Christians: can you talk about which one of you has the theology right?

[Politesse]

Alright, so you are making a distinction between only religious doctrine as a rationale vs. other rationales. That's fair enough. I do not think that your position has much biblical support going for it, though. This is not a problem for your position.

That aside, when it comes to imposing doctrines on others, the rationale often is not only religious doctrine.

Take, for example, the claim that homosexual behavior is always immoral. People may believe that because of their religion (say, Catholicism), but they also may have an alternative rationale (say, Thomism, the Perverted Faculty Argument, etc.). Now, they may not, on that basis, believe homosexual behavior should be banned, but they believe that same-sex marriage is (literally) impossible (even if the law says otherwise, those would not be marriages), and thus nothing called "marriage" (or "matrimonio", etc., depending on the language) should be allowed, as it would sow confusion, etc. So, their rationale is not only religious.

Similarly, on the basis of Thomism, they may well believe that abortion is always murder, because of their beliefs about substances and the like. And even if they go with religious doctrine, the doctrine itself may be based on a philosophy. After all, the Bible does not say much about abortion. But Catholicism has 3 sources of dogma, not just scripture, but also Catholic tradition and the magisterium of the church. The latter are in turn influenced by some philosophies, most notably Thomism. As a result, Catholics who believe that abortion is murder might believe so on the basis of either religion + philosophy, or religion alone but the latter influenced by philosophy, etc.


Sure, I agree. That does not seem biblical, but much better than biblical.

For Jesus, Paul, etc, this was not an option nor something that would even have crossed their minds as a possibility, as they did not live in a democratic system. Short of converting the Roman emperor or rebelling and converting some local warlord, such action would have been impossible. But Jesus does oppose legalism on general principle, especially legalism which becomes a burden and a barrier between a person and God.

Converting powerful Romans (eventually, the emperor himself) seems to have worked fine for some Christians, though that took some time.

However, for Jesus, that would have been impossible given no superhuman powers. However, had the actions attributed to him in the Gospel been real (as nearly all Christians believe), then surely that would have indeed been an available option. In other words, there was a very high chance that he might convert very powerful Romans - including the emperor -, had he made before them displays of power similar to those described in many parts of the Gospel. Granted, someone might claim that he is God so he knew they would not convert. But for a person not making that assumption, it seems very probable that some of them would have converted had they seen those displays.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you are advocating for, here, or why.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you are advocating for, here, or why.

I was addressing your reply. I was advocating for, well, what I said.

But for example, in re., laws people try to pass, the point is that the rationale that it is wrong because it is based only on a religious doctrine does not apply to many common instances, in which what they are doing is still wrong.

As for Jesus, well, I'm saying that your point that "For Jesus, Paul, etc, this was not an option nor something that would even have crossed their minds as a possibility, as they did not live in a democratic system. Short of converting the Roman emperor or rebelling and converting some local warlord, such action would have been impossible." seems reasonable of course as long as Jesus did not make the displays of superhuman power the Gospels attribute to him. To me, of course, it is obvious that he did not. But do you agree?

I seem to recall (I might be mistaken) that you do not take a stance on whether Jesus made those displays. But if so, why do you think something like convincing others "that they ought to agree with this position in terms they would all recognize and accept." did not cross his mind? Sure, if he used his powers like that, he had a good shot - and moreover, he had proven willing to, in several instances, make a display of power in order to persuade people.

 

[Politesse]

Even if he did, I don't recall Jesus using miracles to affect political gains.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Even if he did, I don't recall Jesus using miracles to affect political gains.

The expression "political gains" is negatively loaded. How about: "persuading people to behave in a more just manner"? Now, I do not believe he did that (I think he had no superhuman powers, but in any case, the doctrines he promoted were generally false), but the point I was getting at is that you said that even though governments should serve all citizens, that does not mean one should not try to persuade people. However, you said that that would not have ever crossed the minds of Jesus, Paul, etc., when it comes to changing Roman law for the better.

What I'm saying is: assuming (for the sake of the argument) that Jesus used displays of superhuman powers as a means of persuading other people that his religion (which includes his moral teachings) was correct, then there seems to be no good reason to think it would not have crossed his mind to persuade others, including those who had a say in Roman law.

In fact, Paul was a relatively powerful Roman converted in that manner, according to the NT. For example:

1 But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 As he traveled, he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him. 4 He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 He said, “Who are you, Lord?”
The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.* 6 But† rise up and enter into the city, then you will be told what you must do.”
7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the sound, but seeing no one. 8 Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no one. They led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 He was without sight for three days, and neither ate nor drank.

If he was willing to do that, why do you think it did not cross his mind to persuade other, even more powerful Romans?

And if it did not, why not? After all, there were massive injustices that could have been prevented.

 

[Politesse]

Even if he did, I don't recall Jesus using miracles to affect political gains.

The expression "political gains" is negatively loaded. How about: "persuading people to behave in a more just manner"? Now, I do not believe he did that (I think he had no superhuman powers, but in any case, the doctrines he promoted were generally false), but the point I was getting at is that you said that even though governments should serve all citizens, that does not mean one should not try to persuade people. However, you said that that would not have ever crossed the minds of Jesus, Paul, etc., when it comes to changing Roman law for the better.

What I'm saying is: assuming (for the sake of the argument) that Jesus used displays of superhuman powers as a means of persuading other people that his religion (which includes his moral teachings) was correct, then there seems to be no good reason to think it would not have crossed his mind to persuade others, including those who had a say in Roman law.

In fact, Paul was a relatively powerful Roman converted in that manner, according to the NT. For example:

1 But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 As he traveled, he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him. 4 He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 He said, “Who are you, Lord?”
The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.* 6 But† rise up and enter into the city, then you will be told what you must do.”
7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the sound, but seeing no one. 8 Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no one. They led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 He was without sight for three days, and neither ate nor drank.

If he was willing to do that, why do you think it did not cross his mind to persuade other, even more powerful Romans?

And if it did not, why not? After all, there were massive injustices that could have been prevented.

Christianity was never a political movement in the early days; that didn't happen until much later. And you would have a hard time convincing me that the outcome would have been good had it seized the reins of power in 30 CE instead of 325 CE, considering the events that followed when it actually did. Christian philosophy and the logic of empire do not mix well; it was not the intended purpose of Jesus' ministry, and when the state got hold of the idea, it predictably perverted it to its own ends. I don't agree with you that the nation-state is capable of preventing "massive injustice" through the imposition of law, nor that Christian teachings would have this affect. Considering that one of its principal teachings is not to seek earthly power at all. There is not non-hypocritical way to turn this into the legal core of an oppressive empire.

 

[steve_bank]

Well you got your Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, independents, Coptics, Greek Orthodoxy, Lutheran, Calvinists, Episcopalians and more.

Like the end in the old TV show I've Got A secret after 3 people are questioned for 30 minutes the question is asked 'Will The Real So And So Please Stand Up'.

Here on the forum we have gone through extensive Q&A with Christians trying to figure out who or what the real Christian is.'

So...Will the real Christian please stand up?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Christianity was never a political movement in the early days; that didn't happen until much later. And you would have a hard time convincing me that the outcome would have been good had it seized the reins of power in 30 CE instead of 325 CE, considering the events that followed when it actually did.

Of course, I do not think it would have been good. But if Jesus's had been good at making moral assessments (he seemed pretty poor to me, but surely he believed he was good), and he cared about justice at all, that would have given him a pretty good reason to persuade powerful Romans to modify a good number of laws, and make them more just.

Christian philosophy and the logic of empire do not mix well; it was not the intended purpose of Jesus' ministry, and when the state got hold of the idea, it predictably perverted it to its own ends.

Well, I think much of the problem was Christian doctrine itself, but there was some of that too.
However, your assessment in any case would not be correct under the assumption of superhuman powers. With such powers, Jesus would probably had been in a position to convert powerful Romans in addition to Saul (including the emperor), and then persuade them to pass laws that he considered far more just than the present ones.

I don't agree with you that the nation-state is capable of preventing "massive injustice" through the imposition of law, nor that Christian teachings would have this affect.

Of course, it can prevent massive injustice, by repealing laws that inflict massive injustice. I do agree that Christian teachings would not have that effect, since I find Christian teachings to be overall pretty unjust, and no better than those prevalent in the Roman empire. However, Jesus did not believe that, and the question is not about what I would have done if I had been there and had had superhuman powers, but what Jesus would have done, or at least what would have crossed his mind. I definitely would not have attempted to persuade people that Christianity was true! Moreover, I definitely would not have attempted to persuade people of moral claims by means of displays of power. But Jesus seemed to believe that that was acceptable behavior, or else knowingly behaved immorally in several instances.

Considering that one of its principal teachings is not to seek earthly power at all.

If Jesus actually believed that attempting to persuade the emperor or other powerful Romans to pass better, more just laws was immoral behavior, then that would support your claim that it would not have crossed his mind to improve Roman laws by persuasion. However, if Jesus actually believed that, he was very mistaken.

There is not non-hypocritical way to turn this into the legal core of an oppressive empire.

But I'm talking about convincing the emperor and other powerful Romans to pass better laws, making the empire much less oppressive.

 

[Learner]

In the past, in many American states, slavery was legal. Making it illegal was offensive to the way of life of a large group of people, who were in utter opposition. However, it is not the case that Christians who worked to change those laws behaved immorally because of it. So, the claim above is false.

That is only an example. There are plenty of cases of not just unjust, but extremely unjust laws that have the support of large groups of people who would be in utter opposition if changed, finding the proposed laws quite offensive to their way of life.

Not disagreeing with the underlined above but that generation (although not quite the way Jesus would go for, i.e. allowing slavery in the first place) , was more Christian dominant as compared to today. Individuals from Christian backgrounds challenging law ethics with other individuals from Christian backgrounds.

I do not know what you mean by "mixed societies", but actually, many societies ban homosexual behavior - or, for that matter, they ban conversions from Islam to Christianity, or deconversions from Islam to atheism.
The point is that sometimes, making trouble is a reasonable course of action. It depends on the case how much trouble.

It does work absolutely, no dispute in that ... as evident in those extreme cases that leads by "violent" revolts against Kings and Governments throughout history.

It does differ or should differ from the Christianity viewpoint imo, these divides obviously brings up "hate" and "violence" and plenty of (innocent) victims .

No disputing you there but thats not the same when you're among the same people of the same faith.

But they were not people of the same faith. They surely disagreed with Jesus about what was acceptable. He used violence to impose his view.

Yes , not people of the same faith , in the sense that they corrupted the faith into something else.

This violence does sound quite life threatening.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not disagreeing with the underline above but that generation (although not quite the way Jesus would go for, i.e. allowing slavery in the first place) , but was more Christian dominant as compared to today. Individuals from Christian backgrounds challenging law ethics with other individuals from Christian backgrounds.

But that the background is Christian does not mean that it's the same version of Christianity. Those can very different religions under a single name.

In any event, that is not the issue. It would not be generally immoral for people (even with Christian backgrounds) to try to persuade people with non-Christian backgrounds to change pro-slavery laws, or other very unjust laws. For example, consider the example of Poland, in which many people (including Christians) lived under a communist dictatorship, and tried to persuade people (even non-Christian communists) that the oppresive communist laws were wrong. So, it is not immoral to try to pass laws that many people reject.

Additionally, people who fought slavery (even in predominantly Christian countries) were also making trouble. So, it seems that the claim that "It goes against Jesus to be unwise ,a trouble maker or a (civil)warmonger." is either false, or else fighting slavery (even in predominanly Christian countries) is against Jesus.

Yes , not people of the same faith in the sense that they corrupted the faith into something else.

Well, that is what Jesus believed. But he was willing to do violence against those he thought had corrupted the faith. For that matter, many Christians today think that other Christians have corrupted the faith.
At any rate, my point was about Jesus being willing to make trouble.

This violence you speak of sounds life threatening.

Why? It wasn't life-threatening according to biblical description. But it surely was an instance of trouble making. Remember, I brought this up in reply to your statement that "In short (lack of articulation) It goes against Jesus to be unwise ,a trouble maker or a (civil)warmonger."

 

[Learner]

Considering that one of its principal teachings is not to seek earthly power at all.

If Jesus actually believed that attempting to persuade the emperor or other powerful Romans to pass better, more just laws was immoral behavior, then that would support your claim that it would not have crossed his mind to improve Roman laws by persuasion. However, if Jesus actually believed that, he was very mistaken.

There is not non-hypocritical way to turn this into the legal core of an oppressive empire.

But I'm talking about convincing the emperor and other powerful Romans to pass better laws, making the empire much less oppressive.

Sorry for intruding here, but I had to take the liberty to answer this. I needed to make this reply as it does follow up from the previous discussion.

If Jesus did convince the powerful (while people were not yet convinced) : This would be nothing short of a dictatorship, going back to the part in the discussion i.e. "imposing" upon other people. These leaders would have protests and revolts because these new laws were against their traditions .. the not-yet-convinced feel therefore, subjected under a : totalitarianship!

Like the underlined in Pols quote. Its not the way of Jesus , which seems more likely to me logically to the faith.

However from the "bottom up" so to speak e.g. preaching and converting the "many". You'd get from the mass of converted: new leaders with the similar mindset , experience who could change the laws resulting a much less if not obsolete oppresson. It's sort of what happened with the Romans anyway.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If Jesus convinced the powerful (while people were not yet convinced) : This would be nothing short of being a dictatorship, going back to the part in the discussion i.e. "imposing" upon other people. These leaders would have protests and revolt whereas people would otherwise be subjected under what the would be to the not-yet-convinced , A totalitarianship. Like the underlined in Pols quote. Its not the way of Jesus it seems to me.

It already was a dictatorship, or totalitarianship if you like. However, it would have been possible to persuade those in power to be less oppressive, to make laws more just, and keep making things better.

As for whether the leaders would have protests and revolts, I do not see why being less oppressive would lead to that. They already faced protests and revolts because of some of their acts of oppression, but they crushed the protests and revolts by force. Had they been less oppressive, they would have avoided some of those protests are revolts.

But let me try another way: Do you think that the laws of the Roman empire were optimal, and any change to those laws in an attempt to make them more just would have result in something worse (due to protests and revolts)?
Surely not. Roman laws were definitely improvable, justice-wise. Purely for example, what if, instead of only convincing Saul to stop going after Christians, Jesus had convinced the Emperor to stop going after Christians? Surely, if the Roman empire was persecuting Christians, it would have been much better to get it to stop, rather than just getting one Roman to stop. But there are plenty of other examples.

Of course, it is also possible to persuade people with power and people without.

However from the "bottom up" so to speak e.g. preaching and converting the "many". You'd get from the converted many: new leaders with the similar mindset , experience who could change the laws resulting a much less if not obsolete oppresson. It happened with the Romans anyway.

You would have to take that up with Politesse, who thinks it was really bad when the Roman empire (more or less) officially adopted Christianity. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that it would have been possible to change laws for the better, even in the times of Jesus.

 

[Learner]

The main representation of Christianity from the earliest time (formerly when they called themselves Saints), shifted to becoming worse through several centuries e.g. The earliest Christians were conscientous objectors! The early churches preached against taking up arms or going to wars , and even the Romans who converted, refused to fight anymore and were severly punished some by death. This was during the earlier stages where Rome eventually became Christian later. Changes starting from the ground up.

From this we get the picture or rather where Christianity under a perceptual representation has gone astray. Again I agree here with Politesse (Not ganging up on you , I'm sure you know))

 

[steve_bank]

The main representation of Christianity from the earliest time (formerly when they called themselves Saints), shifted to becoming worse through several centuries e.g. The earliest Christians were conscientous objectors! The early churches preached against taking up arms or going to wars , and even the Romans who converted, refused to fight anymore and were severly punished some by death. This was during the earlier stages where Rome eventually became Christian later. Changes starting from the ground up.

From this we get the picture or rather where Christianity under a perceptual representation has gone astray. Again I agree here with Politesse (Not ganging up on you , I'm sure you know))

Where on Earth do you get that from? Sectarian divides began immediately. The first followers were Jews who the Romans considered Jewish heretics.

There was Christian on Christian violence early on.

 

[Learner]

Where on Earth do you get that from? Sectarian divides began immediately. The first followers were Jews who the Romans considered Jewish heretics.

There was Christian on Christian violence early on.

I know they were Jews , and your dateline for early, starts where? (where did you get that from?) Sure ... there was sectarian divide but that goes in the part of my post in bold where it say "worse" .. a little later after along with the gnostics more likely. There was only one type of follower during and "immediately" after Jesus's death.

In regards to the Romans and conversion below reveals a change of character and heart.

IRENAEUS (180 A.D.) "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."24

JUSTINUS (150 A.D.) "We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from God who is Master of all." "And we who formerly slew one another not only do not make war against our enemies, but, for the sake of not telling lies or deceiving those who examine us, we gladly die confessing Christ."25

JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.) "That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies."26 "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."27

TERTULLIANUS (210 A.D.) "You must confess that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the practice of every individual is concerned, to whom I is applicable."38 "...the new law pointed to clemency, and changed the former savagery of swords and lances into tranquillity, and refashioned the former infliction of war upon rivals and foes of the law into the peaceful acts of plow and cultivating the earth. And so...the new law...has shown forth in acts of peaceful obedience."

I posted something similar some time ago , too much to go through to find. but luckily (divine intervention perhaps) happen to have found these notes.

EDIT:It is revealing how wonderfully powerful this is, versus the violent alternative.

 

[Learner]

The "In regards to Romans and conversion" part. Would be better to paste to post # 132.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The main representation of Christianity from the earliest time (formerly when they called themselves Saints), shifted to becoming worse through several centuries e.g. The earliest Christians were conscientous objectors! The early churches preached against taking up arms or going to wars , and even the Romans who converted, refused to fight anymore and were severly punished some by death. This was during the earlier stages where Rome eventually became Christian later. Changes starting from the ground up.

Are you saying that it against Christian teachings to attempt to influence laws, change them for the better, make them more just?

From this we get the picture or rather where Christianity under a perceptual representation has gone astray. Again I agree here with Politesse (Not ganging up on you , I'm sure you know))

Astray how? Again, is it against Christian teachings to attempt to influence laws, change them for the better, make them more just?

As for my discussion with Politesse, I brought the matter up in response to the following point:

In my opinion at least, (not "the Bible", which is largely monarchic in outlook owing to its time of writing) governments should serve all citizens, not just those of a certain religious identity. But that doesn't mean they could not try to, by more diplomatic means, convince others that they ought to agree with this position in terms they would all recognize and accept.

For Jesus, Paul, etc, this was not an option nor something that would even have crossed their minds as a possibility, as they did not live in a democratic system. Short of converting the Roman emperor or rebelling and converting some local warlord, such action would have been impossible. But Jesus does oppose legalism on general principle, especially legalism which becomes a burden and a barrier between a person and God.

But why would one think it would not cross their minds?
After all, assuming Jesus had the powers the Gospel describes him using, then clearly attempting to convert powerful Romans was a viable course of action. Moreover, Paul himself could have thought it was a viable course of action for Jesus, even if not for himself unassisted.

Sure, Jesus was willing to use his powers to convert people (assuming the events described in the NT involving those powers are true), including powerful people (such as Saul/Paul).

 

[Politesse]

But why would one think it would not cross their minds?

After all, assuming Jesus had the powers the Gospel describes him using, then clearly attempting to convert powerful Romans was a viable course of action. Moreover, Paul himself could have thought it was a viable course of action for Jesus, even if not for himself unassisted.

Sure, Jesus was willing to use his powers to convert people (assuming the events described in the NT involving those powers are true), including powerful people (such as Saul/Paul).

I do not think either Jesus or Paul - though very different men from one another in many respects - shared your optimism about the power of the government to become an agent for justice. Jesus counseled his followers to look after their own sanctification, and not worry about telling their own neighbors what to do. Let alone neighboring nations. I'm sure Jesus, had he found himself standing before the Roman emperor, would have spoken to him in the same calm, straightforward manner with which he seemed to speak to everyone. He does, after all, speak to both his own king and to the Roman governor of his adoptive province in the Gospel narratives. Presuming you find those accounts credible, he doesn't seem to have really treated them as any different, or more or less important, than anyone else he met. Titles were irrelevant to him, and he taught his followers to act likewise. Probably the fact that got him killed. If you do believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, what does a god need with an earthly empire? His own dominion was of a different and more enduring kind than any empire.

Paul for his part seemed abjectly terrified of the Roman state and devotes pages of his letters begging his friends to law low and not make waves, for existential reasons. Unlike many of those he wrote to, he was a Roman citizen, and well-traveled, and knew from experience the character of the empire. The Paul character in Acts is a bit more audacious than letter-writer Paul about speaking his truth to governors and judges, but he does not actually attempt to move them in how they manage worldly governance, only their treatment of Christians.

If you wish to see this as cowardice, I suppose you could, though given the circumstances of their existence - Rome did utterly destroy their nation, and nearly, their people, just thirty short years later - I would be inclined to be forgiving. More abstractly, I have seen few occassions where the accumulation of power directly led to the betterment of human lives. Tacitus would agree; using an empire to try and bring about peace will always deliver you a "Roman Peace".

 

[steve_bank]

Where on Earth do you get that from? Sectarian divides began immediately. The first followers were Jews who the Romans considered Jewish heretics.

There was Christian on Christian violence early on.

I know they were Jews , and your dateline for early, starts where? (where did you get that from?) Sure ... there was sectarian divide but that goes in the part of my post in bold where it say "worse" .. a little later after along with the gnostics more likely. There was only one type of follower during and "immediately" after Jesus's death.

In regards to the Romans and conversion below reveals a change of character and heart.

IRENAEUS (180 A.D.) "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."24

JUSTINUS (150 A.D.) "We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from God who is Master of all." "And we who formerly slew one another not only do not make war against our enemies, but, for the sake of not telling lies or deceiving those who examine us, we gladly die confessing Christ."25

JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.) "That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies."26 "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."27

TERTULLIANUS (210 A.D.) "You must confess that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the practice of every individual is concerned, to whom I is applicable."38 "...the new law pointed to clemency, and changed the former savagery of swords and lances into tranquillity, and refashioned the former infliction of war upon rivals and foes of the law into the peaceful acts of plow and cultivating the earth. And so...the new law...has shown forth in acts of peaceful obedience."

I posted something similar some time ago , too much to go through to find. but luckily (divine intervention perhaps) happen to have found these notes.

EDIT:It is revealing how wonderfully powerful this is, versus the violent alternative.

No one knows exactly what happed in the 1st century. The first flowers were Jews. At some point be lives developed a separate identity and claimed the Torah as their own.

Look at Nicaea. A number of differing sects with defaces over the divinity of Jesus among other things.

What you have as the NT was selected by committee.

Ok, but Chtodyiasns here are avoiding the question. The RCC claims to be the one true Christian church by virtue of the popes being in a line of succession back to Peter. What you have as Christian values comes primarily from Paul. Circumcisions not required, Jewish dietary rules no longer apply, a patriarchal culture with women subordinate. If you can avoid sex and be celibate. Marry if you can't.

Today there may be thousands of self proclaimed reverends with a small following with their own interpretations and prophesies.

Who is right?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I do not think either Jesus or Paul - though very different men from one another in many respects - shared your optimism about the power of the government to become an agent for justice.

That is a very different rationale. The previous argument you gave was that

In my opinion at least, (not "the Bible", which is largely monarchic in outlook owing to its time of writing) governments should serve all citizens, not just those of a certain religious identity. But that doesn't mean they could not try to, by more diplomatic means, convince others that they ought to agree with this position in terms they would all recognize and accept.
For Jesus, Paul, etc, this was not an option nor something that would even have crossed their minds as a possibility, as they did not live in a democratic system. Short of converting the Roman emperor or rebelling and converting some local warlord, such action would have been impossible. But Jesus does oppose legalism on general principle, especially legalism which becomes a burden and a barrier between a person and God.

So, I was challenging the previous argumentation. As to your new rationale, I'm not optimistic about the government making society more just in all contexts. That depends on the case. But when it comes to refraining from causing massive injustice, sure that is possible. After all, the government is the activity of people. And those people can make a choice not to engage in further injustice. For example, if Paul was persecuting Christians, when he stopped doing so, he stopped committing a lot injustice. But now imagine that the government had refrained from further persecuting Christians (granting that the persecutions were happening). That would be a lot less injustice.

Jesus counseled his followers to look after their own sanctification, and not worry about telling their own neighbors what to do. Let alone neighboring nations.

With respect to neighboring nations, that is another area in which much could be achieved: foreing policy. Imagine the Roman empire had stopped attacking, invading and occupying neighboring nations! Well, that would have achieved that particular goal far more effectively than just persuading a few people with little power.

As for not telling their neighbors what to do, that depends on the moment. Jesus indeed was telling people what to do on several occasions.

I'm sure Jesus, had he found himself standing before the Roman emperor, would have spoken to him in the same calm, straightforward manner with which he seemed to speak to everyone. He does, after all, speak to both his own king and to the Roman governor of his adoptive province in the Gospel narratives. Presuming you find those accounts credible, he doesn't seem to have really treated them as any different, or more or less important, than anyone else he met. Titles were irrelevant to him, and he taught his followers to act likewise. Probably the fact that got him killed. If you do believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, what does a god need with an earthly empire? His own dominion was of a different and more enduring kind than any empire.

He wasn't always speaking in a calm, straightforward manner. For example, he assaulted the merchants at the temple. But that aside, I do agree that God would not need anything with an empire, but that is because God (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) does not need anything at all, and in any event, he would not create anything remotely like our universe. But if he were to find our universe, God would intervene all the time and make it better (or just all at once). Why? Well, it is not the case that with great power comes great lack of responsibility. Imagine Spider-man sees a man raping a child for fun, and just does nothing, though he can easily overpower the rapist. Surely, Spider-Man would be failing to act in a morally proper manner. And if Spider-Man were morally perfect (or just as good as in the stories), he would intervene. So would an omnimax agent.

That aside, and assuming for the sake of the argument that I am mistaken about the above, then I would say; " what does a god need with an earthly empire?" Well, God does not need anything from anyone or anything, but he is motivated to act in different ways, according to his morally perfect character. So, what he may well want with the Roman empire would be to make it more just (and if needed, not an empire).

At any rate, we are not talking about God, but about Jesus. Even granting for the sake of the argument that Jesus had superhuman powers, that does not imply he was God. In fact, even assuming God created our universe, presumably he would not give profoundly immoral laws to any tribe (and if your rationale is correct, he would not give any laws to any tribe: period), so he did not give OT laws to the ancient Israelites. But Jesus believed (if the NT is correct) those were indeed God's laws for ancient Israel. So, Jesus, even if super-powered, was not God.

Paul for his part seemed abjectly terrified of the Roman state and devotes pages of his letters begging his friends to law low and not make waves, for existential reasons. Unlike many of those he wrote to, he was a Roman citizen, and well-traveled, and knew from experience the character of the empire. The Paul character in Acts is a bit more audacious than letter-writer Paul about speaking his truth to governors and judges, but he does not actually attempt to move them in how they manage worldly governance, only their treatment of Christians.

That makes little sense on his part. The Romans only had warriors with swords, shields, spears, arrows, knives, whereas he has a friend more powerful than Thor. Still, while Paul may not think of trying to persuade them with no help, that was due to a lack of power on his part. He may have thought about converting them with help from his superhuman friend.

If you wish to see this as cowardice, I suppose you could, though given the circumstances of their existence - Rome did utterly destroy their nation, and nearly, their people, just thirty short years later - I would be inclined to be forgiving.

On Saul's/Paul's part, I see it as a reasonable attitude (and corresponding behavior) to have as long as Jesus had no superhuman powers. On the other hand, I see it as an absurd attitude for Paul to have if Jesus did and engaged in the behaviors (including displays of power) attributed to him in the NT. Maybe it was cowardice as well, but that seems like secondary - what comes to the front is the absurdity of it all.

From Jesus's own perspective, it's not cowardice, either. It's reasonable if he had no powers. On the other hand, if he did had those amazing powers (far beyond those of Spider-Man), it's akin to the attitude of Spider-Man watching the rapist and looking the other way, only times a zillion given the much greater level of power and the number of evils Jesus was watching. It would not be cowardice, though, because it would not be out of fear that Jesus looks the other way. Rather, it would be immoral callousness, and generally utter failure to act as he ought to.

More abstractly, I have seen few occassions where the accumulation of power directly led to the betterment of human lives. Tacitus would agree; using an empire to try and bring about peace will always deliver you a "Roman Peace".

That is very debatable, but I'd say not the issue. It's not about accumulating power - Jesus, assuming powers as described, already had far more than the emperor.
Rather, it's about persuading people engaging in horrible injustices - through the laws their pass, their orders to their subordinates, etc. -, to change their ways. One way to prevent massive injustice is to persuade those doing the massive injustice in question to, well, stop doing it! And that's what changing Roman law (and foreign policy too; thanks for bringing that up) is about. It's also changing their orders to others (not just general laws). For example, just as Saul/Paul stopped (assuming the accounts) persecuting Christians and that prevented injustices on his part, the same could be done in a much more effective manner by persuading the emperor and generally the Roman elite.
After all, if Saul stops, someone else will be appointed to do the injustice. But not if the emperor, governors, etc., stop doing the persecution. And that (i.e., Christian persecution) is merely one example of preventable injustice.

 

[Learner]

Are you saying that it against Christian teachings to attempt to influence laws, change them for the better, make them more just?

By forceful means, I was (trying to) describe in previous posts, yes. The laws change anyway from the ground up but,.. that is not to say in some circumstances, unlike the Roman empire, changing from the top with much smaller nations can change laws based on (mutual) belief without force by preaching both to the leaders and their people at the same time! Its not so simple as a yes or no in your question, and you wouldn't get a proper answer.

Astray how? Again, is it against Christian teachings to attempt to influence laws, change them for the better, make them more just?

Ahh my blunder .. sorry about that. I put too much emphasis on Romans converting and less emphasis of where Christianity went astray, I got into a bit of a muddle. Fortunately steve-bank (kudos), has highlighted where I should have given more detail about the "going astray" :

steve's post# 138
Look at Nicaea. A number of differing sects with defaces over the divinity of Jesus among other things.

Today there may be thousands of self proclaimed reverends with a small following with their own interpretations and prophesies.

Who is right?

....

As for my discussion with Politesse, I brought the matter up in response to the following point:

In my opinion at least, (not "the Bible", which is largely monarchic in outlook owing to its time of writing) governments should serve all citizens, not just those of a certain religious identity. But that doesn't mean they could not try to, by more diplomatic means, convince others that they ought to agree with this position in terms they would all recognize and accept.

For Jesus, Paul, etc, this was not an option nor something that would even have crossed their minds as a possibility, as they did not live in a democratic system. Short of converting the Roman emperor or rebelling and converting some local warlord, such action would have been impossible. But Jesus does oppose legalism on general principle, especially legalism which becomes a burden and a barrier between a person and God.

But why would one think it would not cross their minds?
After all, assuming Jesus had the powers the Gospel describes him using, then clearly attempting to convert powerful Romans was a viable course of action. Moreover, Paul himself could have thought it was a viable course of action for Jesus, even if not for himself unassisted.

Sure, Jesus was willing to use his powers to convert people (assuming the events described in the NT involving those powers are true), including powerful people (such as Saul/Paul).

As I said above , a brief explanation is: It doesn't work with empires or big nations just as it is today with nations such as the USA or China which ironically is happening again like the Romans converting from the bottom up (Underground churches). Not all situations are going to be the same by the same methods of change for every nation or group.