Consume Product

Maybe you should take seriously the group who listened to Jesus' words about St. Peter

Christianity today seems really vaccinated against minecraft of any kind, even if you go all the way to the rightmost reaches of it. Far right Christians like to reminisce about how frikkin based! it was that the church used to go on crusades, execute heretics and whatnot. Post pictures of edgy fashwave templars, post that one quote about running a sword through a blasphemer's bowels, et cetera. But it's LARP.
  None of them do anything but sit inside and post memes like the rest of us.

The closest thing to Christian minecraft I can think of is the Branch Davidians at Waco. They had the attacking ZOGbots pinned down and helpless, yet utterly spared them presumably on account of their religious sensibilities. In return, about every last one of their men women and children were burned to cinders.

You can argue if Christianity is truly pacifistic or not, but the function of a system is what it does.
And a pacifistic mind virus has been the demonstrable result of a belief in Christianity in every example of living memory.

And even for all the minecraft actions of the Christian church once upon a time, never once have they laid hands on God's chosen people.

Right wing movements aren't doing much either aside from a protest here or there once every couple years. The English are screwed because they stopped rioting. Now the bravest among them are going to be sitting in prison for the next 7 years. It's taken almost 20 years of rapes, forced child marriage, dystopian hate-thought laws and unfettered invasion to get the English to act out for a single weekend.

Looks like we're more or less fucked tbh.

Do an internet search for "violence and the Bible". You'll quickly find that God and Jesus weren't pacifists. I'll just copy/paste something I recently wrote in a previous comment:


Here are alternative arguments for Matthew 5:39 ("turn the other cheek"):


https://www.gotquestions.org/turn-other-cheek.html


> Much of the material surrounding Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek complements the nature of His coming, which was characterized by mercy, sacrificial love, and longsuffering toward sinners. At the same time, Jesus affirms the “last is first” principle upon which the kingdom of God is based. For instance, He tells us to go the extra mile for someone who abuses us (Matthew 5:41) and to love and pray for our enemies instead of holding enmity against them (verse 44). In summary, Jesus is saying we need to be pure inside and out and as accommodating as possible for the sake of a lost world.


In essence, according to this interpretation, it means that we shouldn't escalate an evil, for fear of growing the evil. We should meet evil with love, so that we deescalate it, and grow the kingdom of Christ on earth. However, pertaining to this argument, if who we're facing won't back down, and will escalate no matter what, this lesson is null and void, and there's no reason for us to turn the other cheek.


> Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is helpful: “Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord’s keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort”


This means, essentially, to act in a way which facilitates peace, against honorable opponents. However, if our enemy doesn't want peace, we have zero reason to turn the other cheek.


> Turning the other cheek does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in danger. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek is simply a command to forgo retaliation for personal offenses. He was not setting government foreign policy, and He was not throwing out the judicial system. Crimes can still be prosecuted, and wars can still be waged, but the follower of Christ need not defend his personal “rights” or avenge his honor.


This here, just like above, is advocating for acting/reacting in a way which leads to peace (when our opponents/aggressors are honorable). Our opponents aren't honorable, and seek the death of each and every one of us. Thus, we aren't obligated to turn the other cheek.


> There was a time in history when a man would feel compelled to protect his honor against one who slandered him or otherwise besmirched his character. The offended party would challenge the offender to a duel. Swords, firearms, or other weapons were chosen, and the two enemies would face off. In most cases, senseless bloodshed ensued. Samuel Johnson wrote in favor of the practice of dueling: “A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” The problem is that “invasions of character” are exactly what Jesus told us to tolerate in Matthew 5:38. Turning the other cheek would have been a better option than dueling, and it would have saved lives.


Many non-Christians (and many Christians) don't understand that many passages have historical applicability which changes the interpretation of Biblical passage in question. Shocking! A book over 2000 years old written in different languages doesn't equate 1 to 1 perfectly. This aligns with the previous parts of Matthew 5 (like in 5:38, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’"), that Jesus is merely advocating for peace upon people seeking needless violence (among honorable opponents). And, repeatedly, our opponents aren't honorable, and seek violence regardless of what we do, thus we aren't obligated to turn the other cheek.


> Jesus was, of course, the perfect example of turning the other cheek because He was silent before His accusers and did not call down revenge from heaven on those who crucified Him. Instead, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).


Keep in mind that Jesus knew that his opponents would be met with failure, harm, death, and hell, regardless of what they did to him. He didn't need to seek immediate retribution, as he knew what awaited them should they continue on their course. He prayed for their change of heart, but knew what awaited them should they continue on their path. This doesn't necessarily mean that someone should never fight back, however.


Here's another link:


https://www.thebubble.org.uk/culture/philosophy-religion/the-path-of-most-resistance-what-does-it-mean-to-turn-the-other-cheek/


> There has been thousands of interpretations of this phrase across time, but I will show you a few that could help us to understand it better.


> Many theologians, like N.T Wright (former Bishop of Durham) and P.T Penley, tell us that the answer lies in the historical and linguistic context of the phrase. They see meaning in the fact that Jesus doesn’t generally talk about turning your cheek, but specifically focuses on turning from the right one to the left: “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other one also”. They highlight that Roman soldiers would slap Jewish citizens on the right cheek, using the back of their hands – the type of slap reserved for their ‘inferiors’. However, backhandedly slapping a person on the left cheek (which is what you are forcing them to do when you turn your cheek) would indicate that the recipient was an equal...Thus, this act of “turning the other cheek” has been interpreted as a subtle assertion of the oppressed person’s humanity: pointing out their equal status of being human, to the attacker. Jesus doesn’t suggest that we offer ourselves up as a sacrifice or invite our aggressor to hurt us again, as I initially thought; he is encouraging a nonviolent strategy of highlighting that the attacker is mistreating a fellow human being. Barbara Reid says that the aggressor is then “shamed” and “humiliated” by this highlighting of their wrongdoing.


This would indicate Jesus is advocating for the victim to force the attacker to treat/view him as an equal. This is completely contradictory to the assertion that God/Jesus advocates for us to be pacifists in the face of our own destruction.


So, which interpretation is correct? Is it yours? Why? Are you asserting it's yours because it supports your position, or because it's what God intended?



Also, as it's relevant to this discussion, here are some Biblical passages which support the position that Jesus/God support righteous violence:


Pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament is God commanding the Israelites to war with and destroy various people so they can inhabit a specific area.


> Exodus 15:3: The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.


> Joshua 10: 7-11: So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best fighting men. The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them; I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you.” After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.


> Deuteronomy 20:1: When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.


> Exodus 22:2: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.


> Leviticus 24:17-22: “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’”


> Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.


> Exodus 21:12–14: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die."


> Romans 13:4: for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.


> Proverbs 24:5-6: A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might, for by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.

You can not be closer to the truth.