|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pax Christi
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Was Jesus a pacifist? I know some would think that he wasn't, but then surely he would have joined up with the Zealots rather than banging on about some unseen kingdom of hippie values, no? If so, what does it mean for us in the church?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
'I have come not to bring peace but to bring a sword.'
The cleansing of the Temple?
Jesus was no pacifist. But I also don't think he was a blood thirsty war monger.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I think Jesus taught that we can become charitable ourselves, but ultimately to have faith that God will establish his Kingdom in the end. I don't think this really addresses whether or not a Christian can participate in military service.
[ 05. November 2012, 23:36: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
'I have come not to bring peace but to bring a sword.'
The cleansing of the Temple?
Jesus was no pacifist. But I also don't think he was a blood thirsty war monger.
If any passage needs context, it's this one:
quote:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
I really don't think he was expecting warfare to run rampant in families. Serious falling out and shunning perhaps. Just look at the Amish. Pacifists, but cold and mean as really, really mean things if anyone in the family crosses the patriarch on matters of faith or manner of living.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
In the scriptures Jesus is generally a pacifist. The only possible exception to that that I see is the passage in Luke 22 quote:
36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
Even here with the "two swords is enough" comment, he's not exactly a warmonger. It seems that he is simply prophesying persecution.
And if the lives of the early martyrs (who modeled their lives on Chris) are any indication, Jesus was a pacifist. I can't think of any hagiographies where the martyrs took up arms against corrupt authorities/enemies.
There must be some in after the introduction of Islam in the region, but I am not aware of any.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Joan of Arc?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The cleansing of the temple is always the example given that Jesus was no pacifist; but it would appear that he overturned tables and made a bit of scene (a flounce perhaps), but he certainly didn't assault or kill anyone. I know there are old Victorian pictures of him holding a whip and beating the money changers, but that seems fanciful at best. If anyone did this in the temple precincts if the local security didn't run them through I doubt very much that the Romans would have sat back and watched all meek and mild.
It seems to me that Jesus had every opportunity to take up swords. He did after all have a very loyal band of burly fishermen, and there were plenty of uprisings that he could have linked himself to and associated with, but he didn't.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Was Jesus a pacifist?
Yes.
Reasons for saying that?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Wot fletcher christian just said.
He was not physically violent with people.
Even when they were physically violent with him.
[ 06. November 2012, 11:52: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Don't some scholars suggest that Judas' betrayal was partly motivated by frustration that Jesus wasn't being revolutionary enough? That the revolutionaries were hoping for a more violent and emphatic leader?
(I can't find where this comes from to refer back to it, so it's a vague memory of something. It is also alluded to in the Borg & Crossan which is where I thought I'd read this.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
I think it is very easy in our times to create labeled boxes in which to put Jesus. I also think it is very easy to interpret Scripture in light of our socio-political views instead of submitting them to Scripture.
A scroll through my Facebook account has me wanting to do away with it. I have "friends" on both sides of the spectrum, posting images and quotes promoting their side, all claiming to be the point of view Jesus would take. If that is the case Jesus is very conflicted and unsure of himself. It seems to me the WWJD (What would Jesus do?) fad gave us more license to answer that question with our favorite responses.
The fact is, Jesus was interested in establishing the kingdom of God, beginning now and extending to eternity future. But he spoke of establishing that kingdom in terms of struggle and opposition. At least once the word "sword" was used, albeit in a metaphorical sense. His concept for the church was also conceived in military images, the gathered qahal readied for marching victoriously against strongholds of Sheol. Paul depicts what seems to be violent confrontation in the heavenlies associated with Jesus' resurrection from the dead.
At the same time Jesus steadfastly refused to become entangled in the politics of his day. He refused to criticize the Romans or Pilate, and he called all the religio-political factions to rethink their approach to the kingdom.
Perhaps instead of worrying about whether Jesus was a pacifist and making the case either way, we should join him in building the kingdom.
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I know there are old Victorian pictures of him holding a whip and beating the money changers, but that seems fanciful at best.
There pre-Victorian documents mentioning the whip as well.
John's Gospel is one.
John 2:15 starts, "After making a whip out of cords..."
So the Victorian artists have something to go on.
In context though it doesn't look like he was whipping people to me.
quote:
In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. John 2:14-15 NIV my bold.
It looks to me like the whip was for driving animals.
quote:
fletcher christian:
If anyone did this in the temple precincts if the local security didn't run them through I doubt very much that the Romans would have sat back and watched all meek and mild.
Or they could have had a word with one of his followers, arrested him quietly so no fuss was made and in collusion with the Romans had him executed legally, with the warning, "This is what happens to those who would mess with the Temple." And all within four days.
That he can't have used the whip because if he had the powers that be would have done something about it isn't a very good argument because the powers that be did do something about it.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The cleansing of the temple is always the example given that Jesus was no pacifist; but it would appear that he overturned tables and made a bit of scene (a flounce perhaps), but he certainly didn't assault or kill anyone. I know there are old Victorian pictures of him holding a whip and beating the money changers, but that seems fanciful at best. If anyone did this in the temple precincts if the local security didn't run them through I doubt very much that the Romans would have sat back and watched all meek and mild.
It seems to me that Jesus had every opportunity to take up swords. He did after all have a very loyal band of burly fishermen, and there were plenty of uprisings that he could have linked himself to and associated with, but he didn't.
The whip has already been dealt with. But taking up swords against the Roman Legions was merely a complex and messy way to commit suicide and to take a lot of people with you.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Wot fletcher christian just said.
He was not physically violent with people.
Even when they were physically violent with him.
I've never been physically violent with people, and I'm not a pacifist. In fact, lots of people have never been physically violent with other people; I don't see how that makes them pacifists.
As for not being physically violent when others were so with him, do you mean the passion and crucifixion, to which he willingly submitted himself? I fail to see how that extablishes a case for pacifism.
I would agree with what CircuitRider said. The fact that Jesus came to be establish a kingdom not of this world, and therefore not to be built (or defended) according the ways of this world, may inform how we should view war and the considerations that should be involved before going to war. Indeed, all that he taught such inform such a decision. But to say that he was a pacifist seems to me an attempt to make Jesus fit into our boxes.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
@OP
A lot more so than many of his followers, particularly when they have political power. The stage was certainly set by Constantine's cho-rho vision at the Milvian Bridge and his bloody victory. It probably set up everything in the wrong vein since. From wars, to burnings, to persecutions, all in His Name.
It does make think that Jesus is not so important to many Christians. Violation of the basic principles of the religion's founder appears pervasive among us.
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Circuit Rider:
quote:
Perhaps instead of worrying about whether Jesus was a pacifist and making the case either way, we should join him in building the kingdom.
Hmmm; yes...and no. If the kingdom is built on the value of pacifism then it would be quite important to know that Jesus is pacifist. It's not making a case for Jesus being a pacifist, but rather asking genuinely if he was one and of this in fact is core to the Gospel message.
I keep coming back to Walter Wink, who genuinely believes that the Gospel is about non-violence and pacifism and who clearly and concisely points out that pacifism is not passivity, but is in fact an active non-violent resistence. In our modern western culture it's far from fashionable, and let's face it, very few Christians like to be labelled as a group of lilly-assed hippies. But if pacifism is core to the Gospel it presents one heck of a challenge. If it's not, then I guess we always run the risk of war in God's name to a degree.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Luke 22 was for the fulfilment of prophecy.
And in the temple Jesus didn't use direct violence on the money changers as has been shown.
But ...
This thread overlaps with "A choice of two evils?" where I ask who used force on the mob in John 18 ? And go on from there.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I keep coming back to Walter Wink, who genuinely believes that the Gospel is about non-violence and pacifism and who clearly and concisely points out that pacifism is not passivity, but is in fact an active non-violent resistence.
Good for Walter Wink. He has an opinion, but it looks more to me like reading the Gospel in the light of a particular socio-political view. The Gospel is not all about pacifism, it is about the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. Period.
Jesus did not advocate use of violence in the spread of his kingdom and called on the four parties of his day to choose an alternate route. If you want to call him a pacifist from that be my guest, but pacifism was not his main thing. Restoration and recreation was.
Jesus did use metaphors and symbols of violence to describe what the kingdom would accomplish as I have already pointed out. Pacifists I know disapprove of military and violent images. As I understand it that would make Jesus not fit our current definition of pacifist.
Islam is a religion of the sword. The Koran teaches violence against the infidels. Jesus, on the other hand, told his disciples to advance his kingdom with ideas and teaching conveyed through making disciples.
The point is that the kingdom will win converts without the need for violence or focusing on any issues near and dear to our hearts. But the kingdom will attract violence from those who do not appreciate our prophetic stand. Just ask the martyrs. We, on the other hand, deal with that violence by turning the other cheek.
Neither Jesus nor the kingdom need any of our currently fashionable politically correct or conservative evangelical labels that only divide and confuse. Jesus has done very well without them, in my view.
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Um... I didn't say that Jesus and the Gospel's are all about pacifism and nothing else. What I was asking though is this; is it possible to truly understand the teaching of Jesus and the concepts of the kingdom without having an understanding of pacifism? ie, is it a core value? You clearly think it's not, but I can't find myself convinced by an argument that says 'no he wasn't' without actually saying very much. Yes, Jesus did use images of violence in his teaching, but so do pacifists. I suspect the term 'pacifist' has a negative connotation for you that you are reacting against.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Was Jesus a pacifist?
Yes.
The general tone and trajectory of John's gospel presents Jesus as suicidally antagonistic. He doesn't try to pacify anyone. No, as far as his own mission was concerned Jesus wasn't a pacifist. A quick read of Revelation seems to suggest that he still isn't.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Um... I didn't say that Jesus and the Gospel's are all about pacifism and nothing else. What I was asking though is this; is it possible to truly understand the teaching of Jesus and the concepts of the kingdom without having an understanding of pacifism? ie, is it a core value? You clearly think it's not, but I can't find myself convinced by an argument that says 'no he wasn't' without actually saying very much. Yes, Jesus did use images of violence in his teaching, but so do pacifists. I suspect the term 'pacifist' has a negative connotation for you that you are reacting against.
You would be mistaken, I am afraid. I am probably more pacifist than hawk, actually.
I am not reacting against the term pacifist, it is just that I don't like seeing it or any other buzzword, from either pole, arbitrarily imposed on Jesus or his kingdom. Our culture likes to circle the wagons in small groups, create code words and pet values and ethics, and then be self-assured that if Jesus were to come he would certainly join us in "our cause" and wear our label. I have seen this during the American elections ad nauseum.
Jesus is neither pacifist nor gun-totin' "God-and-country" hawk. He is not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. He is not socialist, fascist, or laissez-faire. He does not fit any of the labels or stereotypes we want to assign to him. What he really wants is to fit us to his label.
The fact is that Jesus wants us to lose our selves into his cause. That is what baptism is all about. That is what entering the kingdom is all about.
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by daron:
quote:
The general tone and trajectory of John's gospel presents Jesus as suicidally antagonistic. He doesn't try to pacify anyone. No, as far as his own mission was concerned Jesus wasn't a pacifist.
As stated above; pacifism does not equal passivity. Non-violent resistance can be fairly antagonistic and pressured.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Curcuit Rider:
quote:
Jesus is neither pacifist nor gun-totin' "God-and-country" hawk. He is not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. He is not socialist, fascist, or laissez-faire. He does not fit any of the labels or stereotypes we want to assign to him. What he really wants is to fit us to his label.
....but what if his model is pacifism? I'm not trying to make Jesus into a Liberal or Democrat or anything else, I'm simply putting the question out there to ask if Jesus and consequentially the Gospel asks us to be non-violent, and if so, how do we work that out as Christians?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
If by "pacifism" is meant the total rejection of any physical violence, in particular warfare: The Father is no pacifist. Therefore the Son isn't either. However, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matt 5:9) So there's a clear and strong preference for peace. But pacifism, no.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I don't usually think of the passage about cleansing the table as an indication of pacifism so much as an example of Jesus acting impulsively, an expression of his human nature. It seems to have been an isolated incident; we do not hear of any follow-up occasions. It seems unlikely that any permanent change in temple practices resulted.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This is a genuinely open response IngoB.
I don't think that there is a more important issue:
People are enriching their uranium for God. I am recently shorn of all dispensationalism in partial preterism, so ANYTHING is possible.
You argue that God the Father is no pacifist. How so? Where does God the Father wage war?
You then argue that the Son is therefore not pacifist, being the express likeness of His being and that as we've seen the Son we've seen the Father.
We see the Son pacifist in all most significant ways. He COMMANDS no retaliation. Submission to power abuse by the authorites and even neighbour in law and in social intercourse when redress fails.
Which is NOTHING to do with defending those under physical attack of course, including one's self.
What is that heresy? You named it recently. The one that doesn't like God the Killer whom I have always pragmatically justified.
Postmodernism has a STRONG grip on me and this needs exploring fully and vigorously and openly and honestly here.
Please.
Our lives depend on it.
ALL of them.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You argue that God the Father is no pacifist. How so? Where does God the Father wage war?
For example Egypt and Amalek get a fairly violent treatment in Exodus, wouldn't you say? As far as military engagement goes, Ex 14 & 17. (Self-defense? See below.)
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You then argue that the Son is therefore not pacifist, being the express likeness of His being and that as we've seen the Son we've seen the Father.
Actually, I'm arguing from this premise that since we have seen the Father, we know the Son, even in the absence of (unambiguous) action of the Son.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Which is NOTHING to do with defending those under physical attack of course, including one's self.
Well, I said: "If by "pacifism" is meant the total rejection of any physical violence, in particular warfare..." This is a common definition of pacifism, and it does exclude (self-)defence of individuals and of nations, i.e., "just war". As I've quoted from the Sermon of the Mount, if you want to be blessed as child of God, you must be a peacemaker. But "peacemaker" is not a synonym for "pacifist". "Peacemaker" says something about the intended end, "pacifist" says something about the accepted means.
I will readily agree that violent means rarely are the best way to achieve peaceful ends. But rarely is not never, and not all that is suboptimal is illicit. Was for example the war against the Nazis avoidable? Perhaps, but we did not know how. Was it "just"? Well, I think it was "just" enough. There is such a thing as a honest and inculpable falling short, and where evil is systemic, an individual may simply have no choice but the lesser evil.
It is merely John the Baptist speaking in Lk 3:14 to a soldier, but I think we can take his answer as the one Jesus would have given. John the Baptist did not say "lay down your arms". Jesus' own interaction with the centurion (Matt 8:5-13) shows no indication of an absolutist rejection of the military. The first named Gentile convert to Christianity is also a centurion, Cornelius of Acts 10. Neither the Angel of God nor St Peter advise him to change profession. And of course in Rom 13:1-7 we are given an explanation about lawful application of force by the state. And one could point to quite a number of violent and military images used in Christ's parables.
I think violence, like poverty, will always be with us. We often think of the poor from the perspective of the rich, i.e., they are a convenient opportunity for our charity. But the poor themselves often cannot do other than being poor, and they have to hope for better times. Yet I do not think that the Lord smiles more on the rich than on the poor. So perhaps we can see in this how it is with physical violence. Perhaps we should see ourselves as rich in peace now. Sixty years ago, our parents and grandparents were poor in peace. And most of them did not know how to escape being poor in peace, and had to hope for better times, when the fighting would somehow come to an end. We should regret this, deeply, as with poverty. But we should be careful what and whom we are condemning in this. Perhaps a better question is why we now, so rich in peace, see fit to deprive other people of peace so much. Why are our armies so active, why do our weapon foundries make so much money?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What is that heresy? You named it recently. The one that doesn't like God the Killer whom I have always pragmatically justified.
Marcionism?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Please. Our lives depend on it. ALL of them.
But we are not trying to win against the prince of the world, we are trying to lose gracefully. There will never be world peace. But there will be peacemakers. And at the end of the world, they will be blessed as children of God.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Superb, thank you IngoB. Yes, Marcionism. You've given me MUCH to mull on, as ever and I will take it away and respond over the weekend and hope that others will too.
Believe it or not I rate NONE higher than you in fides et ratio here, or anywhere else on the web, Rob Bell and Brian McLaren notwithstanding -but I can't talk with them. You ARE a fine Roman Catholic Christian apologist.
And a git ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Less my gushing seems uncritical, the first and trivial point I have ... which runs out of steam straight away, because I can't be critical, just questioning, is how you, and I presume the RCC, infer that the person of God in the Old Testament is the Father?
Which is trivial compared with the question of God the Killer, which the narrative unquestioningly testifies to in both testaments either side of the incarnation.
As I have alluded to before, I know God is pragmatic, breathtakingly so (as Exodus 20 demonstrates with then Sabbath), but could He be MORE so?
I bow the knee to NOT.
Pragmatic in His violence or pragmatic in His accepting even encouraging our narrative of His imputed violence of which He is completely innocent?
If He is 'just' violent, that does open up more questions. New ones. Genuinely new. The stream we step in to is not the same since Marcion.
That really was superb about peace and poverty.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
