who was in the right? are Christians required to be pacifists? is it immoral to defend others?

who was in the right? are Christians required to be pacifists? is it immoral to defend others?

Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall Street Shirt $21.68

Man-made Horrors Shirt $21.68

Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall Street Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >is it immoral to commit massive pogroms and try to force others back into serfdom?
    Yes in fact

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      please just answer the question

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        >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. - Matthew 5:39

        Wow that was hard

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          Than how do you explain Jesus not turning the other cheek when he himself was slapped at the end of John 18?
          > 22 But when He said this, one of the officers, who was standing nearby, struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?”
          >23 Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?”
          >24 So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
          If Jesus meant to turn the other cheek literally, he would have done this here, he wouldn’t have argued back
          And he also wouldn’t have flipped tables

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Two different authors write two different Jesus. It's that simple anon. Two different books have two different messages. This is what people refer to when they point out the contradictions in the Bible. It's what scholars affirm and apologists deny.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Or maybe Jesus didn’t mean to turn the cheek literally, maybe it was a metaphor for not escalating fights

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Escalating fights like participating in a war maybe?

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Yes

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >not escalating fights
            Yeah by accepting evil and not fighting back, ie allowing people to do more harm to you like slapping your cheek again.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Depends on what is happening
            Jesus himself used a whip and flipped tables

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus used a whip therefore helicopter rides and Black person lynching are based is my favorite /misc/ Christian argument. What does Matthew 26:52 mean?

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Means that you have to receive the sword because trying to take it results in death. Did not the lady of the lake give Arthur the sword? Was not Attila given the sword?

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Did not the lady of the lake give Arthur the sword?
            Ah yes, the famous biblical story of King Arthur. And say didn't you fricking sperg.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >famous biblical story of King Arthur
            Although not blical, it contains truth, and in Christ all truths are revealed and exalted.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Although not blical, it contains truth
            Correct the story of King Arthur contains certain truths. Not the one you are specifically trying to bring forth but it does contain some truths.
            >and in Christ all truths are revealed and exalted.
            Yes………. and? Le Morte De Arthur isn’t scripture and should in no way be compared to it by trying to cite it when people are discussing how Christ calls on us to behave in the scriptures.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >What does Matthew 26:52 mean?

            pretty self explanatory is it not? people who live by violence are liable to meet a violent end. in the context when jesus said it, he was trying to stop one of his apostles from throwing his life away defending him, which would be bad because A) Jesus just spent the night coming to terms with his arrest and "wanted" to be taken. and B, he had plans for his apostles and wanted them to live to carry those plans out

            im not sure hat you trying to say by mentioning this line

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Why didn’t Jesus tell him to throw the sword?
            Why put it back in its place?

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            I dont think anyone is saying anything about "helicopter rides and Black person lynching"

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            It's a difference of degree. You cannot read the Gospels and come away thinking Christianity is a warrior faith and you'd have a hard time even arguing for a very strict just war theory based on them. But Christians always want to subordinate the elements of the Gospels which get in the way of politics or what looks cool or what's fun or convenient. I suppose you take sell all that you own and give to the poor to be a metaphor for charity or something too.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Who are you to say what does not please the Lord or righteousness? For much glorification of God's kingdom is accomplished by the eradication of what is abomination of His creation.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            you dont seem to understanding the point of my inquiry. I dont believe Christianity is a "warrior faith" and I have exactly zero interest in making it out to be so, I do not hero-worship le ebin based pagan conquerors and that whole LARP.

            the question is, lets say you have a situation where you have bolsheviks who are looking to literally holocaust Christians and wipe Christianity from existence along with everyone from those in the wrong tax bracket or the wrong ethnic/culture group or whatever, like what they did a lot of in the soviet union, and they are about to come to your village and kill everyone

            this is not some social situation where some jackass has slapped you in the face or wronged you somehow and is provoking you into a fight, nor is even a situation where some guy is trying to rob you; you have a bunch of women and children and whatnot who are about to be brutalized and systematically exterminated by militant atheists, along with millions more.

            is it ok to stand up and defend those people? is that the type of situation that Jesus was talking about when he talked about being provoked with a slap on the face?

            I do not know the answer which is why I made this thread, and you are kind of derailing it by sperging out about /misc/shit

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            The lord of righteousness wants his beloved children to live and glorify his creation. From that position you can infer what use of such power is just. And if in striving to glorify God you fail at perfection, then trust in the Christ's salvation for your redemption.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Again, it depends on the author writing him.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >And he also wouldn’t have flipped tables

            Good lord, can christlarpers please stop pretending that this is some epic death metal war act? It's what a sassy gay guy does when his coffee is served half cold

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        Neither but Tolstoy was closer to the truth than Ivan Ivanovich of Ivangrad.

        Than how do you explain Jesus not turning the other cheek when he himself was slapped at the end of John 18?
        > 22 But when He said this, one of the officers, who was standing nearby, struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?”
        >23 Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?”
        >24 So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
        If Jesus meant to turn the other cheek literally, he would have done this here, he wouldn’t have argued back
        And he also wouldn’t have flipped tables

        >how do you explain Jesus not turning the other cheek when he himself was slapped
        “Turn the other cheek” is about how one should respond to being wronged by an individual. It’s a call to behave better than people who wrong you and to hold you head high instead of chimping out. It isn’t a literal direction of the physical movement one must take after getting slapped.
        >If Jesus meant to turn the other cheek literally
        The UTTER STATE of literalists.
        >he also wouldn’t have flipped tables
        The Temple being turned into a den of Prostitutes and moneychangers was a personal slight been individual equivalent to a slap.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      what are you referring to exactly?

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        The conduct of the Whites and what they were fighting for

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          thats odd thing to claim. the man from the whites on the book cover was known for redistributing land to peasants and and supporting liberal reforms, and the bolsheviks, the people he was fighting against, took land away from peasants and recreated serfdom by forcing them to work land for inadequate compensation they were not allowed to leave, leading to about 12 million deaths

          im curious, what exactly are you basing that statement on?

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms_during_the_Russian_Civil_War
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hundreds

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            none of these links back up the claims you made though?

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >don't worry I'm a nice guy, it's just all my allies doing ethnic cleansing and fighting for the return of a semi-feudal autocracy

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >my allies
            lol what did you mean by this? the niche extremist group you linked too was long past its peak by the time the war even started, and as the links you yourself posted attested to, the pogroms you are referring to ended in 1920 when the man on that book cover took over the whites, a man who I might add ho was outright furious with the previous leadership and argued against then quite vigorously, and only replaced them do to sheer popularity

            even then though, not even the original shitty leadership of the whites wanted to recreate serfdom,and once again, the people they were fighting against literally did recreate serfdom, so none of this actually backs up the original statement you made

            so I'll ask again, what did you base your original statement on? I get the impression you are in way over your head and dont have the slightest clue what you are talking about

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      The pogroms were justified and the whites were against serfdom

  2. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    homies be like I'm Christian and then post this shit

  3. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    There's been like 12 crusades and for centuries israelites and witches were routinely tossed into bonfires. The idea that being Christian means you can't express violence righteously to glorify God is wrong.

  4. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    In Exodus 22:2, Moses gave us this law,

    If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. Exodus 22:2 (NASB)

    Throughout Scripture we are encouraged to defend the weak, fatherless, the afflicted, poor, and those in need.

    Vindicate the weak and fatherless;
    Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
    Rescue the weak and needy;
    Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
    Psalm 82:3-4 (NASB)

    The principle of protecting others also occurs in the book of Proverbs. Proverbs 29:7 teaches that the righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor. But the wicked are not concerned. Proverbs 12:10 says that the righteous are concerned for their animals too. The verse continues to say that the passion of the wicked is cruel.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      >In Exodus 22:2, Moses gave us this law,

      so Moses said if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill them in self defense you are not guilty of murder BUTin the next verse it says if someone robs you during the day and you kill them in retaliation, then you are guilty

      I feel like that distinction may be meaningful. the question is, what is the difference between someone breaking into your home at night and someone robbing you in plain daylight?

      what makes one assailant ok to kill and one not ok to kill, and how can this rationalization be otherwise applied?

  5. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Christian morality makes perfect sense when you understand that it was a small heavily persecuted end-times cult that thought the world was about to end. In that context absolute pacifism is completely logical. After all why damn your soul with violent acts in the vain attempt of trying to change a material world that will soon be destroyed anyway, when God is going to come down any day now to judge all mankind? This of course ran into problems as Christianity became a State-backed majority religion, and generations passed with no apocalypse in sight. So Christians have had to spend the millennia trying to square the circle of that moral system being unsuited for the needs of running any kind of large organized society.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      im pretty skeptical about whether Tolstoy's extreme pacifism is even a correct interpretation though

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        It's not really an "interpretation" it's what the New Testament directly says. Over and over in both the Gospels and the Epistles the reader is directly told "Yo worlds about to end, just 2 more weeks! Don't bother with any of this violence stuff it won't matter."

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          >it's what the New Testament directly says

          I am skeptical that this is the case. this absolutely is a matter of interpretation, and one which is built virtually entirely on stretching the idea of "turn the other cheek when you are slapped" to quite literally every conceivable context beyond being simply wronged or provoked in such ways

          I also dont think Christs teachings relying on some kind of end times. quite the opposite, I think they are quite suitable for civilization itself and are more about ones own soul in general, regardless of how close the end times are. not to mention the fact that I am skeptical of your "doomsday cult" thing

          in a basic sense the principle behind turn the other cheek acts to maintain peace and good order within a community, my first instinct when reading this passage is to think of something like a petty bar fight or something where someone provokes another person and that person is faced with the scenario where they can chose to respond in kind or simply play it cool. or whatever, some kind of dispute has come up and you have been wronged in some way, so ou retaliate in kind or play it cool and move on with your life?

          its only really when you stretch it to scenarios that do not really seem to me to be equatable to being slapped on the cheek that things start to fall apart and become disgruntled.

          if someone is coming to commit atrocities against a community, maybe even militaint atheists coming to sill all Christians, is this scenario reeeeeeaaaaaaally what jesus what talking about when he said "when someone slaps you on the face"? that you should just "turn the other cheek" instead of defending the innocent and "Delivering them out of the hand of the wicked"?

          is "people murdering your friends and family and millions of others" really, truly equatable to being slapped on the cheek? the entire tolstoyan pacifist perspective on christianity is built entirely on saying "yes" but I'm skeptical

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Romans 12:19: Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

            >1 Peter 3:9: Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.

            >2 Timothy 2:24: And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,

            >Matthew 10:28: And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

            >2 Corinthians 10:3-5: For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

            There's countless more but I think I've made my point.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Romans 12:19: Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

            we arent talking about taking vengeance though

            >: Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.

            once again this seems to me to be more or less about a matter of vengeance and retaliation. can you really say for certain whether or nor defending a bunch of women and children from being mass murdered is "repaying evil for evil"? it seems to me like, say hunting down the guy responsible for the murderas after the fact just for the sake of hurting him would be "repaying evil with evil' for sure, but actually defending victims when the murder is being carried out, can you really say with certainty that that would be "repaying evil with evil"?

            >And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil

            once again, can you say for certain that defending a bunch of women and children from being murdered is what they meant by "being quarrelsome"?

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        It isn't. Countless bloody crusades and centuries of burning israelites and heretics alive is full proof that non violence is not consistent with Christian practices. There is a perverse attack upon God's children taking place in which the Enemy seeks to convince them to embrace their own annihilation without resistance. God loves us more than any others and wants us to live so that we might glorify his creation and to that end violence is righteous if it is required.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *