Listening to the sermon yesterday and the part where Paul and his companions end up unjustly imprisoned was part of it. It got me thinking abut how Paul, and the vast majority of Jesus early followers were treated by those in power. We hear about the fact that all the disciples but John were killed, Paul was persecuted and imprisoned, many of the NT letters are written to believers who are suffering, and so on.
As we read these stories, I can't help but look at the examples these believers were setting, how those who were closest to Jesus responded to injustice. For that matter, what example did Jesus set when He was treated unjustly?
What I don't see in the lives of Jesus, those closest to Him, and those who encountered those closest to Jesus, is protest. I don't see them burning or looting, defacing or destroying public property, I don't see marches in the streets (except maybe being herded to face the lions).
I'm just wondering if maybe we should be paying more attention to the examples of those in the NT, instead of to our culture.
50 comments:
Jesus set the example of protesting, overturning tables and driving out animals in the temple. There's an example to follow.
Further, Jesus promised we would do even greater things than him. Protests modeled on Jesus' example have led to greater human rights.
Fighting injustice - especially against the poor and marginalized is rational, moral and biblical.
Just curious... we're you aware that Gandhi, King and other civil rights heroes got their ideas for non-violent protest by reading the Bible? And specifically and especially the teachings of Jesus?
1. Jesus' actions at the temple were directed at those who misused their religious authority, not at the "secular" government. Apples and oranges.
2. This one example is seemingly countered or outweighed by His teachings about submitting to the "secular" government, as well as His actions when the "secular" government engaged in the unjust actions leading to His death.
3. What an interesting use of eisegesis regarding "greater things". I can only guess that you're suggesting that if one models their actions after Jesus that expanding the destruction beyond the temple is a good thing, and that those who burned and looted were simply following Jesus' example. Given your (lukewarm, mealy mouthed) criticism of the rioters, I'm surprised to see this creative justification for destruction from you.
4. If "fighting injustice" is always 100% "moral and Biblical", then the only rational conclusion is that you are advocating that the ends justify the means and that all actions engaged in to "fight injustice" are therefore "moral and Biblical".
5. Strangely enough, if you'd paid attention to my post, you'd have seen that the actual examples of those who were closest to Jesus, and of Jesus Himself actually demonstrate a different way that the way you advocate. I'm wondering why one would ignore the actions of those closest to Jesus.
6. If that's the case, then they did so while ignoring the actions of those closest to Jesus and of Jesus Himself.
7. Just for grins, where specifically does the Bible explicitly teach that "injustice" is to be dealt with by engaging in protests (riots, looting, etc) against the secular government? Specific examples, explicitly teaching about "protest" against the secular government only.
8. I'm not interested in how others proof texted the "teachings of Jesus" to justify their actions. This post is about the specific actions of those who were closest to Jesus and of Jesus Himself when they were confronted with injustice from the "secular" government of their day.
I know sticking to the topic is a problem for you, but perhaps you could at least address the topic before your decide to substitute your own topic.
To be clear, this post is about the ACTIONS of Jesus and His closest followers when they were confronted with unjust behavior on the part of the "secular" governments of their day and how we seem to ignore those examples.
Craig,
Your analogy with 1st century Christians who had no given rights to seek redress from the government (as with many countries today) and Christians in the USA who have the right to protest for redress is a bad analogy. There is nothing at all un-Christ-like or unbiblical with peaceful protesting for redress of injustice.
Glenn,
While I agree that there is nothing intrinsically un Christlike in engaging in protest, I's suggest that the examples of Jesus and those closest to Him don't suggest that protest (certainly not all protest) is the best option.
For example, Paul did have the standing as a Roman citizen to seek redress yet he willingly submitted to unjust imprisonment. Further, Paul's example suggests that one can use those forms of redress to advance God's Kingdom.
I'm merely pointing out that the we have virtually no examples of Jesus or His followers engaging in protests (certainly not in rioting) to address injustice.
Glenn,
One other thought, the point I'm trying to make here is simply that (as 20th/21st century Christians) that we rarely look to the actions of those closest to Jesus as a way to inform our response to injustice. I'm not suggesting that other responses are outside the scope of Christianity, merely that following the examples of those closest to Christ might be worthwhile.
Craig,
Could it be also that other that people who had Roman rights, the rest of those 1st Century Christians had no right to seek redress. The comparison is apples and oranges.
Craig... "1. Jesus' actions at the temple were directed at those who misused their religious authority, not at the "secular" government. Apples and oranges."
1. Jesus' actions which he modeled for us were directed towards a very powerful group that had a large influence on the daily life of people, including women and other "unclean" types. Jesus' actions which he modeled for us show us one way of protesting a powerful group who are abusing the poor. It's an apples and apples comparison of one way to protest those in charge.
How am I mistaken?
There are more things to protest than a secular gov't. I suppose you know/have an idea of the extent of power that the Pharisees had over daily life for Jews in that time?
Craig... "2. This one example is seemingly countered or outweighed by His teachings about submitting to the "secular" government, as well as His actions when the "secular" government engaged in the unjust actions leading to His death."
2. "Outweighed?" You're free to think that. I think we ought to take all of Jesus' words and actions he modeled for us to heart. And if there appears to be some conflict, we consider both/all sides for their relevance. I would never say that his actions here are "outweighed" by his words in other places, any more than I would say that his death on a cross was "outweighed" by his words in other places. All are relevant to understanding Jesus and his teachings. Seems to me.
There is a time for everything, the Byrds once said. And that would include, I suppose, a time to protest secular gov't and a time NOT to protest secular gov't. A time to protest powerful people who are not part of a secular gov't and a time NOT to protest powerful people.
Do you disagree?
Craig... " I can only guess that you're suggesting that if one models their actions after Jesus that expanding the destruction beyond the temple is a good thing, and that those who burned and looted were simply following Jesus' example."
No, I didn't say that, did I? I said that Jesus DID provide this example of protest. Period. I'm not saying it's one to replicate all the time or any of the time, just noting that clearly Jesus was protesting activities in the temple and it would be remiss to suggest that Jesus never endorsed protesting.
Do you disagree?
Craig... "Given your (lukewarm, mealy mouthed) criticism of the rioters, I'm surprised to see this creative justification for destruction from you."
I'm noting that IF someone wants to say that we should never include disrupting business or causing damage to buildings because Jesus is opposed to it, then they just don't know their Bible. Period.
I tend to think that destroying property is probably almost a disservice to the work of Justice for oppressed people. Are there examples where an exception might be made? Perhaps the nuns who cut through wire fences to symbolically cause damage to nuclear bomb sites and bring attention to a cause. But generally speaking, I tend to think it's less helpful. Others disagree and that's fine.
We have no way of knowing definitely of any potential positive effects of some destruction of property. King (and Jesus?) might say that it provides impetus to working with peaceful protesters to effect change to know that some people will start to push back violently when people keep getting oppressed.
ALL I'm noting here is that Jesus clearly used destruction of property and disruption of business to protest powerful oppressors/cheaters who caused harm to the poor and others. SO (and to the point of your post), IF we are going to look to what Jesus and the early church said and did, we need to include this in our consideration. And thus, maybe there's a time to follow Jesus' example in the temple (AS YOUR POST title suggests).
Why wouldn't we?
Craig... "4. If "fighting injustice" is always 100% "moral and Biblical", then the only rational conclusion is that you are advocating that the ends justify the means and that all actions engaged in to "fight injustice" are therefore "moral and Biblical"."
4. Fighting injustice IS always 100% moral and biblical. Are you suggesting otherwise?? Really?? Come, now.
EVEN IN THE TIMES where Jesus or Paul or others advocated PROTEST TACTICS like turning the other cheek, the point was to effect change. "So that you will heap burning coals over their heads."
Right?
Just a reminder, in case you're missing the Pauline allusion...
"“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
The point of these tactics was to effect change, to overcome evil. According to Paul and Jesus.
Had you perhaps missed that?
Craig... "4. If "fighting injustice" is always 100% "moral and Biblical", then the only rational conclusion is that you are advocating that the ends justify the means and that all actions engaged in to "fight injustice" are therefore "moral and Biblical"."
4. Because we definitely SHOULD always fight injustice does not mean that we should do so "by any means necessary." If that is what you're concluding from my words, you have misunderstood sorely.
"By any means necessary" is the motto of the Pro War advocates who'd drop nukes on whole cities to destroy in order to win "by any means necessary." But you should know by now that it's not anything that I am advocating.
Do you understand how ludicrous it is to suggest this is what I'm saying?
It's not what I'm saying. At all.
Craig... "Strangely enough, if you'd paid attention to my post, you'd have seen that the actual examples of those who were closest to Jesus, and of Jesus Himself actually demonstrate a different way that the way you advocate. I'm wondering why one would ignore the actions of those closest to Jesus."
5. I've ignored nothing. You've just misunderstood. Do you understand now? If not, feel free to ask other questions, because you ARE misunderstanding.
Craig... "7. Just for grins, where specifically does the Bible explicitly teach that "injustice" is to be dealt with by engaging in protests (riots, looting, etc) against the secular government? Specific examples, explicitly teaching about "protest" against the secular government only."
7A. As I pointed out, the Pharisees WERE in a ruling position over many Jewish folk. I'm not sure why you'd limit protests to only secular governments.
7B. Given that Jesus demonstrates protest methods (carrying the packs for Roman soldiers further than they could legally force them to do so, stripping down to nudity in court, overturning tables in the Temple, etc) and doesn't limit such protests to only non-secular settings, I'd say it'd be foolish of anyone to suggest that Jesus didn't endorse protesting any injustice.
7C. Shadrach and friends protested the civil gov't.
Daniel protested the civil gov't.
Moses protested and disrupted the civil gov't.
Shiphrah and Puah committed civil disobedience to the Pharaoh’s command to kill Hebrew boys at their birth.
Isaiah protested the civil gov't of Egypt with three years of nudity!
The so-called wise men from the East refused to cooperate with the civil gov't.
Mary sang a song calling for the Mighty to be pulled down and the poor lifted up. And don't think for a moment that she didn't pass on those values to Jesus.
And, as noted, Jesus spoke of carrying the soldier's pack and stripping down in court... these were protests against injustice of a civil gov't.
If you think protest didn't happen in the bible - of powerful groups, whether civil or religious - you're just mistaken.
Glenn,
Obviously any direct comparison between 1st century believers and 21st century believers is apples/oranges. I'd guess that it's safe to assume that Paul wasn't the only believer who was a Roman citizen, and had the rights thereof. But, as with your comment, that's an assumption.
I fail to see how letting the actions of those believers who were the closest to Christ inform our actions today, or at least taking them into consideration, could possibly be a negative course of action.
Dan,
1. Jesus actions (which He "modeled" only once) were not directed at the "secular" governing systems in place at the time. Whatever power the Jewish religious leaders had at the time was limited and constrained by the "secular" government. Since this post is specifically about how Jesus and those closest to Him acted in the face of unjust treatment from the "secular" government, His one action toward the religious authorities isn't related to the topic at hand. One must also consider His other actions related to the religious authorities, when He submitted Himself to those authorities. Maybe using the exception to prove the rule isn't a good idea.
2. Yes, if the vast majority of Jesus interactions with those in "secular" authority did not involve "protest" or violence, then it seems reasonable to conclude that violence (rioting) is NOT the default position that Jesus took. Further, this post goes beyond the actions of Jesus to those who were closest to Him. The reality is that you can only cherry pick ONE example (out of many) where Jesus (and none of His closest followers), engaged in violence to make a point. The fact that that violence was NOT against the "secular" authorities further undermines your attempt to make rioting holy.
Dan,
Before I waste a bunch of time responding to a bunch of crap that's really outside the scope of my post, let me summarize.
The point of my post is that there might be some value in looking at the actions of Jesus and those closest to Him when we are confronted with injustice by the secular government.
That's literally the extent of my point. Do you disagree that there is value in looking at the actions of Jesus and His closest followers regarding their response to governmental injustice? If you don't disagree with the actual premise of the post, then why are you investing so much energy in trying to go beyond the topic of the original post.
Who knew that suggesting that the actions of Jesus and His closest followers might be able to inform our actions would be so controversial.
"How am I mistaken?"
In a context beyond the scope of this post, you might not be. However, I specifically chose to focus this post on the actions of Jesus and His closest followers when they responded to injustice from the government.
"There are more things to protest than a secular gov't. I suppose you know/have an idea of the extent of power that the Pharisees had over daily life for Jews in that time?"
I do. But I chose (because it's my blog and I get to make these kinds of choices), to limit this post to the actions of Jesus and His closest followers responding to injustice from the "secular" government. Further, the power of the Jewish leaders was subordinate to the "secular" government of the time.
"You're free to think that."
Thank you so much for graciously allowing me this level of freedom.
"Do you disagree?"
My agreement with the Byrd's theological musings on an OT passage really has nothing to do with a post where I'm suggesting that there is value in considering the actions of Jesus and His closest followers.
"No, I didn't say that, did I?"
Since I never said that you did "say that", this is simply stupid.
"I said that Jesus DID provide this example of protest. Period. I'm not saying it's one to replicate all the time or any of the time, just noting that clearly Jesus was protesting activities in the temple and it would be remiss to suggest that Jesus never endorsed protesting."
And this one (out of multiple other examples from Jesus and His closest followers) doesn't fit with the topic of the post.
"Do you disagree?"
"Why wouldn't we?"
Why would I answer a question so divorced from the topic of the post?
"Fighting injustice IS always 100% moral and biblical. Are you suggesting otherwise?? Really?? Come, now."
No, I'm suggesting that "by any means necessary" is problematic from a Biblical perspective, even though it's off the topic of this post.
"Right?"
I'm not sure that taking two disparate verses and mashing them up to proof text your hunch, is something that can be categorically determined to be "right".
"Just a reminder, in case you're missing the Pauline allusion..."
No, I'm merely focusing my post on one particular subject, not writing a treatise on every possible similar topic.
"The point of these tactics was to effect change, to overcome evil. According to Paul and Jesus."
I'll point out that they are specifically suggesting that evil should be responded to with good. Given that, I fail to see how burning, looting, injury, and killing could be considered "good".
"Had you perhaps missed that?"
No, I chose to focus on something specific.
"By any means necessary" is the motto of..." I think you meant to say BLM supporters.
"Do you understand how ludicrous it is to suggest this is what I'm saying?"
Almost as ludicrous as you trying to peddle the bullshit that I'm trying to "suggest that this is what" you are "saying".
Given your inability to understand that I chose to focus this post on one particular topic and that you haven't yet addressed that topic, I'll simply not spend time with your off topic bullshit.
I will note that many of those you say "protested the secular government", really didn't protest in the sense you advocate. I'd suggest that (like Jesus) many of those folks chose to take action that was going to result in consequences. They were fully prepared to accept those consequences because they trusted that God was in control and that He would bring about justice. Shadrach, Mesach, and Abednego didn't fight their captors, they didn't protest, they didn't riot, they accepted the consequences of their actions without knowing what would happen.
Strangely enough, this is the example set by Jesus and His closest followers that I'm wondering about.
Craig,
I fail to see how letting the actions of those believers who were the closest to Christ inform our actions today, or at least taking them into consideration, could possibly be a negative course of action.
I'm not saying we shouldn't. What I'm saying is that comparing things they weren't usually legally allowed to do with things we are legally allowed to do is not a good comparison. To even suggest peaceful protests that don't violate laws shouldn't be something Christians should be doing is wrongheaded.
Glenn,
I'm not suggesting that peaceful protests that don't violate the laws shouldn't be engaged in by Christians. I'm suggesting that there might be some value in examining the actions of Jesus and those closest to Him when they were confronted with injustice on the part of the "secular" government. I'm suggesting that perhaps protests (riots, looting, etc) might not ALWAYS be the answer or even the best answer. That's all I'm doing.
I should say thanks for the fact that you have 1) engaged with the actual point of my post and 2) acknowledged that the actual point of my post is reasonable. Unlike others, who've simply chosen to bulldoze through with all sorts of other hunches.
Craig... " I specifically chose to focus this post on the actions of Jesus and His closest followers when they responded to injustice from the government."
What YOUR post said, in YOUR WORDS...
"Listening to the sermon yesterday and the part
where Paul and his companions
end up unjustly imprisoned was part of it.
It got me thinking abut how Paul, and
the vast majority of Jesus early followers were treated
by those in power.
...I can't help but look at the examples these believers were setting,
how those who were closest to Jesus
responded to injustice.
For that matter, what example did Jesus set
when He was treated unjustly?
What I don't see in the lives of Jesus,
those closest to Him, and those who encountered those closest to Jesus,
is protest."
How they responded to being "imprisoned unjustly," to "injustice by those in power," how "Jesus responded to injustice..."
1. Never ONCE did you mention SPECIFICALLY "protest THE CIVIL SECULAR GOV'T" when treated unjustly.
2. You gave the example of Paul who was unjustly imprisoned by a secular gov't, yes, BUT, you also gave the example of Jesus, who was unjustly killed and oppressed and attacked by both civil/secular AND religious power centers. Primarily religious powers.
3. So, you never once limited your topic to injustice SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY from secular gov't and a rational person would assume your point was "How did Jesus and his followers respond to INJUSTICE, in general."
Do you recognize now why no one would assume you were speaking of something that you never mentioned and instead, took your words literally? Do you understand now why your protests of going "off topic" is more due to YOUR inspecificity, not me opting to go off topic deliberately?
In short, you can't expect people to read your mind and to limit a conversation to a topic to what's hidden in your mind and that you didn't say. Ever.
If your concern here is ONLY injustice WHEN DONE BY SECULAR GOV'T, and ONLY HOW Jesus and his followers responded ONLY to that specific source of injustice, I'd say that YES, we should look to what Jesus and his followers did. And we should look to what Jesus family did. And how the OT prophets responded to injustice from civil gov'ts. All of that.
Do you disagree?
I also say that we shouldn't be limited to considering responses based ONLY on what they did. Circumstances change, context changes.
Do you disagree?
Craig... "I should say thanks for the fact that you have 1) engaged with the actual point of my post and 2) acknowledged that the actual point of my post is reasonable. Unlike others, who've simply chosen to bulldoze through with all sorts of other hunches."
When you, hopefully finally, understand that I was responding DIRECTLY to your words and the fault was you hoping others would read into your words meaning that was not there in the words... when that happens, hopefully you'll do the right thing and apologize for this over-reaction and unnecessarily emotionally-fragile response.
Craig... ""By any means necessary" is the motto of..." I think you meant to say BLM supporters. "
To hell with God damned lies and your shameless indecency in making such a stupidly false claim without even an attempt to defend it... but of course you can't defend/support it because it's a God damned lie.
To hell with that. We see those you choose to attack unjustly.
You know what Jesus would say about such a damned lie? WOE to you, Pharisee, hypocrite that you are!
Craig... "Since I never said that you did "say that", this is simply stupid."
What you literally said...
" I can only guess that you're suggesting that if one models their actions after Jesus that expanding the destruction beyond the temple is a good thing, and that those who burned and looted were simply following Jesus' example."
YOU said that YOU can "only guess that YOU ARE SUGGESTING..."
In other words, you quite literally said that. You QUALIFIED it by saying you were GUESSING I was saying that, but you still literally said it, AS IF IT WERE A POSSIBILITY when there is NO REASON why you should "guess that" since I NEVER SAID IT.
Do you understand how words work?
While you're apologizing for your other attacks, perhaps you will find the decency to apologize for this false innuendo.
Craig... "Jesus actions (which He "modeled" only once) were not directed at the "secular" governing systems in place at the time. Whatever power the Jewish religious leaders had at the time was limited and constrained by the "secular" government. "
A. As Non-Violent Direct Action protesters/organizers will tell you, strong protests of the sort that Jesus literally did are BEST used sparingly. You wouldn't want to do the same overturning the tables protest that Jesus modeled for us every week. It loses its effectiveness.
Perhaps you're ignorant of how NVDA works and what experts in this area (who modeled their tactics after Jesus - which perhaps you're ignorant of, as well). Now you know.
B. Jesus lived in an extremely different context. What types of protests work in one context may not work in another context. But when Jesus modeled this disruptive and "vandalism" type of protest, he DID provide a model for us in one way to potentially engage in protest.
C. Jesus was opposed to all injustice, so if the topic is How did Jesus respond to injustice, this is a literal model/example.
D. Jesus and his followers, and his later followers led to the ideas of a more egalitarian, representative way of living societally that didn't exist then. Thankfully, they led the way in modeling a more egalitarian and human rights-centric society... one in which protest of injustice is more accessible and possible than in the first century.
Church history is a great thing.
Re: I'm talking about protesting SECULAR gov't injustice only, and NOT other injustice...
Do you suspect that when Jesus modeled a vandalizing/disruptive type of protest for religious oppression that this model would not potentially apply to secular gov't type oppression?
It may not, but I can't see any rational or biblical reason to suggest it might not potentially apply.
My two cents is as follows:
There's little more noble and "Christian" than to endure as did Christ and His followers did later. One could argue that if all Christians responded the same way, few would survive and The End would come. But I regard it the same as the difference between turning the other cheek when personally victimized, versus striking the cheek of one who insists on victimizing another. In the latter case, the "other" is the focus of one who strikes the "victimizer"...protecting the victim from harm. Protests can be the same way...a means by which to help those being victimized by government or whomever, even if one's own self is among them. There must be some identifiable resistance in order to effect change and not simply mounting death tolls or other negative outcomes, many of which have no effect on those who are causing the suffering. Clearly, the leftist penchant for inflicting pain and suffering on the false premise of protest is not an example for Christians to follow. But at what point is submission mere suicide and are we somehow supposed to only put ourselves in that position? Again, if it were only me threatened, it might be acceptable (though frankly, I doubt I ever could). But when the well-being of others is at risk....
Art,
Since the clearly stated point of my post was that examining the actions of Jesus and those closest to him as they responded to injustice from the "secular" government, I don't see how your comment conflicts with my point. I tend to agree that I'm more likely to defend others, than myself.
I guess I'd ask at what point is martyrdom suicide? Given that martyrdom is one of the listed spiritual gifts, I'd hesitate to suggest that God was commanding or commending suicide.
"Do you suspect that when Jesus modeled a vandalizing/disruptive type of protest for religious oppression that this model would not potentially apply to secular gov't type oppression?"
1. Jesus only engaged in this type of behavior once, therefore drawing any broad inferences from this rare behavior seems fraught with problems.
2. If we look at Jesus actions, not your inferences, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that Jesus responded differently when dealing with the sacred rather than the secular. If one looks to those closest to Jesus, and their actions, that becomes more reasonable.
Of course you can't see any reason why you can't apply your proof text in the way that you choose.
"You QUALIFIED it by saying you were GUESSING I was saying that, but you still literally said it,"
No, I "literally said" that I was making a GUESS about what you were SUGGESTING. I was very specific in how I phrased it, how I qualified it, and how I said it. The only way you can work up your bullshit faux outrage, is to misrepresent what I actually said and get mad at your bastardization.
"I think you meant to say BLM supporters. " To hell with God damned lies and your shameless indecency in making such a stupidly false claim without even an attempt to defend it... but of course you can't defend/support it because it's a God damned lie. To hell with that. We see those you choose to attack unjustly. You know what Jesus would say about such a damned lie? WOE to you, Pharisee, hypocrite that you are!"
1. The phrase originated with Franz Fanon, a black gentleman who's work underpins "critical theory" among other things and who advocated violence as necessary.
2. Malcom X used the phrase as well.
3. The official DC BLM Twitter account posted about getting rid of the police by "any means necessary".
4. " The Movement for Justice was set up in 1995 by people around the Kingsway College Student Union in the London Borough of Camden to tackle racism in institutional and established forms. The group confronted organised fascism as well as death in custody and wider racism to black people as well as travellers, refugees and asylum seekers.[citation needed] It is also the sister group to the American organization The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN).[citation needed]
It is led up by members of the Revolutionary Internationalist League (RIL), a Trotskyist group.[1][2]
It has been described by a former member as a "cultish Trotskyist group" that makes use of "guilt for coercion""
5. I'm sure you won't apologize for your egregious personal attack, but the phrase "by any means necessary" is clearly embedded in the overarching movement of which BLM is a part.
I see no reasons to comment on Dan's attempts to justify his actions. The reality is that if he was confused about what I meant, he could have asked instead of assumed. The further reality is that once I clarified that I was talking about how Jesus and His closest followers reacted to injustice by "secular" government, he could have acknowledge that and moved on instead of trying to continue to plow forward with his own version of what I "meant".
1. In the specific example of Paul, it was the "secular" government. If one looks at the majority of Paul's unjust treatment, it was at the hands of the "secular" government.
2. In the case of Jesus, His crucifixion was at the hands of the Secular government. Although He also didn't protest His treatment by the Jewish religious authorities before He was turned over to the Romans.
3. Jesus actions at the temple were not the result of unjust treatment of Jesus Himself or of His followers specifically. Further Jesus is quote clear about what He is trying to accomplish in the temple. In any case, His response was not related to unjust treatment of Himself or His closest followers.
Craig... " The reality is that if he was confused about what I meant, he could have asked instead of assumed."
I was NOT confused about your words. Your WORDS talked about ways to protest injustice. Something I agree with. Your WORDS talked about looking to Jesus and the early church for examples, something I agree with. Your WORDS were quite clear and I took you AT YOUR WORDS about THE INJUSTICE by the POWERFUL that you spoke of. There was ZERO confusion in my understanding what you literally wrote.
No, the confusion came in when you "clarified" that you didn't mean what you wrote, but you (for no discernible or rational reason) decided that IN THIS POST, you were ONLY wanting to talk about oppression by powerful CIVIL/SECULAR leaders. Something you NEVER said in your original post.
Now, you can continue to go on the attack for me taking you literally at what you literally wrote about. OR, you can admit you just made a mistake. You had something specific in mind and you didn't convey that in your original post, as I have clearly demonstrated.
Why, indeed, do you strive so hard to make communication so difficult and combative?
On BLM and your fact-free and racist-adjacent claims of violence FROM THEM.
"Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful, Our Research Finds
...In fact, the Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters...
We have almost finished collecting data from May to June, having already documented 7,305 events in thousands of towns and cities in all 50 states and D.C., involving millions of attendees...
We make two assumptions. First, when politicians and officials categorize the protests as violent, they are usually envisioning property destruction or interpersonal violence in which they infer that BLM protesters are attacking police, bystanders and property.
Second, using several measures to evaluate protest behavior offers a better assessment than the blanket term “violence.” For example, we disaggregate property destruction from interpersonal violence. We analyze separately the number of injuries or deaths among protesters and police. And we are thinking about how gathering even finer-grained data in the future could help further assign precise responsibility for violent acts.
Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected.
The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and
most of the violence that did take place was... directed against the BLM protesters.
Only 3.7% of the protests involved property damage or vandalism. Some portion of these involved neither police nor protesters, but people engaging in vandalism or looting alongside the protests.
In short, our data suggest that 96.3% of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7% of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police...
In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence, but some observers nevertheless blame the protesters.
The claim that the protests are violent – even when the police started the violence – can help local, state and federal forces justify intentionally beating, gassing or kettling the people marching, or reinforces politicians’ calls for “law and order.”"
https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds
1. BLM has been exceedingly non-violent and patient, IN THE FACE of abuse from the police WHILE they're protesting police abuse.
2. IF an historically oppressed group has some TINY portion that strikes back in violence against violent systems, THE FAULT LIES WITH THE VIOLENT SYSTEM, not those who respond, finally, in kind.
But you can continue to peddle your racist fantasies if you want. Hey, the KKK will love you for it.
The question is, which side do you want to be on?
Craig... "1. Jesus only engaged in this type of behavior once, therefore drawing any broad inferences from this rare behavior seems fraught with problems."
1. It was of a piece of a Gospel SPECIFICALLY to the poor and oppressed for whom Jesus continually stood up for in a variety of ways.
2. Jesus makes clear in his teachings (and those of Mary and James and Paul and the prophets before them) that the rich oppressors (gov't, religious and otherwise) needed to be "brought down" and people should be wary of them and the rich should be wary of their riches.
3. That you can read this story and see it as a one-off, seemingly unrelated to the rest of his Liberation Gospel teachings, is a violent divorce from the text. It suggests a cultural blindness.
The topic - in JESUS' teachings - is injustice and the oppression of the poor by the powerful. Jesus never isolates CIVIL/SECULAR oppression and injustice from all other forms and there is no rational reason to do so.
I encourage you to spend more time reading Jesus and striving to understand it OUTSIDE of your white cultural traditions. Those white human traditions are not helping you or anyone else, not in this discussion.
Craig, rather than admit his error, just doubles down with his clearly mistaken assumptions...
"Since the clearly stated point of my post was that examining the actions of Jesus and those closest to him as they responded to injustice from the "secular" government"
"Clearly stated..."?
WHERE?
It's not clearly stated. It's not stated at all. You made a mistake. Just let it go, admit your error, apologize for the rude response to your error and move on.
The hubris of the Pharisees lives on in today's white conservatives.
"To hell with God damned lies and your shameless indecency in making such a stupidly false claim without even an attempt to defend it... but of course you can't defend/support it because it's a God damned lie."
The virtual mouth agape providing ample room for the virtual foot. It's almost as if he was begging for affirmation of his stupidity. Kudos for providing so well for his request.
"On BLM and your fact-free and racist-adjacent claims of violence FROM THEM."
1. Where in this post have I specifically made any claims about "violence FROM THEM"?
2. If this is you response to my pointing out the facts about the "by any means necessary" phrase and it's inextricable connection with black liberation up through BLM, why not address that, instead of posting a bunch of bullshit.
3. As I drove through the plywood covered, burned out shells of buildings, and the holes where buildings used to be, it makes me realize how much bullshit the peaceful protester trope is.
If you can't point specifically to one instance of my reference to "violence FROM THEM" in this post of comment thread, then your comment full of bullshit will stay in moderation.
"Clearly stated..."? WHERE? It's not clearly stated. It's not stated at all."
It's literally in the original post.
Try reading it again.
"THE INJUSTICE by the POWERFUL that you spoke of."
The only examples of which I used were of injustice by the "secular" government. You chose to infer something that wasn't there.
Or you just decided that the best way to "agree" was to add your own hunches, and bitch.
Craig... "It's literally in the original post."
If it were, you could copy and paste it. Literally.
It Literally isn't.
I just don't think you understand how words work.
Sigh...
Craig... "The only examples of which I used were of injustice by the "secular" government. "
You LITERALLY cited Jesus who was EXTREMELY persecuted by NON-SECULAR powerful people.
You made a mistake. Look, buddy, it's not a big deal. You miscommunicated, made a mistake and denied it, when confronted with the facts, you continued to make the same mistake, doubling down on your attacks and defensiveness.
But you were just wrong. Just admit it, apologize for your rudeness and move on!
Good God, this truly is no big deal except for the fact of this history of so many conservative Christians doing this kind of thing and attacking people who call them on THEIR mistake instead of just admitting the error.
Why would I copy/paste something that's literally right in front of your eyes and easily verified?
Of course, it's rare when you copy paste anything to prove your points, maybe I'm just following your example.
"Jesus who was EXTREMELY persecuted by NON-SECULAR powerful people."
1. You make this claim, yet provide not one example.
2. The one example you've hung your entire eisegesis on (Jesus cleansing of His Father's house) is NOT an example of Jesus being treated unjustly.
3. I was clear that I was speaking of those examples where Jesus submitted to those in power. I'd argue that His trial before the Jewish leaders was (from their perspective) just. He was being tried for claiming to be God. The Jewish leaders were wrong, but not intentionally unjust. Yet, even if they were, Jesus still submitted to their authority and took His punishment without protesting.
4. This notion that I must have "made a mistake" and that it's therefore impossible that you could have "made a mistake" is simply hubris. Especially when considered in light of the fact that I provided multiple examples of the "mistake" that you actually made.
I'll simply note that you have not copy/pasted any actual examples of my "racist adjacent" rhetoric.
Craig... "1. You make this claim, yet provide not one example."
Because I assume you're not entirely ignorant of the Bible. I am more than glad to provide you examples, but I want you to clarify: Are you saying you are NOT aware of how CENTRAL a role the persecution of the Pharisees and religious (non-secular) leaders is to the Gospel stories?
You're not aware that the persecution of Jesus by religious leaders (or the conflict with them) is present in more than half of the chapters in the four gospels (I haven't checked, but believe I can say that with confidence)?
It's a central plot point in the story of Jesus... you can't be ignorant of this. Right?
I'm confident you're well aware of this. So, why would you ask?
And you DID make a mistake in claiming that you were specifically speaking ONLY OF CIVIL SECULAR authorities in your post. Your post LITERALLY does not say that. That's all I'm saying. Your post - the words that you wrote - speak of problems of injustice from those in power WITHOUT referencing ONLY THE SECULAR GOV'T.
Again, you just misspoke. Admit it. move on.
As to the "racist-adjacent" question, you did not post my comment that I can find. You just have cited this one sentence OUT of context. Without the context, I don't recall what specifically I was speaking about.
I suspect it was your suggestion that black people protesting injustice (as with BLM) are a violent threat... because white people raising the concern of "dangerous black people" is a tired racist trope dating back to slavery days.
Were you not aware of that bit of racism history?
Craig... "1. You make this claim, yet provide not one example."
Assuming you are entirely ignorant of the Gospels of Jesus or otherwise somehow missed this CENTRAL part of the Gospel story...
"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"
~Matthew 3 (even before Jesus began his ministry, the Pharisees/religious were part of the oppression of Jesus' followers in the Gospels... here, they're in conflict with John the Baptist)
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
~Matthew 5
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others."
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others"
~Matthew 6
"When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
"...the Pharisees said, “It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons.”
~Matthew 9
"“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues."
~Matthew 10
"When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
~Matthew 12
"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
..."Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides"
~Matthew 15
cont'd...
"The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven."
~Matthew 16
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
~Matthew 19
"“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death..."
~Matthew 20
"When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him..."
~Matthew 21
"Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words...
"But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?"
~Matthew 22
~Matthew 23 - the whole chapter
"Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him."
~Matthew 26
"The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate."
~Matthew 27 (even after the RELIGIOUS, NON-SECULAR leaders succeeded in having Jesus killed off, they were still persecuting him)
There's a VERY quick sampling JUST from Matthew, but of course, you'd find the same thing in the other gospels. And this is not exhaustive. Even when the Pharisees or religious leaders are not mentioned by name, they are part of the impetus behind Jesus' teachings and stories.
The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees and their persecution of him is a central part of the plot of the Gospel story. They are the threat that Jesus faced, primarily.
If the gospels were a comic book, they'd be the villains, twirling their mustaches. Not sure how you missed that, if you did.
Without digging through every proof text you've offered, I'll simply say this.
1. IF I was to agree with your hunches you've pulled from your proof texts, it still makes my point. Despite all of those things you allege, Jesus SUBMITTED to the authority of the Jewish leaders. He DIDIN'T protest. His ONE act of "protest", wasn't directly related to the incidents in your proof texts, nor to ANY specific injustice done to Jesus personally.
2. Your obsession with being right about your hunches regarding what I said/meant is truly disturbing.
3. The fact that you've changed from my "injustice" to "persecution" is strange and bizarre.
4. The fact that the Jewish leaders had to go to the "secular" government seems to support my claim that the injustice against Jesus was perpetrated by the "secular" government, not the religious establishment.
This notion that I made a "mistake" when I wrote the post, and in the examples I used, and that you are "correct" is a new high when it comes to your hubris. The fact that you can't "let it go", but demand that I "let it go" and allow you to dictate what I meant then raises the hubris bar again.
Why don't you "let it go", and move on?
"As to the "racist-adjacent" question, you did not post my comment that I can find."
No, I quite specifically told you that if you couldn't provide specific examples (quotes and links) to back up your claims, that your comment would languish in moderation until you could do so. The fact that you have to make excuses for why you can't support your claim unless I publish your lies, is quite strange.
"You just have cited this one sentence OUT of context. Without the context, I don't recall what specifically I was speaking about."
your inability to remember your own comments, or to find any examples, tells me all I need to know. It's just one more examples of you making claims that you can't prove, then offering excuses when I point your false claims out.
"I suspect it was your suggestion that black people protesting injustice (as with BLM) are a violent threat... because white people raising the concern of "dangerous black people" is a tired racist trope dating back to slavery days."
Really, where specifically did I say this? Quote and link. The fact that you're hiding behind "suspect" means that you're just pulling shit out of thin air and expect it to be accepted. Put up or shut up.
"Were you not aware of that bit of racism history?"
Since you haven't produced any specific "racism history" or any evidence of your claims, I'm not sure how to respond.
So, put up or shut up. Prove your claims, or apologize.
""You just have cited this one sentence OUT of context. Without the context, I don't recall what specifically I was speaking about.""
This from a guy who deletes comments he can't legitimately counter. Now, with his comment still in moderation, as opposed to deleted, he whines about Craig referencing what is not viewable at this time. Ironic as well as hypocritical.
You must have deleted Trabue's cherry-picked article links about how peaceful the BLM riots were -- even when video evidence with media reporters calling riots 'mostly peaceful' as mayhem takes place behind them.
Here's how "peaceful" BLM is
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/11/blm_activist_threatens_bloodshed_if_new_yorks_new_mayor_eric_adams_dares_tackle_crime.html
Post a Comment