The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

[Joyousperson]

As a person, are the acts of Jesus violent (e.g Luke 19:27, Revelation, etc.), according to human definition?

Btw 19:27 is not a serious issue, it was a parable,
Note this from the video I linked earlier;

At 4:03

Regardless, the Christian is obligated under the covenanted terms to comply with the overriding pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies.
Therefore ALL Christians must love their enemies, not kill them as per the divine contract they had entered into with the Christian God.

God dictated Christians are not allowed to kill but to love. As fallible and weak, some Christians as humans would have killed others for various reasons. Then it is up to God to judge them on Judgment Day to either forgive or punish them in whatever appropriate ways to the crimes committed.

 

[ananda]

Btw 19:27 is not a serious issue, it was a parable,
Note this from the video I linked earlier;

At 4:03

Yes, I watched it. Is there another principle the parable illustrates besides pointing to the idea that Jesus will do such things?

Regardless, the Christian is obligated under the covenanted terms to comply with the overriding pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies.
Therefore ALL Christians must love their enemies, not kill them as per the divine contract they had entered into with the Christian God.

God dictated Christians are not allowed to kill but to love. As fallible and weak, some Christians as humans would have killed others for various reasons. Then it is up to God to judge them on Judgment Day to either forgive or punish them in whatever appropriate ways to the crimes committed.

"Do as I say, not as I do"?

 

[Joyousperson]

Yes, I watched it. Is there another principle the parable illustrates besides pointing to the idea that Jesus will do such things?

"Do as I say, not as I do"?

Well, Jesus said the doctrinal overall pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies, love one's neighbor, give the other cheek and the likes.
The above doctrinal principle and maxim will override whatever grey verses [rare] therein the Gospel, NT or OT. Note you are bringing in one, two or three grey verses which are not significant in the whole context and ethos of Christianity.

It is the same with the overall pacifist maxim of Buddhism, thus if there are any grey verses [rarely] in any of the Buddhist sutras, the pacifist maxim will prevails over any ambiguity with the few verses.

 

[ananda]

Well, Jesus said the doctrinal overall pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies, love one's neighbor, give the other cheek and the likes.
The above doctrinal principle and maxim will override whatever grey verses [rare] therein the Gospel, NT or OT. Note you are bringing in one, two or three grey verses which are not significant in the whole context and ethos of Christianity.

Does Jesus/God consistently love all, even enemies, neighbors, and offers the other cheek?

 

[Joyousperson]

Does Jesus/God consistently love all, even enemies, neighbors, and offers the other cheek?

I was referring to an absolute overriding pacifist maxim of "love all, even enemies" established by God and imposed on and accepted by the believers within the agreed covenant and covenanted terms.

(In this case no one will be able to blame Christianity for any act of evil and violence committed by believers - don't think this was God's intention, but it works to that point I raised)​

It is an ideal and a standard for all believers to strive towards.

But God being all-knowing is aware humans are fallible and weak and thus will not be able to maintain and most believers will not even touch the standard. Thus there are provisions where God will forgive if any sins if the above are committed due to various justifiable reasons.

God imposed the above maxim and standard on believers not on itself.
According to Christianity's theology, God is all powerful, all-merciful, all-wise and the likes, thus whatever actions that are acted by God are deemed to be optimal to the circumstances, i.e. God knows what is best and believers cannot question the all-powerful.

Thus if anyone [human] were to interpret any elements in the Gospels [not OT] as not consistent with the overriding maxim, it will not be true because they are fallible and weak humans who cannot understand God actions fully.

Thus regardless of what God did and will do, the believers must comply with the overriding maxim of 'love all, even enemies' and God to judge subsequently on the believer's actions.

 

[ananda]

... whatever actions that are acted by God are deemed to be optimal to the circumstances, i.e. God knows what is best and believers cannot question the all-powerful...

How do you reconcile that with "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." 1John 2:6 ?

 

[Joyousperson]

How do you reconcile that with "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." 1John 2:6 ?

Whatever is grey if in 1John 2:6, it is never intended to mean for a Christian to commit evil and violent acts, thus it must be overridden by existing pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies.

From an optimal perspective and wisdom a Christian cannot interpret the above blindly but must ensure the overriding pacifist maxim is sustained at all times, until there is no really choice then one will have to hope God to forgive the Christian for that non-compliance.

 

[ananda]

Whatever is grey if in 1John 2:6, it is never intended to mean for a Christian to commit evil and violent acts, thus it must be overridden by existing pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies.

From an optimal perspective and wisdom a Christian cannot interpret the above blindly but must ensure the overriding pacifist maxim is sustained at all times, until there is no really choice then one will have to hope God to forgive the Christian for that non-compliance.

Was 1John 2:16 possibly corrupted, and should it then be corrected? Should the verse be revised to more accurately say "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk - that is - as he walked in love and pacifism, but not as he walked in anger, judgment, violence, and destruction"? Why are there "grey" verses in the Bible? What prevents your deity from speaking clearly?

 

[Joyousperson]

Was 1John 2:16 possibly corrupted, and should it then be corrected? Should the verse be revised to more accurately say "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk - that is - as he walked in love and pacifism, but not as he walked in anger, judgment, violence, and destruction"? Why are there "grey" verses in the Bible? What prevents your deity from speaking clearly?

Btw, I am not a Christian [see my profile on the left], so it is not 'my' deity. I am more inclined towards the total Philosophy of Buddhism - all schools [not the religion].

There are loads of questions directed on God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omni-whatever but yet there are certain doubtful and 'grey' points in the holy texts that conflict with the above omnipotence and other omnis.

But the critical point for Christianity itself and Christians is they have a watertight defense* [re this OP] against any accusations of their Christianity as being evil or violent, despite the 'grey' areas. * i.e. the overall pacifist maxim of "love all-even enemies."

It is the same for Buddhism which has the 5 Precepts, the Boddhisattva's Vow and in general with the overall pacifist maxim of 'no harm' [deliberate and intentional] to all living beings critically humans.

There are also 'grey' areas in Buddhism and other pacifist religions, but fortunately Buddhism have an overall pacifist maxim to save them from being accused of evil and violent by the acts of SOME believers who committed evil acts from their own free will and human nature.

What is critical from the above is to reveal how Islam is the ONLY exception from the mainstream religion, where Islam do not have an overall pacifist maxim to a 100% prohibition on Muslims to commit evil and violent acts. Islam itself via the words of God in the Quran do condone and permit Muslims to kill under certain conditions of threat which are very vague or "grey".

 

[jayem]

A Christian is one who had entered into a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms that has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love all, even one's enemies, neighbor, give the other cheeks etc. Thus even if a Christian has hatred for his enemies and others s/he by doctrinal principles and obligated by the covenanted terms, cannot kill, harm or commit evil acts against any one.

OK, an authentic Christian in bound by a covenant not to harm, kill or commit acts of violence. But should a covenanted Christian tolerate such acts by others? Consider the dark days of the old south. When black men were lynched just on suspicion of acting in ways some rabid white racists thought were offensive. Victims were often mutilated and burned. And sometimes in public with 100s of spectators looking on. Sure, it's easy to say that such atrocities are totally un-Christian acts. But they weren't done in a vacuum. Many people who would never participate in such crimes knew they were taking place and who the perpetrators were. Do these folks not have an obligation to speak up? Even at risk to themselves? You've heard the Latin legal phrase, qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent would seem to agree. Usually stated as silence implies consent. A true Christian may not commits acts of injustice and brutality. But can he ignore them and still be considered a covenanted Christian?

 

[Joyousperson]

OK, an authentic Christian in bound by a covenant not to harm, kill or commit acts of violence.
But should a covenanted Christian tolerate such acts by others?

Consider the dark days of the old south. When black men were lynched just on suspicion of acting in ways some rabid white racists thought were offensive. Victims were often mutilated and burned. And sometimes in public with 100s of spectators looking on. Sure, it's easy to say that such atrocities are totally un-Christian acts. But they weren't done in a vacuum. Many people who would never participate in such crimes knew they were taking place and who the perpetrators were. Do these folks not have an obligation to speak up? Even at risk to themselves? You've heard the Latin legal phrase, qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent would seem to agree. A true Christian may not commits acts of injustice and brutality. But can he ignore them and still be considered a covenanted Christian?

A Christian is one who had entered into a relationship with God via a covenant through Jesus Christ, to comply with the stipulated covenanted term with the Gospels [supported by the epistles, acts and relevant verse from the OT].

So in principle, as long as a Christian comply with the covenanted terms to the best of his human abilities, s/he by definition remains a covenanted Christian.

Therein the covenanted terms is the overriding pacifist maxim of love all-even enemies.
This mean a covenanted Christian should NEVER participate in the above evil and violent acts.

I don't interpret it is obligatory, due to the possibility of many reasons, that a covenanted Christian must act to prevent the above from happening. However the covenanted Christian need to do whatever is possible within his/her means in a given circumstances.

Along with history covenanted Christians and other good human beings has contributed to minimize the above, achieved the progress attained in the present and will continue to improve in the future.

Ultimately it is up to God to judge on Judgment Day a covenanted Christian on his compliance to the covenanted terms to reward, forgive or punish accordingly.

 

[ananda]

Btw, I am not a Christian [see my profile on the left], so it is not 'my' deity. I am more inclined towards the total Philosophy of Buddhism - all schools [not the religion].

There are loads of questions directed on God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omni-whatever but yet there are certain doubtful and 'grey' points in the holy texts that conflict with the above omnipotence and other omnis.

But the critical point for Christianity itself and Christians is they have a watertight defense* [re this OP] against any accusations of their Christianity as being evil or violent, despite the 'grey' areas. * i.e. the overall pacifist maxim of "love all-even enemies."

IMO it's not so watertight, given the so-called "grey" areas.

 

[Joyousperson]

IMO it's not so watertight, given the so-called "grey" areas.

It is watertight because of the OVERRIDING pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies'. Note "overriding" mean the ultimate limit.

If anyone were to accuse Christianity as evil & violent in nature because SOME 'Christians' committed evil and violent acts as in the crusades, inquisition, pedophile priests, etc. then,
Christianity can give a watertight defense that itself do not condone evil and violence in any way because ALL Christians are suppose to love all and even their enemies.

These Christians committed the evil and violent acts on their own free will and human nature for various reasons [greater good, just war, real evil intent, etc.].
As such, Christianity [the religion] has nothing to do with their evil acts because Christianity itself is covered by that overriding pacifist maxim.

 

[ananda]

It is watertight because of the OVERRIDING pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies'. Note "overriding" mean the ultimate limit.

If anyone were to accuse Christianity as evil & violent in nature because SOME 'Christians' committed evil and violent acts as in the crusades, inquisition, pedophile priests, etc. then,
Christianity can give a watertight defense that itself do not condone evil and violence in any way because ALL Christians are suppose to love all and even their enemies.

These Christians committed the evil and violent acts on their own free will and human nature for various reasons [greater good, just war, real evil intent, etc.].
As such, Christianity [the religion] has nothing to do with their evil acts because Christianity itself is covered by that overriding pacifist maxim.

I don't see the idea "love all, even enemies" as overriding all other maxims in Christianity, based on their prime exemplar - Jesus.

 

[Joyousperson]

I don't see the idea "love all, even enemies" as overriding all other maxims in Christianity, based on their prime exemplar - Jesus.

Did Jesus ever harmed or killed his enemies?

Would you accuse Jesus of condoning and recommending Christians to commit acts like the crusades, inquisitions, Salem Witchhunt, pedophile priests and whatever evil and violent acts committed by 'Christians' since 2000+ years ago?

The point is God imposed the overriding pacifist maxim on all Christians to comply with as an ideal, in a way to protect Christianity from being accused as evil and violent, knowing that humans are sinful.

Whatever God or Jesus did is above the pacifist maxim because God is all-wise and whatever actions from God and Jesus are ultimately optimal and wise to the circumstances. Christians as weak and fallible human beings cannot judge God's and Jesus' action.

Non-Christians can make their own critique of the theology of Christianity, but that is beside the point.

The final point is a Christian will always have a watertight case against any negative accusations of Christianity due the way the theology and doctrine is constructed with a defined overriding maxim of "love all - even enemies" plus other similar ideas.

 

[ananda]

Did Jesus ever harmed or killed his enemies?

• "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" Mt 7:18
• "Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" Mt 19:28
• "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" Mt 10:34-36
• "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire" Mt 13:41,42
• "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire" Mt 25:41
• "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" Lk 19:27
• "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengance" 2Thes 1:7-8
• "Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" Rev 2:16
• "I will kill her children with death" Rev 2:23
• "out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations" Rev 19:15
• Etc.

Would you accuse Jesus of condoning and recommending Christians to commit acts like the crusades, inquisitions, Salem Witchhunt ... and whatever evil and violent acts committed by 'Christians' since 2000+ years ago?

I would hazard to say that many of them probably sincerely believed that they were following Jesus' example (re: above verses), and the commandment "he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked" 1Jn 2:6

The point is God imposed the overriding pacifist maxim on all Christians to comply with as an ideal, in a way to protect Christianity from being accused as evil and violent, knowing that humans are sinful.

Whatever God or Jesus did is above the pacifist maxim because God is all-wise and whatever actions from God and Jesus are ultimately optimal and wise to the circumstances. Christians as weak and fallible human beings cannot judge God's and Jesus' action.

Non-Christians can make their own critique of the theology of Christianity, but that is beside the point.

The final point is a Christian will always have a watertight case against any negative accusations of Christianity due the way the theology and doctrine is constructed with a defined overriding maxim of "love all - even enemies" plus other similar ideas.

I see no such overriding maxim. Given the "grey" verses (such as the ones I quoted above), it is certainly not a watertight defense.

 

[Joyousperson]

• "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" Mt 7:18
• "Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" Mt 19:28
• "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" Mt 10:34-36
• "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire" Mt 13:41,42
• "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire" Mt 25:41
• "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" Lk 19:27
• "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengance" 2Thes 1:7-8
• "Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" Rev 2:16
• "I will kill her children with death" Rev 2:23
• "out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations" Rev 19:15
• Etc.

I would hazard to say that many of them probably sincerely believed that they were following Jesus' example (re: above verses), and the commandment "he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked" 1Jn 2:6

I see no such overriding maxim. Given the "grey" verses (such as the ones I quoted above), it is certainly not a watertight defense.

Like Luke 19:27 I noted the Christian scholars has been able to defend the above verses.
I am really interested in getting into the details but I would recommend you research into each of the above 'grey' verses you listed into the counter defenses provided by the Christians scholars.

The point with the overriding pacifist maxim of "love all - even enemies' is this maxim override whatever greyness that are from the verses you listed.

This is what will likely happen on Judgment Day for those who interpreted the verses to kill non-Christians and others;

God to Sinner who had killed non-Christians:
Why do you kill humans when my command is to love all, enemies?
​

Do you expect God to praise the sinner for killing humans and enemies? No.
As such, with this overall pacifist maxim, the case against Christianity the religion itself is watertight.

What is not watertight is there will be SOME Christians as human beings who weak in control of their impulse will kill upon their own interpretations or for other reasons. God has already expected this when God gave humans free will.

In this case, the sinner will have to justify on Judgment Day as a defense why s/he had killed another human and it would be up to the all-wise God to judge whether to forgive or punish the sinner.

 

[ananda]

Like Luke 19:27 I noted the Christian scholars has been able to defend the above verses.
I am really interested in getting into the details but I would recommend you research into each of the above 'grey' verses you listed into the counter defenses provided by the Christians scholars.

The point with the overriding pacifist maxim of "love all - even enemies' is this maxim override whatever greyness that are from the verses you listed.

This is what will likely happen on Judgment Day for those who interpreted the verses to kill non-Christians and others;

God to Sinner who had killed non-Christians:
Why do you kill humans when my command is to love all, enemies?
​

Do you expect God to praise the sinner for killing humans and enemies? No.
As such, with this overall pacifist maxim, the case against Christianity the religion itself is watertight.

What is not watertight is there will be SOME Christians as human beings who weak in control of their impulse will kill upon their own interpretations or for other reasons. God has already expected this when God gave humans free will.

In this case, the sinner will have to justify on Judgment Day as a defense why s/he had killed another human and it would be up to the all-wise God to judge whether to forgive or punish the sinner.

Do you believe that the Christian deity loves all his enemies?

 

[Joyousperson]

Do you believe that the Christian deity loves all his enemies?

In this case, I am not God nor omniscient, thus not qualified to read God's mind.

But what is objective and knowable is the Christian God [all knowing and all-smart] had included an overriding pacifist maxim as a covenanted term to be imposed on all Christians so as to ensure Christianity and the Christian-God is not to be blamed for the acts of Christians who are weak humans.

This is the same as the 5 Precepts [Boddhisattva's vows] in Buddhism which are basic conditions of being a Buddhist, thus protecting Buddhism-the-religion itself from being blamed for the acts of some Buddhists who acted on their own free will, e.g. like Buddhists who killed in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

In contrast, note Islam is one religion that do not have an overriding pacifist maxim to prevent Muslims from killing non-Muslims. Instead Islam exhorts and condones Muslims to kill non-Muslims under very vague definitions of threats [fasidan], e.g. even drawing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad will get non-Muslims killed.

 

[ananda]

In this case, I am not God nor omniscient, thus not qualified to read God's mind.

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1Cor 2:16

But what is objective and knowable is the Christian God [all knowing and all-smart] had included an overriding pacifist maxim as a covenanted term to be imposed on all Christians so as to ensure Christianity and the Christian-God is not to be blamed for the acts of Christians who are weak humans.

This is the same as the 5 Precepts [Boddhisattva's vows] in Buddhism which are basic conditions of being a Buddhist, thus protecting Buddhism-the-religion itself from being blamed for the acts of some Buddhists who acted on their own free will, e.g. like Buddhists who killed in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

In contrast, note Islam is one religion that do not have an overriding pacifist maxim to prevent Muslims from killing non-Muslims. Instead Islam exhorts and condones Muslims to kill non-Muslims under very vague definitions of threats [fasidan], e.g. even drawing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad will get non-Muslims killed.

I suppose Christianity of old was similar (e.g. Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.).