't that take out one simple plank?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Because IS is not God, and only God is master of life and death.
I'm struggling to see why we would worship God if we think that we can judge Him on equal terms with human groups.
quote:I am not a pacifist, but I cannot agree with this. Do I think Jesus will judge people? Yes. Do I think that His judgement is just like our violence? No, I don't. It is ridiculous and obscene, IMO, to imagine Jesus sanctioning the use of bombs, etc.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The NT taken as a whole suggests Jesus will kill a multitude of people when His kingdom comes. Do I think Jesus would use violence to prevent ISIS from committing genocide if Jesus was an earthly ruler. My answer based on scripture, tradition, and reason is absolutely he would.
quote:It does make one wonder.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm struggling to see why we're so appalled by IS if we see God like this.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Martin's outrage seems to give the impression that the likes of Andrew White are no better than IS.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, how dare every single article about violence not mention every single violent person or group?
quote:That's quite unfair. One can obviously object vociferously about Andrew White, particularly from within his faith community, without suggesting he is actually the same as IS, the Nazis or whoever.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Martin's outrage seems to give the impression that the likes of Andrew White are no better than IS.
quote:Indeed not, but why are you saying this to me?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's quite unfair. One can obviously object vociferously about Andrew White, particularly from within his faith community, without suggesting he is actually the same as IS, the Nazis or whoever.
I think Andrew White is a genuine guy, when I met him he was nice to me. But I think he is totally wrong on most of what he says about Iraq. That doesn't mean he is on the same moral level as IS.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It's Martin who thinks White is the warmonger. I think nothing of the sort. (And I wouldn't necessarily agree with White on Iraq either, for the record).
quote:And I struggle to see why we would worship a bloodthirsty, sadistic, homicidal maniac God.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Because IS is not God, and only God is master of life and death.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm struggling to see why we're so appalled by IS if we see God like this.
I'm struggling to see why we would worship God if we think that we can judge Him on equal terms with human groups.
quote:Exactly. If we allow that Joshua was acting for God, we cannot inherently discount the possibility that IS, doing much the same sort of thing, are also doing so. Not to mention Elijah's bit of religious murder of the prophets of Baal.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Right, but surely the point is that if we can't discount the actions of IS as inherently ungodly (i.e. God wouldn't ask people to do shit like that, because that's nasty and God isn't), then what standard can we use to measure the IS claim that they are working for the deity? Doesn't that take out one simple plank?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Because IS is not God, and only God is master of life and death.
I'm struggling to see why we would worship God if we think that we can judge Him on equal terms with human groups.
quote:You seemed to suggest that Martin thinks White is the same morally as IS. I don't think that is the case, and indeed I object to this characterisation of a position you find unpalatable.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Indeed not, but why are you saying this to me?
quote:Who says that wars do not work? Of course they do. They may not tick all the idealistic boxes you have for them (or indeed they may be waged by people who intend to have rather different boxes ticked than you do). But there is little doubt that wars can achieve aims, and quite consistently so if one wins them.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Madness is repeatedly trying things that don't work and expecting the results to be different.
quote:The story you reference likely wasn't in the original manuscript. I mention that because textual criticism is important to some wanting to argue that the historical Jesus was really the paragon of their cultural ideal until Paul and the Vatican distorted his message. Assuming the story was in the original manuscript, which I'm happy to do, it has no relevance to this topic. Are you arguing that Jesus would have continued to draw in the dust while the men stoned the woman? Should all men watch as other men kill women if verbal interventions fail? What about the police? Modern feminism as well as old fashioned chivalry both answer with a resounding no.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Or He might have sat on his haunches, drawing in the dust. Oh, hang on...
Originally posted by IngoB:
I expect Jesus would have stepped in within a civilian setting, if necessary with deadly force, where innocent life was under threat and the defence would have done more good than harm.
quote:Please illustrate how wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have achieved aims by the Western powers that 'won' them.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Who says that wars do not work? Of course they do. They may not tick all the idealistic boxes you have for them (or indeed they may be waged by people who intend to have rather different boxes ticked than you do). But there is little doubt that wars can achieve aims, and quite consistently so if one wins them.
quote:That is a mix of different questions. For me, the logical question is to ask about our own motives and then to think of something that would actually work for the benefit of the innocent people caught up in the problem. In my view, a hi-tech military reaction would not achieve the ends of enfranchising and protecting the innocent.
What exactly do you expect to happen anyway if all military resistance to IS ceases? And just how principled are you about the non-militaristic approach? If re-reconquista comes to caliphate, would you rather be dhimmi than dead?
quote:I'm sure you're right. How would Jesus answer?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Modern feminism as well as old fashioned chivalry both answer with a resounding no.
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You seemed to suggest that Martin thinks White is the same morally as IS. I don't think that is the case, and indeed I object to this characterisation of a position you find unpalatable.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'm sure you're right. How would Jesus answer?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Modern feminism as well as old fashioned chivalry both answer with a resounding no.
quote:Answer what?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'm sure you're right. How would Jesus answer?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Modern feminism as well as old fashioned chivalry both answer with a resounding no.
quote:He may have. How would the angels have protected the woman? Scripture suggests by some form of violence most likely involving fire.
originally posted by Laurelin:
Who's to say He wouldn't have called on them, to protect that poor woman if the vengeful mob had ignored Him and tried to stone her?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Yet Jesus rebukes James and John for wanting to call down fire on the unrepentant towns. Upthread I referred to the Son to using a different (and higher) way to OT methods of divine justice. (I don't think that puts me in Club Marcion, but come on - there is a different tone and higher teaching introduced with the New Covenant).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He may have. How would the angels have protected the woman? Scripture suggests by some form of violence most likely involving fire.
quote:Of course they don't go all the way and provide nearly-always-existent equal and opposite proof-text, by way of intellectual honesty. Then again neither do non-evangelicals often admit the merits of their opposition. It's like people become absolute assholes when arguing about something. Go figure.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Evangelicals at least bother to provide a proof text when making claims about the clear teaching of Jesus.
quote:Jesus came to offer salvation to the world but constantly warns that those who fail to accept the offer will be judged harshly. I don't rule out universal salvation and in fact hope and pray for the salvation of all but there is precious little biblical support for it beyond a few proof texts. Annihilationism has more support from scripture, IMO.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:Yet Jesus rebukes James and John for wanting to call down fire on the unrepentant towns. Upthread I referred to the Son to using a different (and higher) way to OT methods of divine justice. (I don't think that puts me in Club Marcion, but come on - there is a different tone and higher teaching introduced with the New Covenant).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He may have. How would the angels have protected the woman? Scripture suggests by some form of violence most likely involving fire.
Maybe the angels would have thrown a protective shield around her. (Oh boy - how very Harry Potter! But a similar thing seems to have happened when an angry crowd wanted to push Jesus over a cliff and He just walks calmly through them.)
quote:The irony! The irony! It burns!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
precious little biblical support for it beyond a few proof texts.
quote:No, I've repeatedly said scripture taken as a whole. I've yet to see anybody arguing for pacifism engage with the significant amount of scripture that contradicts the claim. Doing so means accepting Marcionism as orthodoxy and even then you have to ignore large portions of scripture.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The irony! The irony! It burns!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
precious little biblical support for it beyond a few proof texts.
quote:I could probably choose to be a pacifist for my own sake. I think I would find it an impossible position to take on behalf of others. That doesn't mean I think Jesus is OK with us killing people.
Originally posted by Pomona:
Laurelin - so Jesus' condemnation of killing is just to be ignored?
quote:As if any of us find that easy. This is why one of my heroes is Bonhoeffer - his life and death illustrate these kinds of moral complexities. A man who felt led to try to kill Hitler. Sums up the dilemma well.
You either obey Jesus or you don't, surely?
quote:Fine by me!
Us not funding the arms industry would be a nice start.
quote:Of course not, which I'm sure you know.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Is there an example from scripture of angels using shields?
quote:Where does Jesus contradict John? Why would Luke who was trying to establish John as the forerunner of Jesus mention a teaching of John diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught? Was John a false prophet? The church does not recognize John as a false prophet. Marcion on the other hand...
Originally posted by Martin60:
It wasn't Jesus IngoB.
quote:Surely the texts quoted by mousethief upthread present a pretty powerful case against killing ... words directly from the Master Himself.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I've repeatedly said scripture taken as a whole. I've yet to see anybody arguing for pacifism engage with the significant amount of scripture that contradicts the claim. Doing so means accepting Marcionism as orthodoxy and even then you have to ignore large portions of scripture.
Taking Scripture as a whole surely also means regarding Jesus' interpretation of the Torah as definitive. quote:I understand that it is difficult and that things are complex....but then you get into 'did God really say to do that' territory. I mean, I can admire Bonhoeffer and still think it was wrong for him to try to kill Hitler. I just find it a bit puzzling that the command to not kill is brushed aside like that - not saying you're brushing it aside, but that the articles in the opening post seem to be (and other Christian non-pacifists do). I can understand accepting war as the better of two evils, but that does mean accepting it as an evil and not calling it a just war. It's never just, it can only be less unjust.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:I could probably choose to be a pacifist for my own sake. I think I would find it an impossible position to take on behalf of others. That doesn't mean I think Jesus is OK with us killing people.
Originally posted by Pomona:
Laurelin - so Jesus' condemnation of killing is just to be ignored?
quote:As if any of us find that easy. This is why one of my heroes is Bonhoeffer - his life and death illustrate these kinds of moral complexities. A man who felt led to try to kill Hitler. Sums up the dilemma well.
You either obey Jesus or you don't, surely?
quote:Fine by me!
Us not funding the arms industry would be a nice start.
quote:Of course not, which I'm sure you know.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Is there an example from scripture of angels using shields?
I believe He would have stopped the men from stoning the woman, and would have done so. Heck - He did so!
quote:The 'did God really say?' challenge applies to quite a few things.
Originally posted by Pomona:
I understand that it is difficult and that things are complex....but then you get into 'did God really say to do that' territory.
quote:I've said nowhere in this thread that I support the idea of a 'just war', I'm not sure I believe there is such a thing. Even regarding WW2, which is perhaps the only war I find morally justifiable, because of the huge threat that the Reich represented. My position is that war is regrettably sometimes a necessary evil ... and I can think of at least one Dead Horse issue which would also fall into that category.
I can understand accepting war as the better of two evils, but that does mean accepting it as an evil and not calling it a just war. It's never just, it can only be less unjust.
quote:I'm having a mighty hard time, though, trying to reconcile Jesus of Nazareth supporting the killing of Canaanite babies. I truly, truly am.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Which one of Mousthiefs proof texts address use of violence by a ruler against those doing evil? All of his texts from Matthew deal with revenge, murder, and hatred in interpersonal relationships. Again, Jesus on multiple occasions uses rulers using violence to describe the kingdom of heaven and never implies the violence in the OT was wrong. Paul confirms that in Romans 12. Add to that John's command to the soldiers and the case for pacifism from scripture crumbles.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
And it's why I don't think that it's wrong for Christians to serve in the army, or in counter-intelligence. quote:Do you honestly believe that the human race will ever lose its war gene? You might as well tell people to stop arguing on a messageboard.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What impresses me is how long you will fight this losing battle. Lost for two thousand years actually. Till you die. Long after I do. You and IngoB. But love wins mate. Even though it won't, can't for two hundred thousand. There will be people like you regarding the bible and its one God as an indecipherable flat cookbook. When ...
quote:All I can say is that your religious fantasies differ from mine. I share Beeswax's hope of universal salvation but I'm not sure that it's guaranteed, especially for people who are unrepentant: Scripture rather indicates otherwise. We're back to Pomona's 'Did God really say?' again.
Originally posted by Martin60:
As I'm sure the overwhelmingly Christian Waffen SS will. And Hitler again.
quote:There's this little verse here.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is some question whether Bonhoeffer really was involved in the plot, I understand - but I don't understand why so many of you think he was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler (if he actually did).
quote:Whom are you sarcasting here? I never suggested war is OK. I disagree with just war theory for the same reason I think assassinating anybody is sinful. However I also believe that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we don't get a choice between something that's sinful and something that's not. Sometimes every option we have before us will result in us transgressing God's will for humanity in some way. But this is taking us far afield perhaps from the question at hand.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right. It is a theological position held by people who think war is OK but assassination of the instigator of the holocaust is not. Riiight.
quote:That's fair. I wasn't "sarcasting" you, but the attitude which (maybe) exists above your comment that war is fine but assassination of Hitler is not, based on a bible verse.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whom are you sarcasting here? I never suggested war is OK. I disagree with just war theory for the same reason I think assassinating anybody is sinful. However I also believe that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we don't get a choice between something that's sinful and something that's not. Sometimes every option we have before us will result in us transgressing God's will for humanity in some way. But this is taking us far afield perhaps from the question at hand.
You and I seem to be on the same page. Yes, I do think there is a trajectory. Definitely. quote:Please don't presume to tell me what I am, or am not, repressing. Thanks.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Looks like you're successfully repressing yours Laurelin.
quote:I get you. But then you lose me with this:
No one can. Ever. If His war gene is unrestrained, is somehow ineffably justified in His mind, there can be no hope for ours.
quote:IS and the SS are not fecklessly innocent.
When Andrew, Justin and George repent and lead as true shepherds, there will be hope. But they won't. They can't. It's not their fault. They are fecklessly innocent. JUST like IS and the SS.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
I can't stand this kind of moral flat-lining. We don't have to fall into the trap of demonising or 'othering' people whilst still finding their crimes abhorrent. (And why is it all up to Andrew, Justin and George? They're not the only voices around.) quote:No, I don’t think it’s taking us far afield. I agree with Martin that this is on point and pretty much at the heart of the matter.
Originally posted by mousethief:
...I also believe that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we don't get a choice between something that's sinful and something that's not. Sometimes every option we have before us will result in us transgressing God's will for humanity in some way. But this is taking us far afield perhaps from the question at hand.
quote:I like that "go in peace" very much. Naamon needed to work out his own tangle, somehow. As do we all.
18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”
19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said.
quote:Good one Barnabus. In my experience making some sort of sense of this trajectory is a very long journey and it throws up all sorts of further questions.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Laurelin
You posted recently that scripture has a trajectory. A somewhat meandering one, no doubt. But I think it is possible to argue that the journey from killing enemies to loving enemies reveals a growing and changing human understanding of God. From tribal God above all Gods to the One God and Father of us all.
I'm not sure if the trajectory understanding is an acceptable view of revelation in scripture as Catholics see it. Nor is it the traditional evangelical view. As it happens, it's my view. I think Marcion was wrong to see two Gods, of course, but we've always tended to argue that what was hidden in the OT is revealed in the NT. So I think trajectory understandings are reasonable consistent both with the content of scripture and earlier understandings as well.
The tensions over pacifism tend to reveal these underlying differences over trajectory. As I understand him, Martin60 sees the ultimate end of this trajectory, that God will be all in all, as a command to eschew all violence today.
I think these are also different responses to the underlying dilemma of the human tendency to violence. The kingdom is both now, and not yet. So we differ over the outworking of "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven'. Ends and means?
quote:No, it wouldn't be. If there was an IS caliphate, and you were a dhimmi subject in it, then Christ's actions in the gospel might provide a direct pattern for yours. But that's not the situation you find yourself in.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I didn't say it would stop them. I said it was following the example of Christ.
quote:The only sure counter for the faith that one works for God is an opposing faith that one does not. It is ultimately impossible to argue this, just as it is impossible to argue with solipsism. It's a closed system.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, but surely the point is that if we can't discount the actions of IS as inherently ungodly (i.e. God wouldn't ask people to do shit like that, because that's nasty and God isn't), then what standard can we use to measure the IS claim that they are working for the deity? Doesn't that take out one simple plank?
quote:The war in Afghanistan pushed back the Russian sphere of influence in this area, and the war in Iraq secured further access to the oil of that region (directly, and by showing the surrounding countries who is boss). These obvious goals of the Western powers were achieved, whether one considers the price to be paid for them to be too high or not.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please illustrate how wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have achieved aims by the Western powers that 'won' them.
quote:Possibly, but this need not be the actual goal of a modern war. Politicians, it turns out, cannot always be trusted in what they say about their aims. As far as just wars are concerned, it is not a condition for their justice that all innocents will be protected, merely that lesser evil will result.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
ISTM that modern wars have absolutely never achieved the aims of protecting the innocent, because modern warfare is unable to do that.
quote:It wasn't the 2nd Person of the Trinity as human being, that's correct. But on orthodox principles it sure as heck was the 2nd Person of the Trinity as much as the other two members, and it sure as heck was the very same 2nd Person of the Trinity which as human being you happen to call Jesus. To set Jesus apart from the OT violence commanded or indeed carried out directly by God makes just about as much sense as saying "it wasn't me who hit you, it was my fist". To get away with this nonsensical separation is possible in one way, and one way only, and that's why you are a committed member of Club Marcion.
Originally posted by Martin60:
It wasn't Jesus IngoB.
quote:There is no command to "not kill" in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. What is forbidden is unlawful and/or immoral killing, i.e., what is commonly called "murder". A better translation of the commandment is hence "Thou shalt not murder", and yes, that is well within the range of meaning of the Hebrew word. Think about it, quite apart from incessant warfare, the Jews were stoning people to death. Do you really think that the Scribes and Pharisees considered that to be at odds with God's explicit commandment? And they weren't exactly sloppy with scripture.
Originally posted by Pomona:
I just find it a bit puzzling that the command to not kill is brushed aside like that - not saying you're brushing it aside, but that the articles in the opening post seem to be (and other Christian non-pacifists do).
quote:There will be people like you regarding the bible and its one God as a conversation starter for the decisions that they will make themselves by their own lights. They were there from the very beginning, and their delightful conversation is always helpfully enlightened by the Angel of Light.
Originally posted by Martin60:
There will be people like you regarding the bible and its one God as an indecipherable flat cookbook.
quote:Have you ever bothered finding out what the actual definition of a "just war" happens to be in Christian tradition? It pretty much is that of an unwanted but necessary evil:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I've said nowhere in this thread that I support the idea of a 'just war', I'm not sure I believe there is such a thing. ... My position is that war is regrettably sometimes a necessary evil ...
quote:That doesn't make any sense. If a group of human beings were right in waging war against the Nazis, then the fully human being Jesus Christ obviously would pick the side of that group of human beings. What do you think Jesus would be doing? Would He be saying: "Oh sorry, I'm too Divine to be bothered with such ugly nitty-gritty of human existence. You do what you mere humans think is right. Get back to me when you are done, and we will get back to more Divine matters." That's ... well, I'm not sure what that is. Gnostic, perhaps.
Originally posted by Pomona:
The idea of Jesus picking sides in any war is ludicrous and obscene. We can't co-opt Him for our nationalisms and pathologies. But that doesn't mean I think we were wrong to declare war on the Third Reich.
quote:And the killing of a mass murdering tyrant is evil according to what Christian scripture or doctrine, please?
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's this little verse here.
quote:That was a complement thanks. And that's passive aggression in response to yours. Thanks.
quote:Laurelin: Please don't presume to tell me what I am, or am not, repressing. Thanks.
Martin60: Looks like you're successfully repressing yours Laurelin.
That we need to fully EXpress. With a higher narrative. To be able to work through our war gene expression.quote:We ALL are. All. IN our fecklessness, we are innocent. We have been for at least two hundred thousand years.
quote:Laurelin: I get you. But then you lose me with this:
Martin: No one can. Ever. If His war gene is unrestrained, is somehow ineffably justified in His mind, there can be no hope for ours.
quote:Laurelin: IS and the SS are not fecklessly innocent.
Martin: When Andrew, Justin and George repent and lead as true shepherds, there will be hope. But they won't. They can't. It's not their fault. They are fecklessly innocent. JUST like IS and the SS.
quote:I mean the other kind.
Laurelin: I can't stand this kind of moral flat-lining.
quote:Absolutely.
Laurelin: We don't have to fall into the trap of demonising or 'othering' people whilst still finding their crimes abhorrent.
quote:They are regarded as leaders. Christian leaders.
Laurelin: (And why is it all up to Andrew, Justin and George? They're not the only voices around.)
quote:I have to posit disagreement with mousethief there.
quote:No, I don’t think it’s taking us far afield. I agree with Martin that this is on point and pretty much at the heart of the matter.
Originally posted by mousethief:
...I also believe that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils.
Sometimes we don't get a choice between something that's sinful and something that's not.
Sometimes every option we have before us will result in us transgressing God's will for humanity in some way.
But this is taking us far afield perhaps from the question at hand.
quote:Not mine. Understanding or calling. Until the moment it happens.
Originally posted by Barnabas62: I think it does, Martin60.
There is an understanding that martyrdom is a calling. One to which not everyone is called. [/QB]
quote:Of course. And there were some who co-existed without keeping the subversive flame alive.
Barnabas62: For all those in Rome who were martyred, there were others, who worshiped in secret, found ways of co-existing with the oppression all around them, and also helped to keep the flame alive.
It seems likely that some of them were soldiers, some slaves.
quote:Absolutely. Who'd dream of doing that?
Barnabas62: It seems to me wrong to draw distinctions about who found the better way. We weren't in their shoes.
quote:Mine certainly is. So are Andrew's, Justin's and George's.
Barnabas62: From the immortal line in "A Man for all Seasons", we are all called to serve the Lord wittily, in the tangle of our minds.
If those tangled minds come up with different answers sometimes, that isn't surprising.
As mousethief, accurately, observed, life can get pretty tangled sometimes.
quote:Then we disagree fundamentally. At best, we agree on the basis of scripture, and disagree on the basis of the Holy Spirit. But the disagreement is still there.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, it wouldn't be. If there was an IS caliphate, and you were a dhimmi subject in it, then Christ's actions in the gospel might provide a direct pattern for yours. But that's not the situation you find yourself in.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I didn't say it would stop them. I said it was following the example of Christ.
quote:IngoB, I said that, not Pomona. And I don't mean that Jesus would look askance at people who fight other people who are hellbent on genocide. I still wouldn't want to claim the Jesus stamp of approval for, say, Dresden.
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pomona:
The idea of Jesus picking sides in any war is ludicrous and obscene. We can't co-opt Him for our nationalisms and pathologies. But that doesn't mean I think we were wrong to declare war on the Third Reich.
quote:This wasn't addresssed to me, but having wavered like a weather vane in this thread, I am not sure that it would be evil. Which leads me back to Bonhoeffer ...
And the killing of a mass murdering tyrant is evil according to what Christian scripture or doctrine, please?
quote:We are not innocent when we knowingly do wrong and horrible things. That doesn't make any of us potentially beyond redemption, but it does mean that we act like adults and face up to the darkness within. To say that IS and their ilk are 'fecklessly innocent' is offensive. No, they are not.
Originally posted by Martin60:
We ALL are. All. IN our fecklessness, we are innocent. We have been for at least two hundred thousand years.
quote:I prefer to know them by their fruit. Those who use the tools of violence recklessly and non-discriminately have nothing to do with the God of love. If we think that these, or the Crusades or Gideon or anyone else who uses a God-claim to commit genocide is godly, we're wrong.
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, I do believe that we can see what improves human flourishing, by observing human life - and violence and war generally do not help. They are, at best, "therapeutic" in the sense of removing a greater evil. At worst, they ruin the lives of everybody, including of the supposed victors. And in between we find the majority of cases, where the lot of one group of people is improved at the expense of another group. Now, I believe a coherent religious view of God has to take this into account, i.e., how humans flourish in an everyday, average sense cannot be independent of God's will. But this limits how much violence and war one can possibly attribute to God's will, if God is to be coherent.
In summary, I believe that one can reasonably argue that attributing violence and war to God has to be a special and rare occasion, and furthermore, that such violence and war has to point to some goal beyond itself (cannot be a good just in and by itself). Otherwise this becomes incoherent with the will of God we see at work in people's everyday lives.
Now, I'm not familiar enough with the ideological claims of IS to say whether they would satisfy these conditions. If not, then I think one can validly argue against their faith. But if they do, then I indeed think that moral accusations against them are basically pointless. An exceptional mission from God cannot be logically blocked by everyday rules from God. Then it really boils down to faith vs. faith, i.e., it's the fact that I think their prophet is false, and on top of that, that their interpretation of their prophet's teaching is likely also false, which allows me to reject their claim to have an exceptional mission from God. This however leaves the realm of reasoned argument, and basically sets will against will.
quote:And that doesn't even appear to be a verbal flourish, you really do seem to believe that abortion might justify violence.
That's tyrannical - and as for every tyrant, it is then just to resist you and remove you from power, if necessary by force.
quote:I don't know why. Jesus makes it clear on several occasions that the Jews were God's chosen people. Why not expect God to favor Israel over their neighbors in the brutal fight for cultural survival that existed in the ancient world. The Hittites once ruled a vast empire. When was the last known sacrifice to Inara?
originally posted by Laurelin:
m having a mighty hard time, though, trying to reconcile Jesus of Nazareth supporting the killing of Canaanite babies. I truly, truly am.
quote:You haven't met the strong tradition of Welsh Nonconformist pacifism, then? Mind you, five minutes with them makes me want to join the army.
Originally posted by Pomona:
'Evangelical' is probably unfair, since there are certainly evangelical pacifists and evangelicals committed to spiritual and other kinds of poverty. But why is it that the most prominent Christian pacifists I know are Catholic (Pax Christi)?
quote:Because we don't believe God to be a racist, valuing some people more than others because of their ethnicity. Especially to the point of genocide.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I don't know why. Jesus makes it clear on several occasions that the Jews were God's chosen people. Why not expect God to favor Israel over their neighbors in the brutal fight for cultural survival that existed in the ancient world. The Hittites once ruled a vast empire. When was the last known sacrifice to Inara?
originally posted by Laurelin:
m having a mighty hard time, though, trying to reconcile Jesus of Nazareth supporting the killing of Canaanite babies. I truly, truly am.
quote:And yet we all do, inasmuch as we emphasize in our own minds certain bits of Scripture and t(T)radition, and deemphasize others that contradict them.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I see no reason to go through the motions of worshiping an idol of my own making.
quote:Mistah Kurtz...He dead.
Originally posted by Martin60:
You sub-contract that out to Bronze and Iron Age savages.
quote:Active is possibly a better word - I mean in terms of presence at pacifist protests, it seems to be Pax Christi, the Quakers, and general pacifist groups eg CND, with some others. There is not, to my knowledge, a strong pacifist evangelical group. I know pacifist evangelicals as individuals, but not of any big organisation.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:You haven't met the strong tradition of Welsh Nonconformist pacifism, then? Mind you, five minutes with them makes me want to join the army.
Originally posted by Pomona:
'Evangelical' is probably unfair, since there are certainly evangelical pacifists and evangelicals committed to spiritual and other kinds of poverty. But why is it that the most prominent Christian pacifists I know are Catholic (Pax Christi)?
quote:Because not killing people applies to everyone. Certainly with a head of state, assassination is a bad idea anyway.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is some question whether Bonhoeffer really was involved in the plot, I understand - but I don't understand why so many of you think he was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler (if he actually did).
quote:I have no idea what you are talking about. I can guess that "JTB" might be "John the Baptist", but I have not at all talked about John, in any way or form, and have no interest in talking about him either here. My point is simple: you cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT. That's all.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And IngoB, it was JTB, who, like Mary, isn't a member of the Trinity.
quote:I would hope so.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Then we disagree fundamentally. At best, we agree on the basis of scripture, and disagree on the basis of the Holy Spirit. But the disagreement is still there.
quote:One less than IS has killed and will kill, at least conceptually. No idea really where that body count is at so far, but certainly in the hundreds.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So - how many men, women and children would you kill to stop an idea like IS?
quote:No, it's not an abstract conversation. It is underhand rhetorics you keep employing here. You try to make me speak the horrors of waging war, so that I appear horrible. Whereas you avoid addressing the horrors of not waging war, to make yourself appear as morally superior.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to accomplish the task? Your own? Your children's? This is not an abstract conversation. Figures would be useful.
quote:WTF?!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And that doesn't even appear to be a verbal flourish, you really do seem to believe that abortion might justify violence.
link to thread
I have said nothing on that thread (or in the linked post) that would even remotely suggest that. Are you out of your mind?
quote:Not at all, maybe you would care to explain rationally exactly what you meant. Because it sounded like you were saying in the fight against abortion, violence might be considered a reasonable reaction.
Originally posted by IngoB:
WTF?!
quote:mr cheesy, are you wilfully trying to import another Dead Horse into another Purgatory thread?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Not at all, maybe you would care to explain rationally exactly what you meant. Because it sounded like you were saying in the fight against abortion, violence might be considered a reasonable reaction.
Originally posted by IngoB:
WTF?!
quote:Is SoF running an ad hominem competition again? Two points for you, and a style point for rhetorical purity: these ad hominems remain unadulterated by any hint of actual content.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm delighted at your ignorance and lack of even schoolboy scholarship IngoB, and your defense of it Beeswax Altar. Such a simple thing but bespeaks volumes.
quote:The eternally unchanging God incarnates spatiotemporally into Jesus in His 2nd Person.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And the ontic connection between the constantly changing God of the OT and Jesus is what?
quote:That kinda makes sense - except that the starting point is that God is actually like the person we see as Jesus Christ in the gospels. So if we're allowing that maybe God changed since, then we're saying that he changed away from being the loving, self-sacrificial man/God we see in Jesus and into something else - say a God who encourages genocide.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Oh, and just a bit of obvious logic: if your changing god was fundamentally different from Jesus a couple of thousand years B.C., then of course there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this god has not changed in the couple of thousand years A.D. to be fundamentally different from Jesus again.
quote:I'm not entirely sure this is "Club Marcion", but I'm pretty sure that this kind of belief has not automatically messed with revelation per say.
You have no guarantee that Jesus and the NT are more in harmony with the god you face now than with the god we see in the OT. Club Marcion is an attempt to disown the past, but it automatically disowns the future as well. To put it most clearly, you fucked your revelation beyond repair.
quote:It's good to see that "Kill them all. God will know his own" is still proper RC doctrine.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:One less than IS has killed and will kill
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So - how many men, women and children would you kill to stop an idea like IS?
quote:You have no problem if God turns out to be a racist and for example the KKK are right and all us horrible anti-racist liberals are wrong?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, the God of scripture and tradition doesn't always conform to cultural expectations.
quote:God is God is God, unchanging for all time.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Oh, and just a bit of obvious logic: if your changing god was fundamentally different from Jesus a couple of thousand years B.C., then of course there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this god has not changed in the couple of thousand years A.D. to be fundamentally different from Jesus again.
quote:Can I ask where you were a child? The usual Gandhian practice for breaking an unjust law is to break it in public and then face the full weight of an unjust law. What did you gain by breaking it in secret in such a way as to never get caught?
Originally posted by Boogie:
No, I am not advocating law breaking unless the law is wrong, as it was in my childhood - then break it as much as you can and still keep safe from prison)
quote:Perhaps. However, this position is not available to Martin60, since he maintains that god himself is changing (rather than that our perception of God is changing). Furthermore, he maintains that even what is revealed in the NT, indeed by Christ himself, has to be evaluated and critiqued from a silicon age point of view as an iron age take on God. In other words, even Jesus Himself, and most certainly His apostolic ghostwriters, were not a clean mirror, and he thinks progress since then has made the mirror image of God significantly cleaner. Such an "enlightened" view of revelation de facto destroys it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Doesn't it make more sense to believe that God is actually like Jesus Christ and that all those other experiences of God were like looking into a dirty mirror?
quote:Perhaps. But if we separate Jesus form the Jewish past in a way that appears clearly at odds with Jesus' own intentions (and those of his Jewish apostles), then we are necessarily compromising the revelation we have obtained through them. If this part of what they were on about is doubtful, then all other parts can be, too. Then you end up not hoping in what has been revealed, but with your hope determining what can count as revealed. At that point religion does become an exercise in wishful thinking.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe the God we see in Jesus makes more sense as a God to believe in because he is all-loving and self-sacrificial?
quote:True, I'm doing Marcion an injustice there. It's Martin60's view of revelation that is fucked beyond repair, that of Marcion is merely fucked.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not entirely sure this is "Club Marcion", but I'm pretty sure that this kind of belief has not automatically messed with revelation per say.
quote:Of course none of us will do those things ever again in the New Age, but you blithely overlook Jesus' commands to REPENT if we want to be part of His kingdom. I'm not going to bother with proof texts, because you know them already anyway.
Originally posted by Martin60:
NONE of them, no one, not Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Churchill, Truman or any who followed their orders and none from the pre-modern age, when they are saved, when their lives are redeemed, deconstructed, reconstructed, however that occurs, and it will, in the Resurrection, would do the abominable evils that they did again. Neither will I. Or IS.
quote:Jesus says otherwise. Feel free to ignore Him on that.
Even Satan himself may find repentance. How could he not? I dread to think.
quote:We ARE guilty and we ARE responsible. For a lot of stuff. For our war-mongering. For what we're doing to the planet. Etc etc etc etc.
What are we 'guilty' of? Evolving? And YES being sapient, moral beings we MUST take full responsibility for our evil. Even though we are NOT responsible. At all.
Never again. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:1960s South Africa. My Dad worked in Soweto and broke the racist laws whenever possible. He was stopped by the police many times but avoided arrest every time by lying through his teeth. He said that going to prison would help nobody. He wanted to continue working and, of course, protect his family.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Can I ask where you were a child? The usual Gandhian practice for breaking an unjust law is to break it in public and then face the full weight of an unjust law. What did you gain by breaking it in secret in such a way as to never get caught?
Originally posted by Boogie:
No, I am not advocating law breaking unless the law is wrong, as it was in my childhood - then break it as much as you can and still keep safe from prison)
quote:No, you are not attacking my ignorance, Martin60. You are attacking me personally, through an unsupported assertion that I'm ignorant (so unsupported in fact, that we cannot even tell what I'm supposed to be ignorant about). That sort of thing just is what one calls an "argumentum ad hominem", and you have just repeated it in the above.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I attacked your ignorance, not you, dearest IngoB. Which you awesomely sustain. I'm really impressed.
quote:And fair play to him for doing that.
Originally posted by Boogie:
1960s South Africa. My Dad worked in Soweto and broke the racist laws whenever possible. He was stopped by the police many times but avoided arrest every time by lying through his teeth. He said that going to prison would help nobody. He wanted to continue working and, of course, protect his family.
quote:Fair enough, that is actually John the Baptist speaking, and you could claim that it is reported just FYI on JtB rather than as an attitude in any way directly relevant to Christians. It's not like JtB was preparing the way for the Lord or anything silly like that: JtB also talks there about practical charity for the poor, and we know that Christians take no interests in that at all. JtB also deals there with tax collectors as if they are not beyond the pale, and we know that Jesus would never do that. And so when JtB says something about soldiers, we can predict that it is meaningless in a Christian context and that Jesus or His apostles wouldn't touch a Roman centurion with a barge pole. These three thing are then not listed to show how JtB got the repentance part right in his call to baptism, even in difficult cases, merely lacking the ability to give the grace of the Holy Spirit. No, this entire passage is supposed to demonstrate just how corrupt the doctrine of JtB was, who leaped in his mother's womb for fear of the approaching Messiah.
Originally posted by Martin60:
IngoB and Beeswax Altar: who said what to whom when in Luke 3:14?
quote:That is the Calvinist party line, yes. It makes a mockery of free will, of course, and I am not prepared to accept your assertion.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think it is important to grasp the principle that God is writing human history like a human author writes a book.
quote:As an actual human author, I can tell you this: We make shit up. The protagonists don't do what we want. The plot goes tits up after writing the words "Chapter One". Where we end up is never where we expected to end up.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think it is important to grasp the principle that God is writing human history like a human author writes a book.
quote:I said it was John the Baptist and asked a series of questions you ignored. Your responses on this thread have consisted largely of pedantry and personal attacks. Both are examples of a weak argument. None of your posts address even the sayings of Jesus that contradict your view of Jesus. My suspicion is that any attempt to engage with those passages of scripture would include inserting extra details without justification and making those details more important than the actual text.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sir.
IngoB and Beeswax Altar: who said what to whom when in Luke 3:14?
quote:If God commanded genocide then God is a bastard who should be spat upon and not worshipped.
Originally posted by IngoB:
God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites. Therefore God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, must be able to command genocide. That is true, and if you theology cannot accommodate that, then your theology is factually wrong.
quote:It isn't true.
Originally posted by IngoB:
God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites. Therefore God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, must be able to command genocide. That is true, and if you theology cannot accommodate that, then your theology is factually wrong.
quote:So you did Beeswax Altar. My unqualified apologies.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Where does Jesus contradict John? Why would Luke who was trying to establish John as the forerunner of Jesus mention a teaching of John diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught? Was John a false prophet? The church does not recognize John as a false prophet. Marcion on the other hand...
Originally posted by Martin60:
It wasn't Jesus IngoB.
