Violence In The Gospel Of Luke And The Koran

“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.

In this TEDTalk, Steven Pinker introduced an interesting trend in societal violence. The talk began by presenting fax that showed a dramatic decrease in the amount of violent crime beginning as far back as the earliest human hunter-gatherers. In many places during that time period, the chances of dying at the hands of another human were as high is sixty percent. Although the media and people tend to believe we are living in a time of extreme violence, we are actually living during one of the most peaceful times in human history. Even though the 20th Century witnessed tragedies such as the Holocaust, Rwanda, Stalin’s mass executions, and two World Wars, the chances of a human by violent means was less than three percent.

The history of humanity is written in blood. Even as violence as a whole is decreasing, acts of extreme violence continue to be perpetrated. To be clear, this essay is not about individuals violent and cold at their core. Such people are readily understood within the image of a lone, antisocial killer set apart from humanity by their very lacking of it. This essay is about violence conducted on a scale that can only be enabled by the participation of people who, under normal circumstances, would not act violent. The puzzle of how and why genocides, apartheid, state brutality, torture, and mob killings are perpetrated by ordinary people points to psychosocial mechanisms as their cause. Ordinarily non-violent people commit extreme violence

There are two sides to many things, one could argue that there are two sides to everything. Violence is not excluded from this argument. The two possible sides, or viewpoints, that are a result of violence can easily be seen as extremes of either side. One side could argue that violence is something that is necessary and the other argue that violence is only a tool for destruction. People who insist that violence is necessary in order to move forward view it as a way to sway the outcome to their benefit. For those who see violence as a cowardly tactic to control people, violence is a useless display of power and dominance. Yet violence has also been a way to defend oneself from people who pose a threat. This can lead people who have good

Being violent gives man respect and masculine credibility (Katz, 2013). The focus should be on addressing the issue of men feeling the need to be violent to be masculine. Men should not need to feel as if violence should be the answer to their problems. Much more reasonable alternate solutions can be used to mediate a situation rather than using violence. Men are raised to believe one needs to be tough to be successful and masculine. This problem will never be solved unless people become aware that masculinity is not defined by violence.

History has told us that violence has never been the solution to more violence. Nowadays, actions of violence are everywhere, in movies, television serious, in our daily life. We live in a world where power is often established through violence. But for a truly Christian, the form of violence the world chooses is always surpassed by the truth of the Scriptures. Violence is never the solution to resolve conflicts, because violence generates more violence. For many years, violence has been the answer to conflicts in many Latin American countries. According to Jon Sobrino, “Latin America is an extremely violent continent.” The option for the poor has arisen in Latin America, a continent that is mostly poor and Christian. Latin America has always been characterized by the difference of social classes and by the oppression of the poor. The option for the poor has arisen in Latin America, a continent that is mostly poor and Christian. As a result of these characteristics of injustices, the oppressed raised their voice to ask for their rights to be respected. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, “The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God.” Moreover, the demanding for basic respect for any individual no matter what social class someone belongs to, has always generated conflicts where violence seems to best the answer. As a better result, anyone could think that seeking dialogue would be the

You must also take a look at the reasons for violent acts and what constitutes as such. In the “Meanings of Violence” by Dov Cohen and Joe Vandello, they examine the difference in the meaning of insults between the Southerners and Northerners in the United States. They talk about the importance in social status and the concept that anthropologist have called “Culture of Honor”. With the concept individual is based on their social position and how tough they are or what courage they carry. There is also the idea that if a persons social standing in reduced for whatever reason that there is belief that violence could be used to restore their position. The idea of culture-of-honor is that an incident may occur over something as “trivial” as being glanced at wrongly, or showing a threatening insult. The individuals may not see it as being a trivial circumstance but a threat to stand their ground and prove their

However, it is important to note that gender-based violence also effects men as well, specifically in the ways in which gender, race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status perpetuate men’s violent acts. Society’s meaning of “being a man” or “being masculine” are harmful influences to the overarching problem.

Another example of humanity’s struggle with violence theme happened when Kino killed a man in self-defense. Kino was caring and friendly; he would never intently mean to harm or kill anyone unless someone was bringing harm to him and the things that he loved. One night a “dark one” on the path attacked Kino as he was walking toward his brush hut. The “dark one” wanted Kino’s pearl and would do anything to get it. In return, Kino also wanted the pearl and would protect it at all cost. The following quote demonstrated the violent actions that resulted due to this attack, “He heard the rush, got his knife out and lunged at one dark figure and felt his knife go home” (59). Kino’s violent actions towards the dark figure revealed the theme of violence. This dark figure, who attacked, Kino wanted his most valuable possession and Kino was not going to give his pearl up for any reason. Kino protected what was his, his pearl. Kino felt he attacked the “dark one” in self-defense, but the way the town’s people thought it was different. Violence, once

Human civilization has come a long way from the Stone Age. Yet man continues to be violent in his conduct. In fact, violence has increased today. A man cannot walk on the street without looking over his shoulder because of fear of assault. Top leaders of the nation, as well as retired military generals, are assassinated in broad daylight. The roads are spilled with human blood. Firearms, bombs, swords, are frequently flourished and used.

With time violence may become such a commonplace that even seemingly sane people will see no problem murdering a store clerk, opening fire on someone that cut them off on the highway, or killing a disobedient child. "A society that chooses violent death as a solution to a social problem gives official sanction to a climate of violence." (Prejean, 57)

Jesus' decision to physically cast out the moneylenders from the temple stands as one of the most interesting events of his life, because it represents what seems to be the only moment in the Gospel narratives where he becomes visibly angry to the point of physical action. While one could argue that Jesus is frequently (and justifiably) angry with the disciples from time to time, this is the only moment that Jesus' anger moves him to physical force. Although the event is recorded in all four of the Gospels, this study will focus specifically on its rendering in Matthew, because when considered in the context of Matthew's larger narrative, one can see how Jesus' decision to cleanse the temple does not represent an aberration in either his character or theological message, but rather the natural culmination of Jesus' life and works prior to that point, and demonstrates a kind of revolutionary, anti-authoritarian element of Jesus' message of salvation that is all too often overlooked by Christians and critics alike.

Just because we have a gun doesn’t mean we should go around pointing it at people, or if we have a sword, using it aimlessly. We see in Luke 22:36 where Jesus says, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” In this verse we see that Christ seems to encourage the use of the sword, saying that if they don’t have one to go buy one. Although further reading shows that Jesus’s response is different. Luke 22:49-51 says, “And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, ‘Lord shall we strike with the sword?’ And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, ‘No more of this!’ and he touched his ear and healed him.” It seemed as if in this situation Christ was against the idea of the sword, perhaps it was in the way that Peter used it; being impulsive. Furthermore, it had to do with the fact that Peter was trying to stop something that Christ kept prophesizing about. Peter was willing to use the sword to save Jesus, but it all comes back to being wise. Although we see various stories of war such as David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17), the Bible calls us to be peaceful, verses like Romans 12:17 and Matthew 5:39; so we see a contrast within peace and war. Just as we are told to be wise with how we use self defense; there could

Luke stresses to tell this account, calling the action of those who hold Jesus in custody sacrilegious. They mock him and beat him, as others had reviled a prophet earlier. Here the soldiers play an ancient version of blind man’s bluff. They think Jesus should name his aggressors. If he is the prophet the public claims, this should be an easy task. The adversaries' reviling of Jesus is full of ridicule and rudeness. When the world turns from insignificance to aggression against Jesus, this is how their reaction to him looks. It is easy to mock what is not respected.

There are some who may believe that in situations where violence is taking place against another person then they are justified to strike back; however, Jesus found Himself in a similar situation,