Cubeless Academian

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Jesus, Matt. 10:34).

"And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be" (Jesus, Mark 13:7).

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war." (description of Jesus, Revelation 19:11).

Yahzi

I realize this is off-topic, but I have to point out: those are not the reasons we went to war. They are the reasons Bush used to sell the war, which was a terrible poltical mistake on his part, since they've now come back to haunt him, but the real reason we went to war is quite simple:

"War is the continuation of state policy by other means" - Clausewitz

We have been meddling in the government of Iraq (and the entire region) for forty years now; this war was simply the extension of that policy. Right or wrong it might be; but inevitable it was.

Now you may return to arguing over just how many bombs Jesus would hurl at confused, frightened Iraqi men being misled by their rulers and preists into thinking America meant to do something worse than flooding their country with Coca-cola and MTV. New Testament Jesus would throw none, I think, instead opting for economic sanctions (he doesn't like moneylenders, after all) that ultimately hurt the people more than the rulers; Old Testament Jesus would have broadcast the prison tortures as public entertainment, and killed every first-born male to make sure the enemy couldn't raise another army.

Frankly, I think Jesus would be a poor choice for president.

{Edit for the nitpickers: by OT Jesus, I mean Revelations et. al. and the Jesus quoted by Cubless Academian.}

Newton Joseph

[

Why don't Christians answer these questions? Deep down, they probably fear the truth[/QUOTE]



This is true, because when it comes to religion they can’t speak for themselves (they do not trust their own mind) after years of brainwashing.
Then there is another reason that I talk about in this very apropos essay. I think this is the crux of Christian thinking They have to repeat what their denomination preaches
Don’t yell at me for posting this once again


RELIGION AND LAS VEGAS
New 10.
XX
` Just as Las Vegas has a gambling game to fit the taste of every gambler so too Christianity has a denomination that will fit the taste of every Christian. The pathology of the compulsive gambler is that while gambling they can shut out their contemporary problems and is willing to risk all of their money to do so. Those who remain in the religion of their families are also compulsive in their religion and get their neurotic needs met by familiarity as to not cause cognitive dissonance. When they find their religion no longer satisfies their psychological needs will join a denomination that fits their particular neurosis just as the gamblers will find the game that satisfies their neurosis. There are those who can step back and examine their religion with critical eyes for the first time---even if they do suffer from cognitive dissonance and can stay with it long enough until the new information becomes familiar, they will discover the psychology of change. When religion ceases to comfort one intellectually and psychologically they often become atheists.

:devil1:

Newton Joseph

I have better moral standards than that god!!!!!!
So, open up and answer the questions. Once you do you are well on your way![/QUOTE]


YOU ARE SO RIGHT. I THINK MOST PEOPLE LIVING TODAY HAVE HIGHER MORAL STANDARDS THAN JESUS.
New10.

jbernier

Nope, Jesus (as articulated in the NT texts) would not bomb Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was rooted entirely in nationalistic ideology and demands - keeping our nation safe, keeping our nation strong, etc. Jesus went to the cross rather than engage in violence to oppose the Romans in the cause of Jewish national independence. Paul, later, argues that nothing - no powers, no principalities, nothing - other than Christ should demand our absolute loyalty. It strikes me that that which one is willing to die or kill for is where our absolute loyalties lay. Thus that willingnes to die or kill for the nation stands against a total committment to the cross.

In short, that form of Christianity which mixes American nationalism with Christian devotion is no Christianity at all - at least not as Paul understood Christianity.

jdlongmire

jb, what about "render unto Caesar"?

Evoken

Yes..and when they become atheist they think they don't find comfort in anything. But the amount of pleasure that becomes evident when they attack Christianity(or is it the false sense of "freedom"?) is evidence to the contrary. Maybe atheism too is playing in one of those machines in Las Vegas? The non-gambling gambler shows it's ugly face.

jbernier

Is this advocating war or a recognition that Christ's message will divide people against each other (esp. when we look at what followsin this passage).

Again, does this actually advocate war or is it a suggestion that for the world, humanity and those who follow Jesus must experience war in order for their final destinies to be fulfilled? Is it "Hey, go and fight" or "Look, if what is going to come to pass is going to come to pass there will first be wars."

The militancy of Revelation is admittedly the one thing that challenges a pacifist reading of the NT texts. I have to admit that I have not looked into this very deeply as Revelation lies outside my research areas. I have enough trouble getting my head around the Gospel and letters of John without having to also struggle with Revelation. Only so many hours in a day...

jbernier

First off, he is talking about coins, not war. That is important to note.

Now, what is Jesus saying, though? I do not think he is really talking about money here. He is talking about idolatry. Whose head is on the coins? Caesar's. But where else is Caesar's image used? In the imperial cult, in emperor worship. Remember that Jewish tradition prohibited the graven images of men - for many devout Jews I am certain that the confluence of imperial cult imagery, Roman economic domination and Roman coinage would have made said coins powerful symbols of the idolatrous nature of the Roman empire.

Now, let us look closely at Jesus' statements. Jesus does not say "Give Caesar the percentage of his coinage which he demands and keep the rest for yourself." No! No he says "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." That is right after asking "Whose image is on the coin?" Caesar's head is on the coin - therefore it is Caesar's. Therefore render all of Caesar's coinage on to Caesar because it has nothing to do with that which is God's. For me this is no different than his statements in Matthew about plucking out the eye that offends you - one should have absolutely nothing to do with that which corrupts, such as idolatry.

This is not a statement about the separation of powers between state and church. It is rather a statement that divides the world into two (not necessarily exhaustive) parts - that which is Caesar's and idolatrous and that which is God's. Let the idolaters have their idolaters; you, have nothing to do with it. That is how I would read Jesus here.