Resistant Peace

[Motar]

In the New Testament, Paul teaches us that we are to imitate Christ. He refers to the Old Testament as a “shadow” but argues that “reality” is found in Jesus– and that’s who we should emulate– Jesus, the nonviolent lover of enemies."
Common Objections & Misunderstandings on Christian Nonviolence

But didn’t Jesus beat up a bunch of people in the temple?

"...No, scripture doesn’t teach that. What it does teach is that he tipped over the tables, and drove everyone out of the temple. That’s it. It doesn’t say that he punched them out, or used the whip on humans– those arguments are reading into the story details which aren’t there.
Also, it is important to remember that this event was at Passover, a time when the Romans would have been extremely quick to squash someone who was being violent in the temple. Had he actually injured people, there’s little doubt he would have made it out of there in one piece. Furthermore, had he physically harmed people, Jesus would have contradicted his own teachings and become a liar– something inconceivable of God’s immutability.
Certainly, this was civil disobedience, a protest, a disruption, etc– but nothing in scripture says that Jesus hurt anyone..."
Common Objections & Misunderstandings on Christian Nonviolence

 

[Spade]

Sister Motar, peace is the only (civilised) option.

 

[Motar]

Sister Motar, peace is the only (civilised) option.

Agree, Dear Brother. So why is civility in such short supply in our world today? Where does the violence originate?

 

[Spade]

Tribalism. Hate those from the next town down the line, especially if they dare to date "your" girls.

And machismo and exceptionalism. The male disease.

 

[Motar]

Tribalism. Hate those from the next town down the line, especially if they dare to date "your" girls. And machismo and exceptionalism. The male disease.

How does one overcome such thinking, Brother?

Did you see the poem I posted for you in this thread?

 

[Spade]

Yes, sister; thanks.
And for you...
Last Essay-Bertrand Russell

 

[Motar]

Yes, sister; thanks.
And for you...
Last Essay-Bertrand Russell

Have you guessed the identity of the soul mate? the poet? Thanks for the essay.

Yes, sister; thanks.
And for you...
Last Essay-Bertrand Russell

"The powers must learn that peace is the paramount interest of everybody. To cause this to be realized by governments should be the supreme aim ... What can private persons do meanwhile? ... They can emphasize the superiority of co-operation to competition."
Last Essay-Bertrand Russell

Have we not experienced this in our online relationship, Dear Brother? Finding common ground in mutual respect and kindred interest? I think Russell's vision of peace is achievable one self-controlled, other-centered encounter at a time.

 

[Motar]

Certainly, this was civil disobedience, a protest, a disruption, etc– but nothing in scripture says that Jesus hurt anyone..." Common Objections & Misunderstandings on Christian Nonviolence

"But doesn’t the Bible teach an “eye for an eye”, a concept of retributive violence?

Yes, this actually was a law in the Old Testament ... In fact, Jesus addressed this exact question very specifically, and overturned this archaic principle of retributive violence- replacing it with the rule of nonviolence.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.… “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”
​

So, not only did Jesus abolish the practice of retributive justice (an eye for an eye), here in Matthew 5 he actually says that the children of God are those who nonviolently love their enemies. As we see above, Jesus actually takes the principle to a much more radical degree- not just commanding nonviolence, but actually commanding that we actively do good to those who harm us. Our culture tells us that if someone is stealing our TV, we can shoot them in the head. But Jesus? He says “'Make sure you give him the remote too.”
Common Objections & Misunderstandings on Christian Nonviolence

Resistant peace is nonviolent love for enemies. So, how do Christians acquire enemies?

 

[Cliffy]

Resistant peace is nonviolent love for enemies. So, how do Christians acquire enemies?

That is one seriously loaded question, there sister but I will avoid publishing a long list by just saying, how does anybody acquire enemies? Intolerance, bigotry, snobbery, arrogance, self righteousness, discrimination, etc.

 

[Motar]

That is one seriously loaded question, there sister but I will avoid publishing a long list by just saying, how does anybody acquire enemies? Intolerance, bigotry, snobbery, arrogance, self righteousness, discrimination, etc.

Bless you for taking the high road, Cliffy : )

 

[Motar]

"Our culture tells us that if someone is stealing our TV, we can shoot them in the head. But Jesus? He says “'Make sure you give him the remote too.” Common Objections & Misunderstandings on Christian Nonviolence

"But didn’t Jesus command his disciples to go and buy swords?

The case for biblical justification of violence is very hard to make, as the scripture forbidding violence is one of the clearest teachings of the New Testament. Those who use scripture to reject the practice of nonviolent love of enemies usually have only one passage in the NT they are able to go to, in hopes of supporting their claim. That passage is found in Luke 22, and is just before Jesus is arrested:

'He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That’s enough!' he replied.'
​

Those who quote this verse to support the idea that Jesus endorses violence have to quote just the first part without the whole context. What’s neat about this passage is that it doesn’t leave you wondering what it’s about– Jesus clearly tells us. By citing an OT prophesy of being “numbered with transgressors” Jesus tells them to bring two swords to the garden. The reason, Jesus tells us, is that so he could be counted and arrested as an armed criminal. We know that Jesus didn’t intend the swords for violent reasons because (a) He tells them that 2 were plenty, which they weren’t if it were for self defense (b) when the disciples actually use them for self-defense in the garden (Peter) he rebukes him with another command for nonviolence: 'No more of this! He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.' There is nothing in this passage that indicates Jesus approved of violence, only the contrary."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/common-objections-nonviolence/

How does this principle of Christian non-violence apply to personal or national defense?

 

[Motar]

There is nothing in this passage that indicates Jesus approved of violence, only the contrary."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/common-objections-nonviolence/

How does this principle of Christian non-violence apply to personal or national defense?

Doesn’t Romans permit violence?

Yes and no.
Romans clearly acknowledges (without condoning) the governmental authorities right to use force (Romans 13:4), but no where do we find permission for Christians to participate in violence on behalf of the government. The early church understood this, and completely rejected the notion of Christians participating in roles which required one to be violent for the government.
Many of those who accept the doctrine of nonviolence understand that a government has the right to enforce laws, have a military, etc. We simply reject the idea that a Christian can participate in the killing of other human beings, regardless of reason.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/common-objections-nonviolence/


How is government defense policy different from personal use of force by a Christian?

 

[Motar]

Sal, I heard once in a message that a peacekeeper is one who puts a lid on a boiling pot, while a peacemaker is one who searches for the source of the heat and endeavors to turn it down. Are the current U.S.-sponsored Israeli/Palestinian peace talks a peacemaking or peacekeeping effort? What is the source of the heat?

In response to the two questions posed above,
1) peacemaking effort (with peacekeeping results)
2) ancient sibling rivalry

 

[damngrumpy]

There are peace makers and then there are peace mongers.
In order to have a peace agreement you have to have people
willing to sacrifice something of themselves in a spirit of
mutual respect so common ground can be found.
Then there are those who are peace mongers they are the ones
who insist on going into every troubled spot and imposing their
vision of the world on the combatants. No one intruded on America's
Civil War so who gives them or the UN the right to go trotting into
other regions to impose settlements on others?
If there is no respect for the other person there can be no peace.
Lasting peace comes about when the two sides are finished with
their orgy of blood and the people decide it is time to get on with
life. The time has come to let many in these regions get hostility
out of their system then peace has a chance. Providing weapons
and assistance and interference is not the answer its like suppressing
a forest fire the fuel builds up on the forest floor and eventually it
explodes.
There is a time when one or a nation must stand up and fight for what
it believes in and that unfortunately means there will be death
It is a part of the road of human evolution and someday peace will be
possible but that is a long way off
I don't believe in war but I also don't believe in some naive concept of
peace at all cost either

 

[Motar]

In order to have a peace agreement you have to have people willing to sacrifice something of themselves in a spirit of mutual respect so common ground can be found ... If there is no respect for the other person there can be no peace.

Total agreement, DG.