What IS a Christian?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Amaya**

WarOne wrote:I'll narrow my point a bit as I got up and now am tired as need sleep:

A Christian, despite what Jesus may say, has and will use violence when needed, as Jesus is one aspect of the Christian faith; you must also include in the context historical setting and cultural background along with the faction of Christianity and their views on the Bible. Our hindsight allows us to see Christians being hypocritical or obeying the scriptures regarding the teachings of Jesus. Some Christians had a right to their violence (or face extermination), and others used violence as a means to an end.

I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Amaya wrote:Well, don't you think it's kind mean to send people who won't worship you to Hell?

I guess...

No...everyone is allowed into Heaven.

Oh wait...the OTHER part of the Bible...

Jesus made it VERY clear that those who deny him are going to Hell. The OT was more along of the lines of "You're not a Jew, you're screwed."

**Emperors Faithful**

WarOne wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Amaya wrote:Well, don't you think it's kind mean to send people who won't worship you to Hell?

I guess...

No...everyone is allowed into Heaven.

Oh wait...the OTHER part of the Bible...

Have you seen Ricky Gervais, Old Testament God vs New Testament God?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:The OT was more along of the lines of "You're not a Jew, you're screwed."

Really? Where?

**youbedead**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Amaya wrote:I assume you mean Jesus?

God is an donkey-cave. "You don't worship me! Go to hell!" Not cool...

edit: switched believe to worship

Whaa-?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:
After Constantinople was sacked Italian cities like Venice became the main traders in the Mediterranean and the orient.

You've got the wrong Crusade.

I thought we were talking about the crusades in general, my mistake

**Emperors Faithful**

Amaya wrote:I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

What if your family is at stake? I can't see Jesus telling them to turn the other cheek as some psycho hacks away at your loved ones.

**Amaya**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
WarOne wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Amaya wrote:Well, don't you think it's kind mean to send people who won't worship you to Hell?

I guess...

No...everyone is allowed into Heaven.

Oh wait...the OTHER part of the Bible...

Have you seen Ricky Gervais, Old Testament God vs New Testament God?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:The OT was more along of the lines of "You're not a Jew, you're screwed."

Really? Where?

I do not remember the specifics. I may be wrong in that case. The only thing I can immediately point to is that Jesus's gospel was specifically stated to be for Jews and Gentiles as opposed to the old beliefs that restricted Judaism to the Jews.

Aside from that, enemies of the Jews had a habit of getting curb stomped quite a bit.

**Emperors Faithful**

youbedead wrote:I thought we were talking about the crusades in general, my mistake

I do know the Crusade you are reffering to (the one that resulted in the sacking of Constantinople by the Venetian/Franco crusaders), but that's not really an accurate portrayal of the Crusades in general, which weren't particularily about land or the economy.

**WarOne**

Amaya wrote:I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

Let us put this into a terrible, terrible context that makes us all die a little inside:

If I were a brutal dictator that wanted to kill off an entire segment of my population, and your beliefs meant you would not resort to any defense or retalitory measures, and I had an army eager to kill all of you, what would be the end result?

While Earth may be a transitory realm, there is still the value of life as well as peace. Turning the other cheek has a limit, as why else would people who "live by the sword, die by the sword?" Certainly there are those who do not live by the sword, but must take it up in defense from time to time, and once not needed, be able to turn their swords into plowshares.

**Amaya**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Amaya wrote:I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

What if your family is at stake? I can't see Jesus telling them to turn the other cheek as some psycho hacks away at your loved ones.

Are you allowed to restrain him? Are you allowed to kill him?

And how often did random people go off and start killing people in that era?

**mattyrm**

I think the answer is simply "somebody who says they are" surely?

Fred Phelphs IS a Christian. He says he is, he goes to Church, he prays, so therefore he IS a Christian, but he goes about it in a different way from most other people.

Isnt Religion just a personal choice? If he says he is one, then he is one, he aint very Jesus like, but he is one!

**Emperors Faithful**

Amaya wrote:
I do not remember the specifics. I may be wrong in that case. The only thing I can immediately point to is that Jesus's gospel was specifically stated to be for Jews and Gentiles as opposed to the old beliefs that restricted Judaism to the Jews.

Jesus was addressing a deep distrust of Gentiles, I don't think there was a standing piece of dogma that salvation was for Jews alone (though the idea of salvation would have been very different to what modern christians look at it as). Until the 1500's the idea that Christians could only find salvation through Jesus Christ (and not Good deeds) was not widely accepted.

Aside from that, enemies of the Jews had a habit of getting curb stomped quite a bit.

One of the first recorded instances of genocide, I believe. Certainly the first God approved one.

**Amaya**

WarOne wrote:
Amaya wrote:I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

Let us put this into a terrible, terrible context that makes us all die a little inside:

If I were a brutal dictator that wanted to kill off an entire segment of my population, and your beliefs meant you would not resort to any defense or retalitory measures, and I had an army eager to kill all of you, what would be the end result?

While Earth may be a transitory realm, there is still the value of life as well as peace. Turning the other cheek has a limit, as why else would people who "live by the sword, die by the sword?" Certainly there are those who do not live by the sword, but must take it up in defense from time to time, and once not needed, be able to turn their swords into plowshares.

All that Jesus says concerning self defense is to have a sword (literal translation being dagger I believe). The NT doesn't go into if this is simply a deterrent or if deadly force is acceptable.

I would argue that you the NT supports self defence, but does not condone violence, and certainly doesn't support warfare.

He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing genocide.

**WarOne**

Jesus quotes again:

Luke 22:36

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends

**Amaya**

mattyrm wrote:I think the answer is simply "somebody who says they are" surely?

Fred Phelphs IS a Christian. He says he is, he goes to Church, he prays, so therefore he IS a Christian, but he goes about it in a different way from most other people.

Isnt Religion just a personal choice? If he says he is one, then he is one, he aint very Jesus like, but he is one!

Claiming to be something doesn't make you that. Actions speak louder than words and all that jazz.

**Emperors Faithful**

Amaya wrote:Are you allowed to restrain him? Are you allowed to kill him?

Does the metaphor 'turning the other cheek' stop at responding to aggression? Or does that include a sword to the gut, and dying like a dog?

And how often did random people go off and start killing people in that era?

Well, very often in fact. Romans were a brutal occupying force when they put their mind to it.

**Ahtman**

Amaya wrote:Claiming to be something doesn't make you that.

Exactly, just because you claim to be a Christian, doesn't make you one. That sword cuts both ways.

**Emperors Faithful**

Amaya wrote:
I would argue that you the NT supports self defence, but does not condone violence, and certainly doesn't support warfare.

Self Defence is a form of violence, so to support self defence is to admit that in some instance violence is acceptable. In regards to warfare, WarOne beat me to it.

He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing gencide.

Interesting piece of history here, at one point they very well could have been.

**youbedead**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Amaya wrote:Are you allowed to restrain him? Are you allowed to kill him?

Does the metaphor 'turning the other cheek' stop at responding to aggression? Or does that include a sword to the gut, and dying like a dog?

And how often did random people go off and start killing people in that era?

Well, very often in fact. Romans were a brutal occupying force when they put their mind to it.

Yeah but Christianity came about during the pax romana when rome was fairly peaceful and the majority of its citizens were happy. In fact thats the primary reason Christianity survived

**WarOne**

Amaya wrote:He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing genocide.

Agreed. Jesus had no concurrent historical context with his life for which to fathom how he would formulate a response to genocide.

But I do believe that Christians in general do not condone the extermination of a people, and how could one stand by and watch others be mass murdered as a believer in the teachings of Jesus?

**youbedead**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Amaya wrote:
I would argue that you the NT supports self defence, but does not condone violence, and certainly doesn't support warfare.

Self Defence is a form of violence, so to support self defence is to admit that in some instance violence is acceptable. In regards to warfare, WarOne beat me to it.

He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing gencide.

Interesting piece of history here, at one point they very well could have been.

Well a tad few more times then once i would say

**Amaya**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Amaya wrote:Are you allowed to restrain him? Are you allowed to kill him?

Does the metaphor 'turning the other cheek' stop at responding to aggression? Or does that include a sword to the gut, and dying like a dog?

And how often did random people go off and start killing people in that era?

Well, very often in fact. Romans were a brutal occupying force when they put their mind to it.

I meant like a random murderer, not an organized oppresser.

As I said, the NT isn't very clear on self defense. One of the arguments against self defense is Jesus rebuking Peter for attacking the guard, but had Peter continued that attack he surely would've been slain.

**WarOne**

Emperors Faithful wrote:Does the metaphor 'turning the other cheek' stop at responding to aggression?

Interesting notes regarding turn the other cheek:

http://www.ronrhodes.org/qselfdefense.html

"TURN THE OTHER CHEEK" ALWAYS? It is true that Jesus said to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:38-42. However, many scholars do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe Jesus was teaching to "turn the other cheek" in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (see John 18:22-23).

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.

In terms of following Christ's example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God's will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matthew 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God's timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ's unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection.

**Emperors Faithful**

youbedead wrote:
Yeah but Christianity came about during the pax romana when rome was fairly peaceful and the majority of its citizens were happy. In fact thats the primary reason Christianity survived

Are you talking about the inital decades, the years before or the century following? If it's the former you'd be quite mistaken. In the wake of a Jewish rebellion (to which some scholars point to being the real source of Jesus Christ) the Roman retaliation was appalling. Though admittedly Christians would have been a minority when compared to the Jewish population. They actually had a lot more to fear from them than the Romans.

**Amaya**

WarOne wrote:
Amaya wrote:He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing genocide.

Agreed. Jesus had no concurrent historical context with his life for which to fathom how he would formulate a response to genocide.

But I do believe that Christians in general do not condone the extermination of a people, and how could one stand by and watch others be mass murdered as a believer in the teachings of Jesus?

There's no easy answer to that. Jesus never told anyone that serving in the military was wrong, but it's not much a stretch to go from a self defense force, to some form of international police 'army', to invading non Christian nations over falsified injustices.

**youbedead**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
youbedead wrote:
Yeah but Christianity came about during the pax romana when rome was fairly peaceful and the majority of its citizens were happy. In fact thats the primary reason Christianity survived

Are you talking about the inital decades, the years before or the century following? If it's the former you'd be quite mistaken. In the wake of a Jewish rebellion (to which some scholars point to being the real source of Jesus Christ) the Roman retaliation was appalling. Though admittedly Christians would have been a minority when compared to the Jewish population. They actually had a lot more to fear from them than the Romans.

Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

**Emperors Faithful**

Amaya wrote:I meant like a random murderer, not an organized oppresser.

I honestly don't know. They probably didn't have a great understanding on serial killers or bothered recording them. Maybe Barabus?

**WarOne**

Amaya wrote:
There's no easy answer to that. Jesus never told anyone that serving in the military was wrong, but it's not much a stretch to go from a self defense force, to some form of international police 'army', to invading non Christian nations over falsified injustices.

But that is when you can start saying Christians are deviating from their faith: when defense turns to offense.

**Amaya**

Am I wrong though?

**WarOne**

Amaya wrote:

Am I wrong though?

Responded too fast:

Short answer- yes. It can be considered non-Christian to attack, though that could lead to another deviant topic regarding the Crusades of the Middle Ages.

**Emperors Faithful**

youbedead wrote:
Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

For the most part I'd agree with you.

**WarOne**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
youbedead wrote:
Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

For the most part I'd agree with you.

It was all a carefully laid plan by the Emperor of Mankind in his role as Jesus Christ.