Jesus is a loving god, but definitely not a pacifist

The Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune ^ | Thursday, June 29, 2006 | Philip Dooley, pastor

[Red Badger]

Yes, in the Old testament God did direct wars. He has not done so since.

I kinda doubt that second part..........

[frogjerk]

Yes, in the Old testament God did direct wars. He has not done so since.

I kinda doubt that second part..........

I agree.

[Louis Foxwell]

Striking the cheek refers to a ritual act of challenging an adversary to a duel. Turning the other cheek was an insult to the challenger since the opposite hand holding the sword would have been required for the second slap.

*
"Who would Jesus bomb?"
Liberals, obviously.

[VoiceOfBruck]

"Who would Jesus bomb?"

I think the more relevant question to ask these days is, who would Mohammad (MHRIH) bomb?

[AmericaUnited]

I realize that there are far worse things that can happen to a man then to die in battle for a cause

Yup... live for nothing as a coward.

[brownsfan]

"Yup... live for nothing as a coward." = liberal

[bondserv]

Jesus did not say in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Pope, Are you packing heat behind my back?"

[Williams]

Yes of course you are right, Jesus was telling his disciples to insult their enemies and then run them trough with a sword. Everything every church teaches about Christ's meaning is wrong. Not.

Also, just wondering, is that a photograph of Michael the ArchAngel with a sword and shield and his foot on a demon's throat?

OK, so for some of you God is right down here rooting for the killing in war, and Jesus spent his time on Earth preaching kung fu fighting tactics.

[litehaus]

Also, "bring them before me and kill them"///Luke 19:26/27?

[frogjerk]

John 15:13

Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

[billbears]

OK, so for some of you God is right down here rooting for the killing in war, and Jesus spent his time on Earth preaching kung fu fighting tactics.

I would laugh but it's too true.

[Red Badger]

Luke 19:26-27 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

[JamesP81]

The Bible doesn't call Him the Lion of the Tribe of Judah just to sound cool. God is loving, but He is also extraordinarily dangerous and, as CS Lewis wrote in Chronicles of Narnia, He's not a tame lion.

And if that isn't information enough for you, just read Revelation.

[JamesP81]

Man was made by God, and given a warrior nature.

I read a book recently called 'Wild at Heart' by John Eldredge. It sounds like you may have already read it, but if you haven't, I very highly reccomend it.

[AmericaUnited]

Jesus was telling his disciples to insult their enemies and then run them trough with a sword.

Now you're making me feel guilty because I omitted the insult part before whacking those last two guys. Are sins of omission really that bad?

[RainMan]

Um ... read Revelation. If you dont think God is still willing to wage war, you are only believing the part of the bible that fits into your own personal beliefs. The bible is not a multiple choice document ... God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He was more than willing to have war waged in BC, and Revelation tells us he will again. His pacifism was against a violent overthrow of the existing government ... basically, he would not have been a fan of the crusades, because he wants people to accept him willingly, not at the tip of a sword ... however, once people make thier decision, he clearly allows war.

[jwalburg]

Liberals are good at turning other people's cheeks.

[Williams]

Turning the other cheek was an insult to the challenger since the opposite hand holding the sword would have been required for the second slap.

So Christ couldn't figure out that following this insult your adversary might then stab you with teh sword? Or that he can just slug you again with the same hand?

Here are Christ's own words, which make it plain he was not espousing an insult to the adversary:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

A parallel version is offered in the Sermon on the Plain in the Gospel of Luke:

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you," "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

[TheCrusader]

People really shouldn't bring Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ into a debate about the Iraq War and use Him some sort of weather vane to either justify or condemn this war, because that's just so presumptious and arrogant to use God in that way. What God does, He does a the Supreme Being.

However, I think the Bible is pretty clear about about war though, war is the punishment for sin and it's certainly not a blessing. People have tried to indicate in this threat that Jesus was 'pro war' because He said "this" or "that". But one thing we surely know that Jesus said is that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword", and that is probably why so many muslims today are dying by the sword.

But still, it's just plain wrong to use the Redeemer's words to justify politics, wars or any thing secular. As He told Pilate, "my Kingdom is not of this world". Christ's real message is clear, "take up your cross and follow me", so if people want to bring our Lord and Saviour into the Iraq War debate, it should be in prayer to Him for guidance, protection of our troops, victory and peace.

[brooklyn dave]

Christian pacifism really doesn't really originate so much from the words and actions of Jesus Himself, but more from the worldview of the early Christian community. First of all, Rome was the aggressor--an Empire that conquered other countries and ruled with a heavy hand to maintain that supremacy. Christians at first believed that the return of JC was imminent, so why be part of the system (in apostolic times)--then when they got away from that, it was more of a rejection of aggressive warfare to bolster up a decadent empire than an embrace of total pacifism at any price. When Christianity was mainstreamed through Constantine, the beginnings of the Germanic invasions were at hand. Christians by then were much more woven into the societal fabric and thus had as much to lose as everyone else. They weren't just a bunch of poor slaves praying in catacombs. Augustine himself was well aware of this, and thus formulated the theory of just war instead of taking the route of total pacifism. Modern Christian pacifism has its roots in the peace churches of the Quakers and Anabaptists who saw both the cruelty and chaos of war around them. It wasn't the invasions by a barbarian horde but war resulting from political power struggles (all parties supposedly Christian) and a rejection of that. The difference being that these folks took on a more total pacifism than Christians of the 4th century. Modern Christian pacifists are the most confused in that they correctly recognize the sins of humanity and wish to extricate themselves as much as possible from it, but at the same time their political natures embrace socialistic thought whose roots are anything but pacifist.