Confused

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrooklynBoy200

Guest
I’m a bit confused over how any violence at all can be justifiable in the Christian faith. I mean, I’m aware of the Church’s teachings on the subject (to a certain extent…), but in the Bible, Jesus clearly states that ALL violence, even self-defense, is wrong.
Most people will use the vast amount of violence in the Bible as some sort of defense, but all of this violence as far as I know is located in the OT, before Christ’s coming and therefore His teachings would overrule these examples.
I’m not trying to criticize anybody, I myself am a Conservative Republican that is usually very gun-ho and approves of certain acts of violence such as capital punishment and the Iraq War.
So i’m not just some hippie lol.
The reason I’m having these second thoughts is that I’m taking a world religions course and got a good look at Jesus’ teachings.
Any light that could be shed on the subject would be very helpful for me, thanks.
 
DOShea said:
Where does He make this statement?
Click to expand...
Code: 
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**. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42
“You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
Matthew 5:43-45

The bolded part clearly condemns self-defense…
 
BrooklynBoy200 said:
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. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42

“You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
Matthew 5:43-45

The bolded part clearly condemns self-defense…
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I once heard a priest tie this passage into social justice. Notice, it specifies if someone strikes you on the right cheek. Why does Jesus specify? With most people being right-handed, think of how someone would have to slap you to slap you on the right cheek. You would get the back of their hand. That was how people struck the slaves. To “turn the other cheek” and offer the left cheek instead would necessitate that the person slap you with an open palm, which would denote equality.

He went on to make similar comments on the other parts of the passage. I can’t recall his explanation of the tunics, but for the walking two miles, he said that, in those days, a person would have servants travel half the journey (one mile) so that he could then send them back and not have to care for them. If they came the whole journey (two miles), he would be obligated to care for them.

Now, this could all be a bunch of historical-critical mumbo-jumbo, but it’s something to think about. In any case, it illustrates that this passage does not unequivocally condemn self-defense. If it did, it would be quite curious as to why the Catechism of the Catholic Church says self-defense is okay (see CCC 2263-2267).
 
BrooklynBoy200 said:
I’m a bit confused over how any violence at all can be justifiable in the Christian faith. I mean, I’m aware of the Church’s teachings on the subject (to a certain extent…), but in the Bible, Jesus clearly states that ALL violence, even self-defense, is wrong.
Most people will use the vast amount of violence in the Bible as some sort of defense, but all of this violence as far as I know is located in the OT, before Christ’s coming and therefore His teachings would overrule these examples.
I’m not trying to criticize anybody, I myself am a Conservative Republican that is usually very gun-ho and approves of certain acts of violence such as capital punishment and the Iraq War.
So i’m not just some hippie lol.
The reason I’m having these second thoughts is that I’m taking a world religions course and got a good look at Jesus’ teachings.
Any light that could be shed on the subject would be very helpful for me, thanks.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that you got a good look at Jesus’ teachings in a world religions course. Why not get that from reading the Bible, as opposed to someone telling you what the Bible says? I guess I’m skeptical of a world religions course because the teachers of these are often atheists, which doesn’t make them the best people for explaining a particular religion.

As for violence, Jesus experienced the ultimate violence, not because he forbade self-defense, but because that was God’s plan for salvation. (See John 18:10-11)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus talks about “turning the other cheek.” (Matthew 5:38-42) A surface reading of this might make one think Jesus is suggesting that we not defend ourselves. But read a little deeper and you will see more. “When someone strikes you on your right cheek…” This would mean a person was being back handed (assuming the slapper is right handed). This would have been a way of insulting someone, not attacking them. By turning the other cheek, you would be shaming the one who tried to insult you. Same with the other two examples in that passage. It was about how to treat someone who was insulting you.

Consider also when Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple. That wasn’t done in love, but in righteous anger.

Given those examples, where does the New Testament say that we should not defend ourselves?

The Church teaches that all life is sacred. It is not our place to take a life. But life can be taken for the greater good. For example, if there is a violent criminal who cannot be safely incarcerated (very rare), it is acceptable to take that life to protect the lives of others.
 
Yeah I understand your problems with a world religions course, I had them too, but my professor is actually a Muslim, and he’s surprisingly respectful of religions. When he speaks of Buddhism I think he’s Buddhist, when he speaks of Judaism I think he’s Jewish, and when he speaks of Christianity I think he’s a Christian! It’s only through some small talk he made that I found out he was actually Muslim.

You’re telling me to get this information from the Bible, but I did. The Bible is still the main religious text for Christians, even in a world religions course.

So the Church interprets the turning of the cheek as not letting others look down upon you?
I don’t know. I suppose the specification of the right cheek would make sense if looked at that way, but in the context of the overall sermon, it just seems like non-violence would make more sense. That’s just me I guess though.

And as for the Jesus turning over the tables thing, that wasn’t really violence though.
 
BrooklynBoy200 said:
Yeah I understand your problems with a world religions course, I had them too, but my professor is actually a Muslim, and he’s surprisingly respectful of religions. When he speaks of Buddhism I think he’s Buddhist, when he speaks of Judaism I think he’s Jewish, and when he speaks of Christianity I think he’s a Christian! It’s only through some small talk he made that I found out he was actually Muslim.

You’re telling me to get this information from the Bible, but I did. The Bible is still the main religious text for Christians, even in a world religions course.

So the Church interprets the turning of the cheek as not letting others look down upon you?
I don’t know. I suppose the specification of the right cheek would make sense if looked at that way, but in the context of the overall sermon, it just seems like non-violence would make more sense. That’s just me I guess though.

And as for the Jesus turning over the tables thing, that wasn’t really violence though.
Click to expand...
That’s the great thing about being Catholic. We have history to look to. We don’t just interpret Scripture in a vaccuum based on our own 21st century understanding of an English translation of the Scripture. And, when we look at history, we see that the Church has never mandated pacifism nor has the Church ever condemned self-defense.

See what the Church Fathers have to say about this passage in Scripture:

clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/caj.htm
 
That is often the reason why many Protestant denominations have flat out wrong, and sometimes, incredibly ridiculous interpretations of scripture–they interpret it according to the modern usage of language and sometimes do not get the cultural aspects of what was being talked about when the remarks were originally made.

I cannot say that I have the background to understand the cultural habits of the Levant during the first century, but I can say that if you simply look at the history of the Catholic Church, there are certain policies and beliefs advocated that would, ultimately, fly in the face of a modern interpretation of ancient scripture. And whilst some would attack these beliefs as being “non-scriptural,” why wouldn’t a “non-scriptural” interpretation not be caught in 2000 years of continuous Church history?

A look at Church history will often give you a hint as to the proper interpretation of scripture. 🙂
 
Alright, thanks guys.

Again, I didn’t mean to criticize the Church’s teachings or anything else, I just came across the passage and didn’t understand.

Thanks!
 
BrooklynBoy200 said:
Alright, thanks guys.

Again, I didn’t mean to criticize the Church’s teachings or anything else, I just came across the passage and didn’t understand.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
No problemo. These forums are here for such questions. 🙂 Sorry if I came across as critical of you for even asking the question. :o We shouldn’t be afraid to ask questions.

I think Christians should have an aversion to violence. But that doesn’t mean if a guy comes up and starts pounding on me, I’m just going to lie there like a noodle. Or, even worse, if some guy starts trying to get violent towards my wife and children. :eek: :mad: There would be no pacifism in me at such a moment! 😉
 
BrooklynBoy200 said:
I’m a bit confused over how any violence at all can be justifiable in the Christian faith. I mean, I’m aware of the Church’s teachings on the subject (to a certain extent…), but in the Bible, Jesus clearly states that ALL violence, even self-defense, is wrong.
Most people will use the vast amount of violence in the Bible as some sort of defense, but all of this violence as far as I know is located in the OT, before Christ’s coming and therefore His teachings would overrule these examples.
I’m not trying to criticize anybody, I myself am a Conservative Republican that is usually very gun-ho and approves of certain acts of violence such as capital punishment and the Iraq War.
So i’m not just some hippie lol.
The reason I’m having these second thoughts is that I’m taking a world religions course and got a good look at Jesus’ teachings.
Any light that could be shed on the subject would be very helpful for me, thanks.
Click to expand...
This is from the CCC:
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.
While anger can be righteous, Jesus was definitely prescribing a different approach to sin or offenses against us than the knee jerk eye-for-an-eye reaction the world usually affords. The reason is that the world is, basically, wrong, and behaving the same way-unloving-makes us wrong too and perpetuates sin/lack of love, which is the problem with man to begin with.
 
It’s interesting that Jesus did not turn the other cheek when he was struck. He asked the guard why he struck him. Any thoughts on this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top