`` Jesus And Violence `` By Jon Sobrino

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

There is plenty of violence and hatred going on throughout the world today and much of it is not because of a specific reason or for revenge but mainly because of ignorance. There are many conflicts within the human race, especially concerning racism and violence, and Anzaldua makes it clear that ignorance is what keeps people split apart, and it is what causes all of these issues in our world today, such as war, poverty, and pessimism. A recent event of this in our world today is the war in Uganda, and the fact that young boys are fighting and killing in a war they know nothing about. The people in Africa are fighting each other for no reason except for the fact that a long time ago the

One of the many things that puzzle people even today; is how Jesus was portrayed and how he became a part of history throughout the centuries. Fortunately, within the book Jesus Through the Centuries, written by Jaroslav Pelikan, readers are able to get a sense of what societies viewed Jesus as and how he was/is important to many aspects of the world such as; the political, social, and cultural impact he had left. As Pelikan discusses this very topic and theme in his book, we see how there’s a connection between his audience in this book and Jesus’s are closely similar. When he got his motivation to write about Jesus through the Centuries, Jaroslav had an open audience, which was intended for anyone of all ages, races, and beliefs to read

This repeated strategy allows the reader to draw the connotation from the words into the arguments. Chavez promotes this by describing nonviolence with the words such as “power,” “support” and “justice.” These words have a strong, positive connotation, which is then applied to nonviolence. Giving his argument the aforementioned strong, positive connotation appeals to the pathos of his readers and further validates his argument. Chavez proceeds to critique violent resistance in the same way he validated nonviolence. By including words with negative connotations, such as “shortcut,” demoralization,” and “exploit,” violence resistance receives the strong negative connotation these words have. With the article published in the magazine of a religious organization, Chavez’s audience consisted of religious people devoted to helping those in need. Even when Chavez is looking to the religious component of nonviolent resistance, he includes comparisons to strengthen his argument. After Chavez describes “human life [a]s a very special possession given by God” he emphasizes that “no one has the right to take it for any reason.” These opposing positions create a clear choice for the religious readers to support, which is also Chavez’s position. When the text is examined beyond its surface appearance, the contrasting connotations support the growth of nonviolent

David Nirenberg talks about two types of violence, “cataclysmic violence” and “systematic violence”. The first part of the book discusses “cataclysmic” violence, while the second part of the book focuses on “systematic violence.”

Just as we formerly pointed out that “hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions,” we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems.(372)

Since Chavez’s essay is being published in the magazine of a religious organization, he appeals the reader's sense of religious fidelity by including God into his cause. He uses God to guilt those who believe that taking a human life is justifiable if it for a cause they strongly believe in while also captivating those who are deeply aware of the rights God has given them. After introducing his religious rationality he once again appeals to his audience’s morality by portraying violence as a “shortcut to change” that will eventually lead to many injuries and or death on both sides, or “total demoralization of the workers.” Therefore only those who do not wish to cause “misery, poverty, or exploitation” on others are truly concerned for the well-being of others. Chavez demonstrates that boycotts, marches, and strikes are the best “weapons” to “avoid senseless violence”, thus convincing his readers that violence is corrupt and will surely deteriorate the nation as a whole.

The comparison of violence to nonviolence highlights Chavez’s argument that nonviolence is the only way to achieve positive results. Chavez characterizes violence as a temporary solution in which “people suffer.” This description of violence as a last resort that results out of frustration is in stark contrast to Chavez’s characterization of nonviolence. Nonviolence stems from oppression. It is exercised as a form of self-determination

In our book “American Jesus” by Stephen Prothero, the chairman of the religious department at Boston University, has published an engaging book that explains how the Son of God “Jesus Christ” became the nation’s most known and forming celebrity figure. While the United States of America was founded on religious freedom, Prothero explains to us that America has more active Christians than any other nation in history. And while this nation has been somewhat of a hedonistic society, Americans are more interested in the figure of Jesus than their Puritan forefathers, who were, as Prothero writes, "a God-fearing rather than Jesus-loving people." But that’s no surprise; Prothero warns us that Jesus may rule the country, but the people in the country

Rather brutally honest with their views on the conflict, the children spoke with the minimal prior knowledge they had. This way, the film sought to capture the impartial opinions of victims in the crisis. However, the consequence of this supposed path to reality lies in the children’s unweighted belief in their single and likely predisposed source of knowledge -- correlated with using a microcosm to explain a macrocosm. Religion -- the man-made practice of worshipping a supernatural force -- distorts a country’s peace. Some may argue that religion unifies a country because of its standards and morals. Nevertheless, religion has been created by man -- an interpreted way to practice faith, which is commonly misconcepted as religion. Religion is one’s interpretation of a practice that will satisfy a supernatural force. While every interpretation differs infinitesimally, so does religion -- from individual to individual. With this as a basis for such a prime conflict in Southwest Asia, no matter who decides to step into both shoes of the conflict, impartiality will never be achieved because of the infinite number of shoes that must be stepped into. That said, only a portion of this conflict was covered by the film, but must not be held against the film because of the impossibility to do so. Additionally, because this film was a primary account of the conflict, it definitely veered from conventional classroom notes which are secondary or tertiary

The understanding of the concept of social of construction is in accepting that it is the social process of construction meaning to the things around us. We constructed meaning to those things around us through language and categorizing the world. For example, gender is a social construct in which we created two categories or two genders, male and female. We are put into one of these categories when we are born. Another example could be race, we are again, put into categories based off of our skin color. This social construct is what separates us further as a human from others alike. So what does it mean to say human violence is socially constructed? In understanding this we have to look at other words or language that have been created. Such as the world evil, or the word power. In knowing how these meanings are related to violence we can understand more what classifies as violence and even perhaps, what causes it.

Violence and war is notable throughout history. However, it is lazy to say that this proves humans are naturally violent. Rather than using nature as an excuse for those who chose to act violently it’s important we recognize that we have a choice to decide how we act. In Howard Zinn’s, “Violence and Human Nature” He shows that violence is not an instinct but that the environment in which they live in provokes them to act violently or peacefully depending on their choice (43). In City of God, a film concentrating on the gangs of Rio de Janeiro during the 1960’s to the 1980’s, specifically the township of Cidade de Deus, we are introduced to various characters who all make different choices under different motivations. Rocket, the little brother to a member of the Tender Trio, who are essentially the Robin Hood’s of the City of God, to act non-violently despite his environment and the influences around him.

In the article “Why The World Is More Peaceful”, the author, Steven Pinker (2012), argues that, over hundreds of years, violence has declined around the world. He claims that government, commerce, and literacy have encouraged people to restrain their violent impulses, empathize with others, and use reason to solve problems. This article was first published in the journal Current History. It is a continuation of an argument Pinker made in his book The Better Angels Of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011). The article is directed toward a general but educated audience. Although Pinker’s article is relevant and logical, many of the author’s arguments are not supported with adequate

In Martin Marty book, Politics, Religion, and the Common Good, Marty argues that there is a movement of violence in religion. He believes “Violence is authorized by religion because religion is inherently absolutist in the type of authoritative claims it makes and in the all-encompassing nature of its demands on its

The history of human nature has been bloody, painful, and even destructive. Nonetheless, before understanding their environments humans used to kill each other based on their own mindset on the ideal of violence, and what it actually meant. Pinker describes narratives of violent acts from the past, that today are foreign to us. He gives us a tour of the historical human violence and how the violence in human nature has changed throughout time. The main idea from Pinker’s book,“The Better Angels of Our Nature ', is “for all the dangers we face today, the dangers of yesterday were even worse.” He provides its readers with explicit violent stories beginning from 8000 BCE to now, and describes how violence has evolved from a blood lost to more of a peaceful existence.