Violence and Christianity ‘If a Christian loved his neighbour he would not fight.’
There are many arguments agreeing and disagreeing with this statement.
The bible teaches Christians that they should not fight. An example of
this is “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” This
is telling Christians that they should love everyone and not fight
them. Another biblical teaching is “If someone strikes you on he right
cheek, turn to him with the other also.” This is saying not to fight
even in self defence. Although this is in the bible another teaching
is “If you don’t have a sword sell your cloak and buy one.” This means
that if you do not have a sword, or a weapon, get one. But this
teaching contradicts and is contradicted most of all buy this teaching
“All who draw the sword will die by the sword.” This is saying that
all who fights will die fighting.
Another reason that Christians disagree with the above statement is
that some are pacifists. This means that they will not fight.
Pacifists are those who believe that violence leads to more violence
and rarely achieves the results intended. They also believe that war
brings out the worst in mankind and ‘lays bare the dark side of human
nature.’
Quakers are a branch of Christianity that are also pacifists. They
do not fight at all with any weapons for any aim whatsoever. They say
...
... middle of paper ...
...are just or
not, but are those used by the Catholic Church.
A final reason that some Christians may give for disagreeing with the
statement is that they believe in Liberation Theology. This is a
movement believe that the gospels demand that the people stand up and
fight against injustice. This does not necessarily involve violence
but for some it does. There is a lot of Liberation Theology movements
in Latin America where there is a lot of poverty and suffering. They
do not believe that God has left them, they believe that it is up to
themselves to stand up for what they believe in.
There are many viewpoints that a Christian can have and none of them
are right. Personally I most agree with Liberation theology but not
through violence. I think that it is good to stand up for your rights
and what you believe in.
The Crusades were a bloody time period. They were a military campaign by the pope and the Roman Catholic Church to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims. They lasted from the 11th- 13th century. They were catastrophic and left Europe in ruins. Although the Crusades were such a violent period of time, they had a positive impact in history because of their role in the renaissance and exposing the Western world to the Eastern.
Inigo, the fencing Spaniard, is driven because of a horrible tragedy which occurred when Inigo was only 10-years-old. A year before the tragedy, a nobleman asked Domingo Montoya, Inigo’s father, to make him a sword because Domingo was the greatest sword maker in the world. At first Domingo refused, even when he was offered 500 pieces of gold. However, when Domingo discovered that the nobleman had six-fingers on his fencing hand, Domingo became excited. Domingo realized making this particular sword would be a challenge that he would relish.
“It was never [Beowulf’s] fortune to be helped in combat by the cutting edge of weapons made in iron. When he wielded a sword, no matter how blooded and hard-edged the blade his hand was too strong, the stroke he dealt would ruin it (lines 2677-2687)”
Violence is a recurring theme for many stories, particularly in the York Play of the Crucifixion and Beowulf. The York Play of the Crucifixion went into detail of the soldiers’ task to crucify Jesus. Violence was a reflection of their job and of the times at hand. Beowulf is a heroic story of how one man concurred many monsters, his violent acts made him superior to others, making him a great King. This glorified him amongst the people. These two stories utilize violence in different aspects, while at the same time uniting their enjoyment to inflict more pain to their adversaries.
Does such a combination of words as "a war in the name of God" make sense? The main principles, which underlie Christianity and Islam, are those of goodness, kindness, lack of aggression and respecting certain moral laws. Christianity and Islam provide human society with a code of ethics, which totally rejects war because it is something violent, inhumane and cruel. Still, over the course of human history many wars have been justified with religion and with imposing the "right faith". Because of misunderstanding of certain parts of religion or deliberate misuse of it European and Islamic states have often used violence to fulfill their goals.
In different circumstances using violence on behalf of religion has aided a reformation, or the spreading of the gospel. Other times, millions of people have died due to resistance. Some situations call for violence and others do not. However, there is a failsafe way of determining whether violence should be used on behalf of religion, or not.
Conduct in warfare might be "every man for himself" in today’s world however, during Beowulf’s time, the poet shows that honor was the most valuable asset. Upon knowledge that Grendel used no weapons, just bare flesh, Beowulf immediately put his weapons aside and promised to fight empty handed, so the fight would be fair. "I have also heard say that the monster in his recklessness cares not for weapons......I scorn to bear sword or broad shield, yellow wood, to the battle, but with my grasp I shall grapple with the enemy and fight for life, foe against foe " (Norton 32). An unfair fight, as the poet implies, has no glory or distinction. This proves Beowulf to be a worthy hero and role-model.
guard and says 'all who live by the sword, will die by the sword.' And
Do Romans have an obsession with violence? We think about this question, and yes they did have an obsession. The Romans enjoyed violence and found it amusing to see people getting killed. It went on until it came as an obsession. It came through politics, entertainment, and family life.
For a long time, people had been debating about Christians with War. Christians was confused with God, as they did not understand what God wills regarding war. Are Christians allowed to go to war, or should they be pacifist about it? The bible contains both stories and parables that talks about war.
During a freedom march on May 29, 1964 in Canton, Mississippi a boy by the name of McKinley Hamilton was brutally beaten by police to the point of unconsciousness. One of the witnesses of this event, and the author of the autobiography which this paper is written in response to, was Anne (Essie Mae) Moody. This event was just one of a long line of violent experiences of Moody’s life; experiences that ranged from her own physical domestic abuse to emotional and psychological damage encountered daily in a racist, divided South. In her autobiography Moody not only discusses in detail the abuses in her life, but also her responses and actions to resist them. The reader can track her progression in these strategies throughout the various stages of her life; from innocent childhood, to adolescence at which time her views from a sheltered childhood began to unravel and finally in adulthood when she took it upon herself to fight back against racial prejudice.
Let's talk about absolutely ridiculous pronouncements people make that either ignore simple fact or border on insanity. How about this one: Violence is no way to settle anything! Evidence suggests that violence is a very effective way of settling things. How about a few examples? In 1776, violence settled whether the thirteen colonies would be independent or remain under King George's thumb. In 1865, violence settled whether there'd be a Confederacy and a Union or just a Union. Between 1941 and 1945, violence settled whether Japan would control the Far East and whether Germany would control Europe. Violence settled whether American Indians owned and controlled the land now call United States or whether it would be European settlers and their progeny. In fact, violence has settled the question of land use-rights virtually everywhere.
Everyone experiences anger at some point in their life. We all have those topics that if it gets brought up we automatically go into our defense mood, whether it be sex, religion or politics . We all have had those skeletons in our closets that we don’t like to bring out. Commonly anger and aggression are used together but they aren’t the same thing according to the Interpersonal Conflict textbook, “Anger differs from aggression is an attack whereas anger is the feeling connected to a perceived unfairness or injustice. Anger can help people set boundaries when they need to be set and to right wrongs.”
they are not seen as a person, a brother, a son, a husband, but just
"What tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove" is the sentence which concludes a short speech delivered by Henry Bolingbroke to King Richard II (1.1.6). These words are but the first demonstration of the marked difference between the above-mentioned characters in The Tragedy of Richard II. The line presents a man intent on action, a foil to the title character, a man of words.