7 ms·

A pastor of mine once talked about this in context of Martin Luther and Zwingli ( in context of the Kappel Wars ), and talked about how violence is often the mo

A pastor of mine once talked about this in context of Martin Luther and Zwingli ( in context of the Kappel Wars ), and talked about how violence is often the moral outgrowth of those who have grown so assured of their righteousness (in a Christian context) that they felt they could not sin by committing violence. He pointed to Matthew 5:21-26 and 5:38-47 (The Sermon on the Mount) to bolster his argument against violence by Christians, and I feel that it is generally a correct one. (Further strengthened by Romans 12:9-21) Thus, the case laid out in this article is one that I agree with, generally. It's a case long laid out by a succession of Christian Theologians, albeit using different language.

mgmeyers 11y ago
> violence is often the moral outgrowth of those who have grown so assured of their righteousness I like that. This idea is also present in Buddhism, though they take it a step further and say that all suffering (everything from external violence to internal dissatisfaction with life) is caused by some form of judgment. They say the same thing that you mentioned above: violence is caused by the judgment, "I am right, you are wrong".
- russnewcomer 11y ago
  I'm not sure that I expressed myself the best above based on your response, but partly that's because of the difficulty in discussing topics like this across religious traditions. I would disagree that violence is caused by the judgement, 'you are right, I am wrong'. I think that violence is ultimately caused by sin, vis a vis Augustinian total depravity. But the justification for violence, often among Christians, is self-righteousness (or put another way, pride). But again, this is a difficult issue to discuss between religions because the basic assumptions are different and terminology has slightly different meanings.
  - pekk 11y ago
    Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough, I am skeptical that the correct diagnosis for violence is "sin" when people who identify as Christian do not seem especially less likely to commit violence than people who identify as adhering to some other worldview with moral entailments. Frankly, if you want everyone else to believe that Christians are less violent than people of other religions, you have to bring data rather than just saying that "sin" (non-Christianness) is the cause.
    - Rusky 11y ago
      In this case, "sin" doesn't quite mean "not being Christian enough." Other religions (and ethics in general) often advocate very similar behaviors, so it wouldn't be surprising to see a Christian who is more of a sinner than a non-Christian. The argument is that violence comes when someone has convinced themselves that they are already righteous enough to override the sin inherent in the violence.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I think it's more than that. It's when the logic of their position means that the violence is right. (In doing so, they usually go off the deep end even within the framework of their chosen ethic...)
        mcbutterbunz 11y ago
        Or even that their lack of violence is wrong. Its the old "if youre not for me, then youre against me" view.
    - rosser 11y ago
      This is neither constructive, nor based on anything that your comment's parent's author has said anywhere in this discussion.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      > Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough... "sin" in Christian theology is disobedience (and therefore rebellion) against God. Defining it as "not being Christian enough" is problematic for at least two reasons: 1. If people self-identify as Christian, how do we identify the liars and the self-deluded? 2. If we can't trust people to identify themselves properly, how do we identify each other as Christians? What is the standard? The Bible actually says that we can know Christians by how well they follow the commandments of Christ (a). Among the commandments of Christ is the commandment to be at peace with each other; we are supposed to reconcile with each other even before we perform (therefore insincere) religious rituals (b). ...the Bible doesn't say that "sin" is the cause of violence since violence (and hate generally) is itself sin. Instead, Paul teaches that sin, including murder, is a result of rejecting God for other things (c). So given all that, it's tautological from Biblical principles that violent people are not followers of Christ. In fact, the Bible is full of warnings about people who claim to be Christian and are actually false teachers. It's actually where the "wolf in sheep's clothing" metaphor comes from. (a) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A4-5&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A4-5&... (b) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A21-24&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A21-... (c) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A28-31&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A28-3...

mgmeyers 11y ago

> violence is often the moral outgrowth of those who have grown so assured of their righteousness I like that. This idea is also present in Buddhism, though they take it a step further and say that all suffering (everything from external violence to internal dissatisfaction with life) is caused by some form of judgment. They say the same thing that you mentioned above: violence is caused by the judgment, "I am right, you are wrong".

russnewcomer 11y ago
I'm not sure that I expressed myself the best above based on your response, but partly that's because of the difficulty in discussing topics like this across religious traditions. I would disagree that violence is caused by the judgement, 'you are right, I am wrong'. I think that violence is ultimately caused by sin, vis a vis Augustinian total depravity. But the justification for violence, often among Christians, is self-righteousness (or put another way, pride). But again, this is a difficult issue to discuss between religions because the basic assumptions are different and terminology has slightly different meanings.
- pekk 11y ago
  Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough, I am skeptical that the correct diagnosis for violence is "sin" when people who identify as Christian do not seem especially less likely to commit violence than people who identify as adhering to some other worldview with moral entailments. Frankly, if you want everyone else to believe that Christians are less violent than people of other religions, you have to bring data rather than just saying that "sin" (non-Christianness) is the cause.
  - Rusky 11y ago
    In this case, "sin" doesn't quite mean "not being Christian enough." Other religions (and ethics in general) often advocate very similar behaviors, so it wouldn't be surprising to see a Christian who is more of a sinner than a non-Christian. The argument is that violence comes when someone has convinced themselves that they are already righteous enough to override the sin inherent in the violence.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      I think it's more than that. It's when the logic of their position means that the violence is right. (In doing so, they usually go off the deep end even within the framework of their chosen ethic...)
      - mcbutterbunz 11y ago
        Or even that their lack of violence is wrong. Its the old "if youre not for me, then youre against me" view.
  - rosser 11y ago
    This is neither constructive, nor based on anything that your comment's parent's author has said anywhere in this discussion.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    > Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough... "sin" in Christian theology is disobedience (and therefore rebellion) against God. Defining it as "not being Christian enough" is problematic for at least two reasons: 1. If people self-identify as Christian, how do we identify the liars and the self-deluded? 2. If we can't trust people to identify themselves properly, how do we identify each other as Christians? What is the standard? The Bible actually says that we can know Christians by how well they follow the commandments of Christ (a). Among the commandments of Christ is the commandment to be at peace with each other; we are supposed to reconcile with each other even before we perform (therefore insincere) religious rituals (b). ...the Bible doesn't say that "sin" is the cause of violence since violence (and hate generally) is itself sin. Instead, Paul teaches that sin, including murder, is a result of rejecting God for other things (c). So given all that, it's tautological from Biblical principles that violent people are not followers of Christ. In fact, the Bible is full of warnings about people who claim to be Christian and are actually false teachers. It's actually where the "wolf in sheep's clothing" metaphor comes from. (a) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A4-5&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A4-5&... (b) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A21-24&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A21-... (c) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A28-31&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A28-3...