But this word of the Lord came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. (1 Chronicles 22:8)
They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Isaiah 2:4)
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6-9)
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. (Matt. 5:38-39)
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)
Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the other churches. (1 Corinthians 14:33)
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)
So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (1 John 4:16)
17 comments:
And what is the context of those statements?
The simple fact is that if you read each statement Mark quoted in its context as well as all the other biblical statements on the subject of war and peace (which includes some of the passages I quoted here) what the Bible actually says does not add up to the picture Mark is trying to paint by ripping these passages out of their context.
For example, When are swords to be beaten into plowshares? When will the lion lay down with the lamb? Have the conditions for those occurrences been met yet?
Here is the answer to the first question:
It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore.
— Isaiah 2:2–4
So, is Mark claiming that this is true today? Is the government on the Messiah's shoulders? (As quoted by Mark from Isaiah 9:6) If you think so, I have some prime waterfront property you should buy.
Here's the answer to my second question:
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.
In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.
— Isaiah 11:6–10
Again, this takes place when the Messiah is ruling over the entire Earth? Again, is this true today? (Waterfront property!)
Do you see how Mark is presenting a distorted version of the Bible's teachings by eliminating the crucial element of the necessary conditions for peace to finally exist?
Let's take a look at some more of Mark's unbalanced quoting:
Mark quoted:
But this word of the Lord came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. (1 Chronicles 22:8)
Balance (already addressed here):
he raised up David to be their king, of whom he testified and said, ‘I have found in David the son of Jesse a man after my heart, who will do all my will.’
— Acts 13:22
First of all, that's high praise. Second, notice that God only prevented David from building the temple. God did not condemn him. In fact, God was so pleased with him that He gave David the promise that the Messiah would be his descendent and that fact would be acknowledge forever.
But God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood.’ Yet the LORD God of Israel chose me from all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever.
— 1 Chronicles 28:3–4
For who is God, but the LORD?
And who is a rock, except our God?—
the God who equipped me with strength
and made my way blameless.
He made my feet like the feet of a deer
and set me secure on the heights.
He trains my hands for war,
so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.
You have given me the shield of your salvation,
and your right hand supported me,
and your gentleness made me great.
You gave a wide place for my steps under me,
and my feet did not slip.
I pursued my enemies and overtook them,
and did not turn back till they were consumed.
I thrust them through, so that they were not able to rise;
they fell under my feet.
For you equipped me with strength for the battle;
you made those who rise against me sink under me.
— David, Psalms 18:31–39
Hebrews praises men of faith in chapter 11:
And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.
— Hebrews 11:32–34
Next up:
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. (Matt. 5:38-39)
It was already addressed in detail about 3 years ago. Here's a quick summary:
— "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" is a sentencing guideline for criminal law violations.
— Jesus specified "right cheek" which can only be a backhanded slap by a right handed person. That makes it a personal insult.
— The Jews were misapplying criminal punishments to personal insults, which is wrong.
— Jesus was not overturning the Law.
Here's another:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)
Curiously, I brought this myself just a few days ago:
What does it mean to make peace? Who was more successful at making peace; Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain, or Winston "We shall fight on the beaches" Churchill?
Here's another one where the context matters:
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the other churches. (1 Corinthians 14:33)
It sure sounds like Paul is writing about warfare, doesn't it. But check the context:
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints,
— 1 Corinthians 14:26–33
Here's one that's both a poor translation and missing its balance:
Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)
First of all, the word translated draw here (labontes) is active (as opposed to passive) and plural, suggesting repeatedly taking up the sword in acts of aggression.
Also notice that Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of his sword, which is what a pacifist would do. Instead Jesus told Peter to put it away where it belonged, most likely a sheath on his belt.
Furthermore, this is another one I addressed only a couple of days ago.
Balancing passage (said by Jesus earlier that night):
He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
— Luke 22:36
What is a sword used for? Spankings?
As for the quotes on love, Mark would have us believe that loving someone means nothing more than giving them a pat on the head and feeding them a bunch of sugar, no matter what.
It's a worthless definition of love. It's also flat wrong.
Finally:
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)
Are these examples of applying these verses?
"adolescent power fantasy perpetuated by the Gun Cult and conservatives" (here)
This graphic
"acting like a baby and throwing a tantrum because you don't like the president" (here)
"adolescent taunting of the Right. Fallacy is their bedrock" (here)
"insanity inside the right wing bubble" (here)
"the bubble of douche" (here)
"paranoia and pathological hatred of the federal government" (here)
And that's just from the current front page.
So that's what "love" looks like…
Huh…
It's very difficult to fully summarize the Bible's teachings on peace and violence. But some people have taken a stab at it. I've even tried to show Mark, with the usual results.
Jesus Christ Was Not a Pacifist
Was Jesus a Pacifist?
Did Jesus Teach Pacifism?
The Biblical View of Self-Defense
What the Bible Says About War and Violence
How does what you wrote here differ from how Islamic extremists misinterpret the Koran and advocate the use of violence? American Taliban indeed...
And you immediately take us right back to this:
Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree? (Started 133 days ago and counting)
Context is absolutely crucial to understanding an author's meaning. It's also the very first thing you throw away in the process of distorting what we write even though we can (and do) call you on it. It's no surprise you do the exact same thing to the Bible.
Why don't you keep it simple and answer my first questions in the first comment?
And what is the context of those statements?
For example, When are swords to be beaten into plowshares? When will the lion lay down with the lamb? Have the conditions for those occurrences been met yet?
Furthermore, is that slander you just used what passes for "love" in your world?
I don't need to answer any of your questions, NMM, because my query assumes that everything you have said above in terms of interpretation is valid. So, again, what makes this view of Christianity different from the Islamic extremist view which rejects pacifism and embraces violence as necessary at times?
I don't need to answer any of your questions, NMM, because my query assumes that everything you have said above in terms of interpretation is valid.
Not given the way you "misinterpret" (more accurately, distort) what I write.
Also, remember, I answer your questions. You should answer mine. I'm not afraid of your questions as you apparently fear mine.
what makes this view of Christianity different from the Islamic extremist view which rejects pacifism and embraces violence as necessary at times?
For starters, your description and equating the Biblical and Islamic views on violence is flat wrong. They are not the same view. (You clearly did NOT read my links, especially What the Bible Says About War and Violence, which is part of a longer series that examines what the Bible says on the subject in toto.)
Secondly, there is the fundamental differences between the source materials.
The Koran teaches the doctrine of abrogation; a doctrine, I might add, that you illicitly apply to the Bible. The Bible teaches the exact opposite, that Scripture and God does not change.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
— Matthew 5:17–18
God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
— Numbers 23:19
When abrogation is taken into account, the Koran teaches spreading Islam via the sword. The Bible teaches spreading Christianity through sharing God's word and debate.
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
— John 18:36
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
— Matthew 28:19–20a
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
— Romans 1:16
And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
— Romans 10:15–17
The Koran tells is followers that the only sure way to enter heaven is while committing violence against unbelievers. It teaches violence as a virtue. The Bible teaches that violence will exist in this fallen world until Jesus returns and puts a stop to it. And it teaches that we are to be as peaceful as possible and do our best to avoid violence. It also recognizes that violence is sometimes unavoidable, thus self-defense is not a sin, and is the purpose for which Jesus told the disciples to get themselves swords.
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
— Romans 12:18
Wait, there's one of those questions of interpretation you refuse to answer: Why the qualifications?
Finally, there's the examples set by Jesus and Mohammad. Jesus followed the principle stated in Romans 12:18. He was as peaceful as possible, but not always a pacifist. He drove the moneychangers, etc., out of the temple using violence. He will slaughter entire armies at the Battle of Armageddon, and he will throw those who choose their sin instead of Him into hell. Not only is He the Lamb of God and the Prince of Peace, He is also the Lion of the tribe of Judah. (Revelation 5:5)
If you are going to claim that you accepted my view of interpretation, even if only for the sake of argument, then you must answer questions regarding the text which affect its interpretation because that is a critical part of the process of exegesis. Questions like:
What is the context of those statements?
When are swords to be beaten into plowshares? When will the lion lay down with the lamb? Have the conditions for those occurrences been met yet?
Of course, "exegesis" is entirely meaningless unless you FIRST answer this question:
Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree? (Started 133 days ago and counting)
Whether it is necessary to correctly understand the author's intent ONLY makes sense if the answer to this question is "Agree". Otherwise, language matters exactly as much as grunts and screams.
How does what you wrote here differ from how Islamic extremists misinterpret the Koran and advocate the use of violence?
Well let's see.
NMN posts quotes and background showing how he reaches his interpretation....
You do not....
Discussing what NMN posts would lead to truth and understanding whether his interpretation is correct.
You refuse to discuss your interpretation and therefore it is impossible to determine whether you have misinterpreted it or not.
Yet you categorically declaim that NMN had misinterpreted and you do so without the slightest evidence or logic support to such assertions.
Who is the American Taliban here?
As I said in the other thread, this is exactly why I have open comments. C'mon, NMN, you have at least three or four more long comments in you that illustrate how your aren't American Taliban, don't you? Voices in my head indeed...:)
…American Taliban…
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,“
— Luke 6:27
Ah, the fresh smell of hypocrisy.
And not a single response to my arguments. Not even the fundamental question. GuardDuck is absolutely right about you.
Post a Comment