What is the future of Christianity?

sasa said:
I don't disagree because I can not take revenge, but it is just not applicable in any society to let some one harm you even if you forgive him once or twice or so on and so forth.
I think any one, no matter which society or sect he belongs to will find the Islamic teachings the most beautiful of all, which allowes you take revenge (but not a single bit more), but promises for the rewards you are going to get if you forgive (if it does not results in increase in violence). These are no doubt the most beautiful teachings which tells you the importance of forgiveness but allows you take revenge if there is no other option.
Click to expand...
And what happens when you take "revenge"? Nobody (well, almost nobody) subjectively thinks that they are doing evil things. They always believe they are doing good things. So those who you perceived "wronged" you did not in their perception. Thus, your "revenge" for that perceived wrong will be taken in the mind of the revengee as a new wrong. And they will seek "revenge" for themselves. And you will see that as a new wrong for the same reason . .. and so on and so forth.

Unless you can make a case for being able to truthfully and completely morally justify yourself and judge the actions of you and others, revenge won't be justified by anything other than casual moral reasoning. That's my opinion, anyway. And that's why I perceive the truth in the teaching as applicable today.
 
Obviously, Islam doesn't instruct you to take law in your hands and start taking revenge. It orders you to the obey the laws of the government and do not take law in your own hands.
 
And BTW, I'd bet most professed "Christians" don't agree with the teaching either, depsite its reputed source. And on the flip side, I personally know musliims who read the Qu'ran to uphold peace, forgiveness and nonviolence rather than revenge.


Perhaps the teaching is in Islam and you aren't perceiving it in much the same way that the teaching is apparent in Christianity and few Christians perceive it? Who knows?
 
sasa said:
Obviously, Islam doesn't instruct you to take law in your hands and start taking revenge. It orders you to the obey the laws of the government and do not take law in your own hands.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about "taking the law into your own hands." There's a whole host of other issues implicated by that concept.

The issue is "forgiveness and love" for all wrongs and "non-resistance" to evil as a paradoxical "resistence" to evil. Or whether the human impulse for "revenge" should be given voice in a moral philosophy.

I agree with the former. Not because it was true 2,000 years ago. But because I find it's true today.
 
What if some one literally punches you. Would you allow him to punch you on your other cheek as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would.

But if someone struck anyone else, I would be more than willing to enter the fray...

So that makes it quite contradictory. On one instance, the self defence is allowed and on the other instance it is advised to offer your other cheek as well.
Click to expand...
Its hardly contradictory. When someone strikes you, you are supposed to offer him your other cheek. When someone sues you, offer him your cloak as well. But when someone actively persecutes you and seeks your death (as many would in Christianity's early days), you have every right to defend yourself. And Jesus encouraged his followers to do so.

His teachings are not applicable now
Click to expand...
You keep repeating this in your posts. Please stop. I find it offensive, and unworthy of interfaith discussion.

PS If his teaching aren't applicable these days, then why are so many people Christian? :rolleyes:
 
Kindest Regards, Abogado!
Thank you for supplying the context:
Matthew 5
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Click to expand...

I think I understand what you are trying to say, and it is not incorrect. Generosity, especially in forgiveness, is the correct course of action at all reasonable times. My point deals with unreasonable times. It is easy for a bully to see forgiveness as a weakness, and prey upon that weakness. It becomes a judgement call for the individual. Forgiveness is the better path when it is sufficient. Forgiveness is insufficient against one who preys on forgiveness as a weakness. It is said that Jesus taught to forgive 70 times 7. I agree with this when the wrong is unintentional or inadvertant. When the wrong is deliberate, which can be difficult to discern sometimes, forgiveness only aggravates the situation, creating inconsistencies that are hard to bring into line with the overall picture.

I once heard a saying I think is appropriate here:
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

In other words, forgiveness or "turning the other cheek," is appropriate in most circumstances. But in those instances when it is pretty obvious that the wrong being perpetrated is intentional and with forethought, the burden of the victim shifts. My view, anyway.
 
juantoo3 said:
OK, you've piqued my interest...what?
Click to expand...
This is the quote:

Just give up everything; your life, your family, your possessions, all manner of substance that defines you and your life, because some bully says so?
Click to expand...


Which "authority figure" told people they had to give up their life, their family and their possessions and lose everything that they think have in order to really have anything?
 
Kindest Regards, sasa!
I don't disagree because I can not take revenge, but it is just not applicable in any society to let some one harm you even if you forgive him once or twice or so on and so forth.
I think any one, no matter which society or sect he belongs to will find the Islamic teachings the most beautiful of all, which allowes you take revenge (but not a single bit more), but promises for the rewards you are going to get if you forgive (if it does not results in increase in violence). These are no doubt the most beautiful teachings which tells you the importance of forgiveness but allows you take revenge if there is no other option.
Click to expand...
I am thinking Jesus taught very much against revenge. Exact quotes escape me now, but it seems to me Jesus specifically named revenge and said it was not something to seek, to "leave it in the hands of God." I am not even speaking of revenge, I am speaking of (self-) defense.

Even if one speaks in terms of spiritual warfare, there is a physical component to it. At a national level, this translates to an army. At an individual level, this is all manner of self-defense; physical, mental and spiritual. This you do as a natural extension of your will to survive, your "survival instinct" that God gave every human living. You will defend what is precious and dear to you. Your physical includes your family and source of income (or "Providence" in some contexts). Your mental includes your morality, your education (including what you teach your children as a parent and what your parents taught you; which is your culture), your predisposition to question and reason. Your spiritual includes your personal connection and association with the Devine, what most of us call God. There are more things covered under these three, (physical, mental and spiritual,) but this gives a good overview of how I see this.

A simple wrong is easily overlooked, especially when it has no hurtful intention behind it. Accidents happen. Even among friends and loved ones. That is just how it is.

But if you are being attacked, that is something altogether different. It is not only your "right" as a believer in any faith I can think of, it is your duty to defend against those who would strip you of all (even any) that is dear to you. Culture and religion are parts of this. Not to defend against such attacks is in contradiction to the (I'll add, God given) law of survival.

Obviously, Islam doesn't instruct you to take law in your hands and start taking revenge. It orders you to the obey the laws of the government and do not take law in your own hands.
Click to expand...
Likewise, Christianity teaches this, and as far as I know so does Judaism. The only exception being when the law of the land is in direct opposition to the law of God.
 
Kindest Regards, Abogado!
Abogado said:
And BTW, I'd bet most professed "Christians" don't agree with the teaching either, depsite its reputed source. And on the flip side, I personally know musliims who read the Qu'ran to uphold peace, forgiveness and nonviolence rather than revenge.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, you know...

People are people. Every one of us has a different capacity. We each have our muscles, spiritual, mental and physical. We each have specific muscles we are capable of flexing. Some of us are pretty good physically, some not. Some of us flex pretty good mental muscles, some not. Some of us have well worked spiritual muscles, some not. Each combination is pretty much unique, and makes each of us a little different from each other (which I think is a great thing!). In the end, it is what each of us does to the best of our ability in accord with our capacity to hold to our understanding of our relation to our Heavenly Father Creator.

And at some point, do we need to realize the muscles we need to condition? If all we flex are our strong muscles, is it still "right" (different context) to let our lesser muscles atrophy?

Aspects of one level do not translate directly to another level. For example, medicine could be said to be the mental application of description of human anatomy and physiology. But the science cannot "be" the exact experience of the human body at a given moment. These are two different languages. Not even human languages, more like human to whip-'or-will. I think this is in line with what Vaj says about "the Tao that can be tao'ed, is not the Tao."

Spirit, in that meager little I have experienced, cannot be adequately described by mental means. Physical means I have yet to understand, but I have yet to experience anything I can honestly say is beyond doubt a direct recreation of spirit in physical form. Even in thinking of Love, I am thinking it is an expression, or translation so to speak, by physical (and mental) means of spiritual reality.

Which "authority figure" told people they had to give up their life, their family and their possessions and lose everything that they think have in order to really have anything?
Click to expand...
Jesus. That passage did cross my mind when I wrote my part. And I did question myself. Which is why you see the later qualifiers, specifically the intent behind the wrong done.
 
Just thought I'd add, I'm with AdD on this one. "Turn the other cheek" is an Aramaic idiomatic expression that roughly translates to "do not fight," but in its context of "It is said an eye for an eye, but I say..." I have always interpreted it to teach non-violence.

Despite our very human (and I think fallible) desires for revenge, that is not true justice, and I think it only perpetuates a cycle of violence. There is a difference, in my opinion, between individual self-defense in dire circumstances and revenge. We often thinly mask our desire for revenge by saying we are promoting justice, but I believe that is incorrect. You might want to check out the "capital punishment" thread in the politics section- that speaks somewhat to these issues.

Personally, I would try to defend myself if my life or physical well-being was seriously threatened. But I would not defend my property and such with violence. They're just things. If I were about to be abducted or raped, for example, I would try to fight back. But if someone merely hit me, I would not fight back (not physically). If someone stole something, I would not fight back. I would never ever try to kill anyone, no matter how bad the circumstances. I have to always ask myself: is causing the pain of this other individual worth the cost of having that deed on my soul when I stand before God? Unless it is life threatening... no.

I feel that non-violence is the highest path to take, as evidenced by Jesus dying on the cross. God's Son could have easily defended himself and been wrathful. Instead, he forgave his transgressors. I promote peace and forgiveness, and I've learned to forgive some very big physical transgressions against me. Personally, I found if you are stuck in anger and vengeance against someone who harmed you, you are allowing that person to keep harming you and keep you from progressing spiritually. Not saying it is that way for everyone, but it certainly was so for me.

Finally, I must say that it is a bit offensive to keep insisting that Christ's teachings do not apply today. They apply for millions of people. They certainly are applicable to me. I do not argue with Muslims that Mohammed's teachings are now irrelevant. Each religion has its own teachings that its adherents find useful and beautiful. Please respect that.
 
Kindest Regards, path of one!

There is a difference, in my opinion, between individual self-defense in dire circumstances and revenge.
Click to expand...
This is what I was trying to say. And that it can be difficult sometimes for an individual to discern. Revenge is not right. Defense is.

We often thinly mask our desire for revenge by saying we are promoting justice, but I believe that is incorrect.
Click to expand...
This too, is correct. I have not participated on the capital punishment thread, in part because I doubt my position would be well received. While there is valid concern on the subject per human judgement, I do believe there is a higher level of judgement that leads to legitimate justice. I will grant that in the most strict reading of the matter, humans are not capable of Divine Judgement or Justice. I do think that there have been times when humans may have been instruments of Divine Justice. Just as I doubt that every moment in history called Divine Justice (or something equal) actually is. I also believe that many many little moments of Divine Justice are dealt through humans to humans every day, the vast majority having absolutely no clue they were so used. In this sense, I suppose justice almost equals one version of karma. Justice too, has a positive, rewarding side. Justice is not only retribution of bad/evil/wrong, it is also recompense for good/righteous/right.
 
Quote:
Which "authority figure" told people they had to give up their life, their family and their possessions and lose everything that they think have in order to really have anything?


Jesus. That passage did cross my mind when I wrote my part. And I did question myself. Which is why you see the later qualifiers, specifically the intent behind the wrong done.
Click to expand...

Besides, Jesus is not a bully. There is a difference between surrendering all that is you into the "hands" of a being you trust and who has your best interests at heart, and being forced to surrender all that is you to a bully whose intent is your demise and destruction.
 
juantoo3 said:
I am thinking Jesus taught very much against revenge. Exact quotes escape me now, but it seems to me Jesus specifically named revenge and said it was not something to seek, to "leave it in the hands of God." I am not even speaking of revenge, I am speaking of (self-) defense.
Click to expand...

I recall Jesus telling the disciples to put away their swords after he was betrayed and given over to the authorities. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Interesting conversation!
lunamoth
 
juantoo3 said:
Besides, Jesus is not a bully. There is a difference between surrendering all that is you into the "hands" of a being you trust and who has your best interests at heart, and being forced to surrender all that is you to a bully whose intent is your demise and destruction.
Click to expand...
Who were the "bullies" in the story? You have choices: the Sanhedrin, Pilate, the Roman soldiers. What did Jesus give up to them? What did he say about how these bullies should be judged?
 
lunamoth said:
I recall Jesus telling the disciples to put away their swords after he was betrayed and given over to the authorities. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Interesting conversation!
lunamoth
Click to expand...
Yeah. There's the great story at the Garden of Gesthemane where Peter slices off the ear of soldier come to get Jesus. Certainly that was self-defense. What happens? Peter's jaw probably dropped as Jesus rebukes him and offers an act of love (healing) to the soldier who has come to arrest him for his execution.
 
I've only been able to skim the thread so I'll probably just be repeating what others have already said.

I think when Jesus said turn the other cheek He meant to turn it (No revenge allowed). Total non-violence is the high calling He set for His followers. I agree with those above who point out that returning violence for violence just perpetuates the cycles we are in and it takes tremendous courage to truly be non-violent. Its one of those living in tension things (Juan ;) ). There is what we are called to do and there's the best that we can do, always realizing that we will often fall short but must continue each time to keep trying.

I think this teaching is vital for today.

peace,
lunamoth
 
This idea that governments can't be Christian is quite interesting. Juan and I have gone down this road before. :) Tolstoy argued that any form of government was not only not Christian, but an obstacle/enemy of the followers of Christ.

lunamoth
 
jt3 I also have not posting on the Capital Punishment thread for the same reason. I personally believe that God appoints the rulers and the moral laws are the same ones that God gave us to keep us from harming each other.


Romans 13:1-6 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing.

God is the final judge for our spirits but we are still subject to laws and consequences in the flesh on this earth.

If someone attacks me and I take revenge and attack them back Im subject to the same laws as the attacker. Theres a difference in self defense and revenge. Self defense I would stop the attacker so he could not harm me anymore but I would then allow the authorities to handle him. I do not believe Christ was telling us to stand there and let ourselves be abused he was warning us against vengeful action.
 
Faithfulservant said:
If someone attacks me and I take revenge and attack them back Im subject to the same laws as the attacker. Theres a difference in self defense and revenge. Self defense I would stop the attacker so he could not harm me anymore but I would then allow the authorities to handle him. I do not believe Christ was telling us to stand there and let ourselves be abused he was warning us against vengeful action.
Click to expand...
Aside from pointing out when people were mistaken in what they were teaching (and perhaps overturning the moneychangers' tables, but that would be a bit of a stretch) where in the gospel stories does Jesus act in self-defense or advocate it? I know of several opportunities he did not take to defend himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top