Violence of Christianity

This a clip from the Poets, Prophets and Preachers conference I spoke at with Rob Bell and Shane Hipps in 2009.

To see my publications visit - http://alturl.com/nizfs

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Peter
• Rollins
• Insurrection
• Rob
• Bell
• Shan
• Hipps
• Violence
• Christianity
• Poets
• Prophets
• Preachers

[word4today1]

Colonialism, racism, and the caste system, yeah it was terrible to challenge those systems, how dare they. Challenging systems using pacifism, even if it indirectly leads to violence, is better than the alternative of non-pacifist violence.

[PeterRollins]

@word4today1 ??? I am a little confused. think you may have misunderstood. I am saying that these people did the right thing. I am saying that the violence of fundamentalism is directed against people but the true violence of faith is directed against systems that oppress people. Zizek's On Violence is a good book dealing with this issue

[changinglenses]

where can I hear the rest of this talk?

[comedyisgreat24]

@snatchX626 Violent pacifism makes sense? Who cares about quantum physics, the reality is lives are being lost to this... Who the fuck cares about quantum physics when they're going to commit violence... If that's your argument to justify it, I mean come on, even a guy who reads about quantum physics should know it's bullshit to try and convince yourself of this.

[snatchX626]

@canyoueatme24 if a man wants to experience god, he must understand that contradictions- like violent pacifism- make sense even though they seem ridiculous at first glance. reality is contradictory by nature, try to read a book on quantum physics.

[NixonisLord]

Violent pacifism is about as sensible as sober alcoholism or fighting for peace.

Mainline Protestantism keeps looking for a magic formula that will save it from oblivion but it still keeps shrinking away. Mainline Protestantism is about as vibrantly diverse as cream cheese.

[canyoueatme24]

This whole thing makes no sense. Violent pacifism? Of course you have a billion followers! You got them all wanting to solve a little riddle that ends with, "Who's God? There's No Such Thing", just think for a second and you'll see, it's all intuition.

[NathanLPaylor]

@clsearcy16

apologies clsearcy16, i didn't know you were originally being sarcastic. mea culpa. please forgive me! it's hard to discern tone in these things.

[clsearcy16]

Please feel free to do a google search on the term "Affirming the Consequent"

[clsearcy16]

@NathanLPaylor Please don't confuse my comment for "rank condescension" because it was meant to convey utter loathing for obfuscating trolls that hide behind the guise of reason by way of rhetorical fallacies... you are doomed to sink with your ship sir.

[NathanLPaylor]

@clsearcy16

I'll ignore the rank condescension, but thanks for it all the same brother.

I am more than aware of the nature of his discussion. That Rollins prefers the parabolic and the abstract is no secret to me. But it seems you are obfuscating. He may well be speaking with metaphors, but he also REFERS to "neo-fundamentalists" at 4.26.

When made, a reference is more than an abstraction or a metaphor. It is... well. It's a *reference*. My point here is that he's *referring* to Driscoll.

[clsearcy16]

@NathanLPaylor he's moving from one metaphor to another in the abstract, try and keep up Nate.