That’s a huge step up from slapping people in the head and throwing them to the ground “in the spirit.” At least this way you do feel a shock of some kind through your system that knocks you down.
In fact, some evangelists might just use this instead of waving their hands and seeing people fall… people would just fall down out of fear.
@freeholder, we don’t accept everything that theologians write, canonized or not.
Some still don’t like, or accept, the “just war” theory. Others see it as a necessary compromise between the demands of the Gospel and the realities of governing. It is worth noting that it only came about soon after Christians began to be in charge, and needed to deal with the reality of executions and wars by the state, which meant Christians had to be involved in the judgments and decisions governing the violence.
Is it better to have people without any moral guidance at all running things, or to have people who must adapt their principles to introduce unpalatable possibilities in charge? It’s not so clear which I prefer.
It does introduce a human-justified modification of the principles in God’s law. And an opportunity the size of the Dan Ryan highway for rationalization and excuses–has there ever been a war that was not a “just war” in the eyes of one or both sides? I can’t think of any.
But is the only alternative to let the violent do as they will?
You may also have to look into the old testament a bit, too. God himself justified, even commanded, certain wars and also justified capital punishment among other things. He also set over the land judges for such purposes of rendering proper judgment as based on biblical principle.
Also check Talmudic and Rabbinic law on such matters (including customs and traditions, etc.).
The New Testament, nor Jesus, had abolished the law (Torah) but merely fulfilled certain aspects (i.e., the perfect sacrifice, redemption, etc.). Matt 5:17, 18
Thus, one cannot separate the new from the old. (and vice versa)
This does not mean that every war or battle or whatever is justifiable and/or good… but more so that not every one is bad and/or unjustifiable.
@ Smitty… I understand what you are trying to say, but you might need to do more research on that verse, preferably from the Jewish experts on the subject. Comedy like this does not equate “taking the Lord’s name in vain.”
DJ: He fulfilled the WHOLE law or he wasn’t the Christ.
He kept the Torah for those OUTSIDE the Spirit because a yardstick for judgment is still needed if you don’t accept Him as Lord. Keeping the Law never saved anyone, it was always a matter of the heart. On the other had, we are to keep the heart of the law: love God, neighbors, enemies and our brothers. All direct commands from him.
He gave a final direct order ministerial to his disciples to lay down their arms and only told them to bring them into the Garden because he was to be “with sinners” when he was taken.
Unless you wish to ignore his direct orders…
In Hebrews, the writer makes a constant point of calling us priests. We have a high priest in Christ. Our duties are to God first, as the priests’ were. We are spiritual leaders, prayer warriors, All the priests were Levites and they were commanded in Numbers not to go to war. So if you want to apply the Law, DJ, then you need to examine all of it, not just what appeals to your leanings.
bmonk: You mean when the Gentile Christians took over. I use that qualifier since the Romans had a deep hatred of the Jews going at that time and the “Christian” leadership now fell to those who were not of the original faith. I suspect that envy had something to do with the Greco-Roman prejudices that even today saturate the churches. Mostly the effect of a belief in an evil material world as opposed to a corrupted one.
Augustine made two huge errors: the first was Amillenial beliefs, which have crippled many in the area of understanding prophesy. But had the good result of keeping the Bible intact in the face of Roman fears that Daniel suggested a Roman would be the Beast in Revelation. It did enable a proper interpretation of the Scriptures to develop as earl;y at the 10th century
The other was the Just war. As you said, the Church
suddenly was given a political role. Would you like to suggest the Borgias were people with moral guidance? I would suggest the “humanist” system corrupted those with the good intentions and invited those who were corrupt to put on sheep’s clothing. Not that it didn’t happen from almost the beginning of the Church, it’s just that the political power gave it a chance to become a systematic corruption .
I believe you offer only 2 alternatives:”let the violent act as they will or channel those aggressions in “constructive alternative wars.” My third would be that we do what we are supposed to do. Trust Christ and follow HIS commands given perfectly clearly in the Gospels and defined in our own hearts by the Spirit, not an earthly authority. Our objective is to bring people into a personal relationship with God, not point them into the nearest combat zone.
^ I actually agree with much of what you are saying. In terms of the laying down of arms, that was a single instance for a single occasion. Peter could not have chopped off the guards ear had he no sword.
As far as all priests being Levites… I’d have to check that. Not 100%. But I will look back into Genesis for clarification.
But that still doesn’t negate the fact that in certain circumstances God declared war necessary. In other cases, not so much. Example, Abram when through many lands, some of which would not be so pleasant to his faith. Yet he persevered in faith throughout without war.
David on the other hand was sent out to slay the rampaging Giants. He didn’t just take the head of Goliath, but of his brothers as well.
Sampson was sent to war… and while he won the fight against his physical enemies time and again, he failed the most important test of his flesh. The one true and consistent war.
Let’s not forget Jericho and the wall. Or God decreasing the size of an army to just those most capable and then even sending in legions of angels to assist in battle.
And then again, he sent Israel out of Egypt, not via war and violence, per se, but by having total faith in God to lead their exodus. And he destroyed Sodam & Gamorrah of his own power instead of sending in others to destroy them.
The point is different times require different types of action. The whole of scripture is the reference, not just a section (New Testament). The wisdom of the new is pointless without the wisdom and foundation of the old.
My point of ‘certain aspects’ is that Jesus did not abolish the law, nor its punishments. In terms of capital punishment, as an example, he didn’t negate that with his own capital punishment. But he did stipulate that any sinner can be saved in the everlasting sense, though he still may face this earthly life’s retribution and restitution.
But you were justified to point of the ‘certain aspects’ thing. It was simply my misunderstood way of communicating a specific idea on a specific subject.
@freeholder, I agree–and, since I have a valid “conscience objector”-equivalent dispensation from military service, I have no problem with living that way, trusting in God.
But–should the US do the same? Should our courts not punish people for their crimes?
Yes, probably the biggest change in the second edition of the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church was to shift from a grudging acceptance of capital punishment to a definite stand against it, particularly in “civilized nations”. It’s a step in the right direction.
I’m just saying that, as Christians became the civil authorities, in many cases, it became harder to maintain the “non-violence in every case” ideal of the Gospels.
Yes! A tranquilizer gun! I’ll be giving the service and if someone talks out of turn I will ask them to stand up. Pull out the tranquilizer gun and………… Wham! They be sleeping. Everyone in church will either be paying attention or sleeping. As It Should Be
In social situations, peace is not always possible without conflict. Conflict needs to be resolved in the most sensible manner while regarding the dignity of the human being in order to bring about peace. To use a taser as an instrument of peace is not something to be promoted even in cartoons.
Gee, all this just because I don’t want to sit still at attention in church for hours on end and obey some other people’s concepts of acceptable behavior.
Of course, there are some things that I will do or believe no matter who or what tells me otherwise.
Bmonk, isn’t all that kneeling uncomfortable? What is the the general feeling on knee pads? Do they have to be tolerant of my singing? What if I don’t want to shake hands and talk to people? How many weeks do you think wearing bandages with ‘blood’ seeped through will keep people at bay?
smitty72 over 13 years ago
Utterly blasphemous! Read Exodus 20:7
freeholder1 over 13 years ago
So’s Augustine’s Just War, but the head Pastor got his idea right. and A certain church NEVER corrects it’s Saint’s writings.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
It’s like a reggae song…
Tase the devil, tase the devil, tase the devil (Elephant Man, Thunder Clap style.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
That’s a huge step up from slapping people in the head and throwing them to the ground “in the spirit.” At least this way you do feel a shock of some kind through your system that knocks you down.
In fact, some evangelists might just use this instead of waving their hands and seeing people fall… people would just fall down out of fear.
Rod Parsley and Benny Hinn might be game…
syke34 over 13 years ago
And the Holy 50,000 watts.
bmonk over 13 years ago
@freeholder, we don’t accept everything that theologians write, canonized or not.
Some still don’t like, or accept, the “just war” theory. Others see it as a necessary compromise between the demands of the Gospel and the realities of governing. It is worth noting that it only came about soon after Christians began to be in charge, and needed to deal with the reality of executions and wars by the state, which meant Christians had to be involved in the judgments and decisions governing the violence.
Is it better to have people without any moral guidance at all running things, or to have people who must adapt their principles to introduce unpalatable possibilities in charge? It’s not so clear which I prefer.
It does introduce a human-justified modification of the principles in God’s law. And an opportunity the size of the Dan Ryan highway for rationalization and excuses–has there ever been a war that was not a “just war” in the eyes of one or both sides? I can’t think of any.
But is the only alternative to let the violent do as they will?
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
^ continuing on the concept…
You may also have to look into the old testament a bit, too. God himself justified, even commanded, certain wars and also justified capital punishment among other things. He also set over the land judges for such purposes of rendering proper judgment as based on biblical principle.
Also check Talmudic and Rabbinic law on such matters (including customs and traditions, etc.).
The New Testament, nor Jesus, had abolished the law (Torah) but merely fulfilled certain aspects (i.e., the perfect sacrifice, redemption, etc.). Matt 5:17, 18
Thus, one cannot separate the new from the old. (and vice versa)
This does not mean that every war or battle or whatever is justifiable and/or good… but more so that not every one is bad and/or unjustifiable.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
@ Smitty… I understand what you are trying to say, but you might need to do more research on that verse, preferably from the Jewish experts on the subject. Comedy like this does not equate “taking the Lord’s name in vain.”
freeholder1 over 13 years ago
DJ: He fulfilled the WHOLE law or he wasn’t the Christ.
He kept the Torah for those OUTSIDE the Spirit because a yardstick for judgment is still needed if you don’t accept Him as Lord. Keeping the Law never saved anyone, it was always a matter of the heart. On the other had, we are to keep the heart of the law: love God, neighbors, enemies and our brothers. All direct commands from him.
He gave a final direct order ministerial to his disciples to lay down their arms and only told them to bring them into the Garden because he was to be “with sinners” when he was taken.
Unless you wish to ignore his direct orders…
In Hebrews, the writer makes a constant point of calling us priests. We have a high priest in Christ. Our duties are to God first, as the priests’ were. We are spiritual leaders, prayer warriors, All the priests were Levites and they were commanded in Numbers not to go to war. So if you want to apply the Law, DJ, then you need to examine all of it, not just what appeals to your leanings.
freeholder1 over 13 years ago
bmonk: You mean when the Gentile Christians took over. I use that qualifier since the Romans had a deep hatred of the Jews going at that time and the “Christian” leadership now fell to those who were not of the original faith. I suspect that envy had something to do with the Greco-Roman prejudices that even today saturate the churches. Mostly the effect of a belief in an evil material world as opposed to a corrupted one.
Augustine made two huge errors: the first was Amillenial beliefs, which have crippled many in the area of understanding prophesy. But had the good result of keeping the Bible intact in the face of Roman fears that Daniel suggested a Roman would be the Beast in Revelation. It did enable a proper interpretation of the Scriptures to develop as earl;y at the 10th century
The other was the Just war. As you said, the Church suddenly was given a political role. Would you like to suggest the Borgias were people with moral guidance? I would suggest the “humanist” system corrupted those with the good intentions and invited those who were corrupt to put on sheep’s clothing. Not that it didn’t happen from almost the beginning of the Church, it’s just that the political power gave it a chance to become a systematic corruption .
I believe you offer only 2 alternatives:”let the violent act as they will or channel those aggressions in “constructive alternative wars.” My third would be that we do what we are supposed to do. Trust Christ and follow HIS commands given perfectly clearly in the Gospels and defined in our own hearts by the Spirit, not an earthly authority. Our objective is to bring people into a personal relationship with God, not point them into the nearest combat zone.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
^ I actually agree with much of what you are saying. In terms of the laying down of arms, that was a single instance for a single occasion. Peter could not have chopped off the guards ear had he no sword.
As far as all priests being Levites… I’d have to check that. Not 100%. But I will look back into Genesis for clarification.
But that still doesn’t negate the fact that in certain circumstances God declared war necessary. In other cases, not so much. Example, Abram when through many lands, some of which would not be so pleasant to his faith. Yet he persevered in faith throughout without war.
David on the other hand was sent out to slay the rampaging Giants. He didn’t just take the head of Goliath, but of his brothers as well.
Sampson was sent to war… and while he won the fight against his physical enemies time and again, he failed the most important test of his flesh. The one true and consistent war.
Let’s not forget Jericho and the wall. Or God decreasing the size of an army to just those most capable and then even sending in legions of angels to assist in battle.
And then again, he sent Israel out of Egypt, not via war and violence, per se, but by having total faith in God to lead their exodus. And he destroyed Sodam & Gamorrah of his own power instead of sending in others to destroy them.
The point is different times require different types of action. The whole of scripture is the reference, not just a section (New Testament). The wisdom of the new is pointless without the wisdom and foundation of the old.
My point of ‘certain aspects’ is that Jesus did not abolish the law, nor its punishments. In terms of capital punishment, as an example, he didn’t negate that with his own capital punishment. But he did stipulate that any sinner can be saved in the everlasting sense, though he still may face this earthly life’s retribution and restitution.
But you were justified to point of the ‘certain aspects’ thing. It was simply my misunderstood way of communicating a specific idea on a specific subject.
bmonk over 13 years ago
@freeholder, I agree–and, since I have a valid “conscience objector”-equivalent dispensation from military service, I have no problem with living that way, trusting in God.
But–should the US do the same? Should our courts not punish people for their crimes?
Yes, probably the biggest change in the second edition of the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church was to shift from a grudging acceptance of capital punishment to a definite stand against it, particularly in “civilized nations”. It’s a step in the right direction.
I’m just saying that, as Christians became the civil authorities, in many cases, it became harder to maintain the “non-violence in every case” ideal of the Gospels.
Ooops! Premium Member over 13 years ago
I would have been happy with a stun gun or tranquilizer gun, but tasers make a definite statement.
bmonk over 13 years ago
@aircraft-engineer, at least we haven’t gotten out the tasers, much less other weaponry.
Not yet.
Ooops! Premium Member over 13 years ago
Yes! A tranquilizer gun! I’ll be giving the service and if someone talks out of turn I will ask them to stand up. Pull out the tranquilizer gun and………… Wham! They be sleeping. Everyone in church will either be paying attention or sleeping. As It Should Be
bmonk over 13 years ago
@Oooops!!, LOL! But we could just bring back the poles they used to use in the Puritan services–used by the “tithing man”.
Ooops! Premium Member over 13 years ago
They would have made me a person of no particular faith suffer right along with the rest of them? But ……. but……. that would have …….
Hmmm……. maybe being tied to a chair with rocks and thrown in the pond to drown wasn’t so bad after all.
bmonk over 13 years ago
@Oooops!!, I would never tie you to a chair and throw you in a pond.
Hmmm…How about tying you to an anthill?? ;^)
hopeandjoy2 over 13 years ago
In social situations, peace is not always possible without conflict. Conflict needs to be resolved in the most sensible manner while regarding the dignity of the human being in order to bring about peace. To use a taser as an instrument of peace is not something to be promoted even in cartoons.
dead.theologians.society over 13 years ago
I agree, I prefer the peaceful methods used by Wiley E. Coyote.
Ooops! Premium Member over 13 years ago
But Bmonk!
Ants are icky! They crawl all over! Uh-Uhhh!
Can I be banished? I shall Run Away!!!
bmonk over 13 years ago
Ok, no ants.
Can we just dunk you in holy water?
Ooops! Premium Member over 13 years ago
Won’t that hurt?
Ooops! Premium Member over 13 years ago
Gee, all this just because I don’t want to sit still at attention in church for hours on end and obey some other people’s concepts of acceptable behavior.
Of course, there are some things that I will do or believe no matter who or what tells me otherwise.
bmonk over 13 years ago
@Oooops, if that’s the problem, there are all sorts of possibilities:
Come late, so the service is only as long as you can stand.
FInd a community that has your sense of humor. LIke this one–Warning: May not actually exist.
Get more involved, so you don’t have to sit still at attention.
Join the Catholics. Mass is (usually) only an hour or so at most, and you get to move–sit, stand, kneel, walk, sing….
bmonk over 13 years ago
Another video of St. Looney’s
Ooops! Premium Member over 13 years ago
Bmonk, isn’t all that kneeling uncomfortable? What is the the general feeling on knee pads? Do they have to be tolerant of my singing? What if I don’t want to shake hands and talk to people? How many weeks do you think wearing bandages with ‘blood’ seeped through will keep people at bay?
angelacolon over 13 years ago
LMAO….way 2 funny…..relax people it’s just a cartoon!