Ask a Protestant Christian

[timtofly]

To put God above all else is what God is looking for. What we have on earth, be it family, job, health, sickness, losses, it all belongs to God and not us. It is nature that causes us to hold on to people and things. Now somehow we were given the book of Job that describes this for us. God gives and God takes away, blessed be the name of the LORD. Take this a step further, it is blessed to allow God's will on and in us. While here on earth, we have that choice, I do not see it ongoing in heaven. There will be a new heaven and a new earth and all things will be different.

Job also points out that God is proud of the righteous and allows satan to "have at them". IMO Satan had free will first, I assume after his rebellion, God created man to "prove" they would also "not rebel" like satan had. There was one simple command, "do not eat thereof." You have the whole world and it is perfect, go forth and multiply. I think that man knew satan was not to be trusted, but I also think that man loved woman more than he did God. After Jesus died to pay the final and absolute penalty for Adam's failure, we have a second chance to not resist evil, but trust that GOD will have our back and not to hold on to family, even if GOD takes them or they turn their back on GOD.

Now human reasoning would cause me to look on God as sadistic and not very fair. Give us free will, but them throw us to the devil if we abuse it. Offer us a "robotic" everlasting life for living in misery down here. We think we know better than God, we would rather agree with satan that we could do a better Job than God. Personally, I wish that Adam would have looked at Eve and said I love you, but no thanks, but that did not happen, but each one of us has that choice....

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I find that I often disagree with Christians. I tend to interpret Jesus's exhortation towards love more strongly than they do. I see him urging more self-sacrifice and greater universality in how we treat others. Others seem to be willing to dilute the platonic concept of love (not platonic love), and treating others as we treat ourselves. I find Jesus's message to be a much stronger message of self-denial, asceticism, and charity than others do. The agnostic in me wonders if this popular theology is why God doesn't heal amputees (prediction: it's going to be the atheists who end up doing that).

Yes, we have choice. I acknowledge that. But we also have basal instincts, some of which are corrupt. We can easily choose to foster them, to nurture them, and even (yes) justify them. There's a strong urge to justify our instincts, whether they're noble or corrupt. Instincts are some of the easiest ways of self-deceiving.

So, please let me know where Jesus is quoted as saying that it was acceptable (or desirable!) to preferentially love your own family more than you love your neighbours! I just don't think it's there, and that you're post-hocing instincts. Jesus very clearly exhorts us to love our neighbour (in fact, this is nearly the whole of the law). He very clearly exhorts us to love our enemies. In fact, I think there's strong evidence that he suggests that preferentially loving our family is an error. I alluded to it above, but I'll quote directly

If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

(since you specifically mentioned your wife and your mother)

This is really strong language. Hate (again, not quite being hate in translation, but it is certainly not 'preferentially love') is a strong word. Cannot be my disciple is also very strong language.

In fact, the only time Jesus is ever quoted that hating was acceptable (or even required) was that list of people who we find it instinctively easiest to love. Our chosen spouse, our immediate family, and ourselves.

What does that text mean, then (to Protestants)?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I do agree we should love our neighbors more than ourselves. But I don't agree that hatred of family is literal. Its a metaphor for loving God more than anything.

As for loving our enemies more than our family... I don't think that's commanded, though ideally we would love everyone the same, as Jesus did.

 

[Arakhor]

Commanding someone to hate his family, friends and neighbours and even his own life is a metaphor for loving God?? That takes a phenomenal leap of logic.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

If it's a metaphor for loving god, then it's a wonder that more teenagers haven't become Christians.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm sorry, I worded that wrong. Its a metaphor for loving God so much that your love for family sounds like hatred in comparison. I didn't complete my thought for some reason...

 

[El_Machinae]

Careful, you're misreading. I didn't imply "more than" ourselves or our family or God.

ideally we would love everyone the same, as Jesus did.

But this gets back to my original question. I think it would be nearly impossible to kill members of my family (especially the ones that I adore) in self-defense. How can we justify killing the non-adored in self-defense? To do so is to fail what we were commanded to do! If I wouldn't shoot a family member that I adore, but shoot an enemy, how can I possibly be 'hating' my mother and 'loving' my enemy?

If my family member abused me, or was consistently threatening, then eventually I might be capable of lethally defending myself. However, it's clear (to me) that the threatening/abuse would actually erode my natural affection, that this abuse would cause me to love them less. I'd not want to, but eventually I'd no longer value their lives over my own. As we know, any man can love those who are nice to him. But that's not what we're called to do.

We're called to love our enemies. We're called to 'resist not evil'. In fact, I think we're called to lay down our lives out of love, rather than fail to love our enemies. If you love your life more than you love others (even your enemies), then we cannot be disciples. Cannot be.

I think that this is the root of Jesus's pacifistic message. However, this message will naturally be selected against in the struggle of ideas, because Christians that're willing to treat their friends better than their enemies are going to outlast (in this world) Christians that aren't willing to.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But this gets back to my original question. I think it would be nearly impossible to kill members of my family (especially the ones that I adore) in self-defense. How can we justify killing the non-adored in self-defense? To do so is to fail what we were commanded to do! If I wouldn't shoot a family member that I adore, but shoot an enemy, how can I possibly be 'hating' my mother and 'loving' my enemy?

If my family member abused me, or was consistently threatening, then eventually I might be capable of lethally defending myself. However, it's clear (to me) that the threatening/abuse would actually erode my natural affection, that this abuse would cause me to love them less. I'd not want to, but eventually I'd no longer value their lives over my own. As we know, any man can love those who are nice to him. But that's not what we're called to do.

We're called to love our enemies. We're called to 'resist not evil'. In fact, I think we're called to lay down our lives out of love, rather than fail to love our enemies. If you love your life more than you love others (even your enemies), then we cannot be disciples. Cannot be.

I think that this is the root of Jesus's pacifistic message. However, this message will naturally be selected against in the struggle of ideas, because Christians that're willing to treat their friends better than their enemies are going to outlast (in this world) Christians that aren't willing to.

There is no evidence of Jesus being a total pacifist, even though he himself never attacked anyone.

Just because you couldn't kill a family member in self-defense, does not mean it would inherently be wrong to do so.

The Bible frequently commands war and allows self defense. There may be circumstances where self defense is not appropriate, and a given person may be by conscience inclined to NEVER use self-defense, but self-defense isn't inherently wrong.

What do you think if someone else, besides oneself, was in danger? What if your wife and daughters were in danger of being raped and killed? Are you suggesting the Bible says you must allow this to happen?

No, it does not. The point of the message is that we should put God first, and put others before ourselves. This does NOT mean self-defense or defense of others is inherently wrong or sinful.

 

[El_Machinae]

What if your wife and daughters were in danger of being raped and killed? Are you suggesting the Bible says you must allow this to happen?

Yes, I am suggesting it.
Or, at least, I'm asking for a direct reconciliation between your instinctive response (and mine!) to the scenario and ...
"Resist not evil"
and ...
"hate your daughter and your wife" ('hate' not being 'hate')
and ...
"love God with all your heart"
and ...
"Blessed are those who mourn"
and ...
"Blessed are the meek"

Where is Jesus saying "kill the evil person" or "kill in self defense" or "feel free to cap someone attacking your daughter"? All I see are admonitions to have faith, to trust God, and to love

Jesus said that love is being willing to lay down your life (/soul, the text is unclear) for someone. Not "being willing to kill for". Self-sacrifice is the message.
Again, 'resist not evil'. 'hate your wife'.
These are not unclear.

Your daughter/wife are blessed despite the fact that you failed to intervene. Your failure to kill another, to commit violence upon another, does not hurt her, not in the long run. But your willingness to place her life above the life of her assailant hurts you, because you're failing to be Jesus's disciple. You're valuing your life (and hers) more than you're valuing your love for God. You're not trusting God. You're not loving the enemy as much as you should, because there's no way you could kill someone that you completely love.

Jesus told us to love our enemies. He also told us to 'hate' those we most easily (and instinctively) love. I just cannot see how you can reconcile that with being willing to kill the enemy to save your family. Hell, it's more easy to reconcile that with a willingness to kill your family to save your enemy! That's an obviously evil interpretation, but it's certainly easier to reconcile! Much fewer acrobatics.

Like I said, this viewpoint wouldn't be popular, because Christians who put family over enemy (and choose to interpret that as acceptable) would have an easier time getting such a message to propagate.

No one said being a true Christian would be easy? Why do you think there were warnings about being a Christian would make you unpopular?

How do you love your enemy, hate your family, and be willing to kill the one you're supposed to hate in order to protect the one you've been called to abandon?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You are misunderstanding the point a bit I think:

First of all, "Hate your family" is in relation to God. You should love God so much, your love for family should look like hatred in comparison.

On the other hand, "Love your enemies" is not referring to "In comparison to God" its just a command, love them.

And you can have love for someone, and still defend yourself against them.

I think it depends on the particular situation, however, in general, while it may be more noble to give up ones own life to help an enemy, when it is SOMEONE ELSE'S life, the game changes entirely. You don't have a right to stand by and allow your daughter to be raped and murdered.

Also, just because something is wrong (Even if your interpretation were correct) does not mean that someone doing that thing is not a Christian, unless the text specifically says so.

"Resist not evil"

Right after this, it says "If a Man slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap the left cheek also." A "Slap on the cheek" was an insult, a humiliation, not serious harm.

A daughter dying, that's fairly serious harm. What if she wasn't saved? The harm would be catastrophic.

The thing is, Jesus was teaching his followers how to live as Christians, and Christ's words are sufficient for THAT PURPOSE. But if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the small details of the law, and so forth, you need to turn to Paul and the Old Testament. That wasn't why Christ came, because it wasn't the #1 most important thing.

I could cite texts that prove that Self-defense is OK, but I'm not going to post something that takes me 30+ minutes to compile unless you are actually interested in it.

 

[Arakhor]

Why would Jesus say something so odd, though? He frequently spoke in parables, but construing hating one's family as loving God so much that mortal love is as hatred is a BIG stretch.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are you suggesting Jesus is saying we should literally hate our family? Would you care to start?

 

[Arakhor]

Of course not. Jesus rarely meant his more inexplicable stuff literally, but he also usually explained himself. Why did he leave this particular phrase up to interpretation?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm guessing the same reason that he didn't explain "If your eye causes you to Sin, pluck it out," because it was so obvious to the people of that time that it was hyperbole that he didn't really need to say so.

 

[Ajidica]

Yo, protestants: Can God be empiricaly proven?

 

[GhostWriter16]

By Science? No, he can't, although there is evidence, you have to conclude for yourself.

But has he revealed himself to some people in such a way that you CAN emprically see it proved, to them? Yes.

 

[Arakhor]

That's a non-answer. If you prove something empirically, you are proving it via evidence and observation. Either it can be empirically proved or it can't be. The whole nature of empirical evidence is that it is not subjective, but objective.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Why was I chastized in Sunday school (Lutheran) for praying for dead loved ones? Mind you "praying for" not "praying to." As I learned in the Catholic thread, it is not out of the ordinary for them.

 

[El_Machinae]

First of all, "Hate your family" is in relation to God. You should love God so much, your love for family should look like hatred in comparison.

I don't think that's quite it. You need a more sophisticated understanding of 'detest'. It means 'be willing to discard' or 'devalue' in that text. Yeah, devalue next to God, I get it. In other words, unless you're willing to give up your loved ones to follow God, you cannot be a disciple.

On the other hand, "Love your enemies" is not referring to "In comparison to God" its just a command, love them.

And you can have love for someone, and still defend yourself against them.

Yes, but only if you value their lives less than you value your own life.

I think it depends on the particular situation, however, in general, while it may be more noble to give up ones own life to help an enemy, when it is SOMEONE ELSE'S life, the game changes entirely. You don't have a right to stand by and allow your daughter to be raped and murdered.

Yes, I understand the instinct. I just don't think it can be justified with NT Scripture.
If you're willing to give up your own life to prevent the death of an enemy, I think that's an incredible level of nobility in pacifism.

Also, just because something is wrong (Even if your interpretation were correct) does not mean that someone doing that thing is not a Christian, unless the text specifically says so.

IMO only, but I think the modern conception of "Christian" is incredibly diluted. We're raised in these self-satisfied societies, where a bunch of people have figured out how to say "oh yeah, we're Christian" and then the Framing Effect allows others to agree. And their interpretation is the more easy one, so it's more diluted. How can they be anything but lukewarm, if they live in lukewarm houses? Work in lukewarm jobs? Watch lukewarm TV every evening? They get by with just agreeing with each other "yeah, we're Christians!"

A daughter dying, that's fairly serious harm. What if she wasn't saved? The harm would be catastrophic.

Er, what if the rapist ISN'T? Jesus has already asked (many times) to trust him that the right thing will be done, if you follow his teachings. "Blessed are (the victims)". You think Jesus will let your daughter go to Hell, if you failed to save her while trying to do what He wanted? "Oh ye of little faith" springs to mind.

The thing is, Jesus was teaching his followers how to live as Christians, and Christ's words are sufficient for THAT PURPOSE. But if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the small details of the law, and so forth, you need to turn to Paul and the Old Testament. That wasn't why Christ came, because it wasn't the #1 most important thing.

I could cite texts that prove that Self-defense is OK, but I'm not going to post something that takes me 30+ minutes to compile unless you are actually interested in it.

Yes, please. I just don't think it's there. To justify killing, you'd have to go to the OT. That's the way things were before Jesus said to be willing to abandon your family and before Jesus said to not resist evil and before being 'blessed by God' was achieved in afterlife rewards instead of temporal, material rewards.

There are only three instances I can think of:
- Jesus assaulting all the moneylenders. Well, you're not Jesus. God, we understand, has the right to visit whatever violence He wants. God being vicious doesn't give people the right to be vicious.
- Jesus sending the soldier on his way. We have no idea regarding the fate of that soldier. Did he do any killing? We don't know! Was he just a bureaucrat administrator? He might have been.
- Jesus telling the disciples to grab the swords. Okay, this one is more proof for me, because it fits my interpretation. What did Peter do? He used the sword to defend a loved one! What did Jesus do? Chastise him for it! We have a clear example of Jesus (a) fulfilling Scripture regarding his arrest and (b) using Peter as an object lesson to actually not use violence to defend loved ones. To trust God.

If you can find NT script suggesting that "killing bad guys to defend loved ones" is acceptable, then I'm all eyes. We'd wonder, then, how Peter and Paul were martyred though. Because getting martyred (without vigorously defending yourself) is something a pacifist does. Other martyrs, the warrior ones, go down swinging.

 

[kochman]

Yo, protestants: Can God be empiricaly proven?

I don't know, let's ask the soviets... they flew into space, didn't see Him, and declared Him non-existent.
If you accept that Jesus is God, then yes, He can be proven.
I don't think God is really worried about proving His existence, that's why we have "faith".

Why was I chastized in Sunday school (Lutheran) for praying for dead loved ones? Mind you "praying for" not "praying to." As I learned in the Catholic thread, it is not out of the ordinary for them.

You'd have to ask the chastizer?
I know that we generally believe that there is no purgatory/limbo, so once the soul goes up it is judged...
However, Revelations seems to contradict that, IF we apply the human concept of time to it all, which we probably shouldn't.
I guess that once a person is dead, their fate is basically sealed, because they cannot change anything anymore.