Force VS Pacifism

[kinja]

I think it is a grand waste of time trying to justify force or pacifism based on wars and those involved in them. Most of the battles sited in this thread have been fought not for truth and goodness but for money and to maintain the balance of power. Any economist or politician can verify this and many have already. The intervention or retaliation of the US or Britain or any super power with respect to war has been shown historically to have been driven by power and money. It is not about protecting the innocent or else many travesties of justice occuring right now all over the world would be stopped by the “powers that be”.

Instead we see China invading Tibet and other nations in modern times and the so called freedom fighters remain silent. We know why President Bush really had Iraq invaded and why his dad was fighting for Kuwait. It’s about protecting the oil interests of America and maintaining the balance of power. Non of it is done out of love and kindness. Let us not be naive enough to believe this.

I think that wars with continue to happen and tensions will continue to exist causing much pain and suffering as long as the use of force born out of a desire to take matters into our own hands is perpetuated. Instead if we started trusting in the Lord to guide infailingly our actions/inactions then we would could truly bring about REAL sustainable change in the world.

 

[kinja]

What so he can victimize her too? Funny how you’re condescending enough to treat the things he says as trivial when you’ve never even heard them.

“If I had my way, I’d kill every last American.”

“Americans don’t deserve to live.”

<On JP2’s death> “I’m GLAD he’s dead! vulgar hand gesture”

I don’t need to go to America to know the ramifications if such statements were made on U.S. soil. Just look at how you guys treat the Westboro wackos.

It’s even funnier when you tell me to get a girlfriend when “meek and religious” are actual turn-ons for me. However, while those traits make a girl a potential partner for me; for bullies like him, they make her potential prey.

This guy hates those defending the Christian religion. The things he says aren’t petty teases. Its unwarranted attacks on my person and on my religion. He also has a history of violence that makes me wish I carried a gun with me.

So what you are saying is that you feel the need to return his attacks in kind (ie. become that which you dislike) in order to get the outcome YOU want (ie. for him to shut up and respect you). It sounds to me that you are approaching the problem of this guy in a horizontal (worldly) way. What I would suggest you do it approach this using the vertical (trust God) method. The Holy Spirit will (name removed by moderator)ire you to say or do something totally opposite to what your natural reaction might be.

Suppose this guy also created in God’s image was fighting within himself some deep hurt at the hands of a catholic or a US citizen? Suppose this is his way of dealing with His pain? You don’t know so pray for discernment so that you can see clearly what to do to help him and die to your self pride and offense. This is an opporunity for you to grow as well. Many more people have been converted to Christ by the self sacrificing efforts of regular folks (not just matrys and saints) than by force. Your actions should always speak to trust in God not in your own abilities.

It would be nice to see a christian comic that carries this message actually. The closest I’ve seen is Orange Peel.

 

[JRKH]

I think that wars with continue to happen and tensions will continue to exist causing much pain and suffering as long as the use of force born out of a desire to take matters into our own hands is perpetuated. Instead if we started trusting in the Lord to guide infailingly our actions/inactions then we would could truly bring about REAL sustainable change in the world.

:clapping::clapping:

And we should “be the Change we wish to see in the World” by working for Peace and for Justice.

Peace
James

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Suppose this guy also created in God’s image was fighting within himself some deep hurt at the hands of a catholic or a US citizen? Suppose this is his way of dealing with His pain? You don’t know so pray for discernment so that you can see clearly what to do to help him and die to your self pride and offense. This is an opporunity for you to grow as well. Many more people have been converted to Christ by the self sacrificing efforts of regular folks (not just matrys and saints) than by force. Your actions should always speak to trust in God not in your own abilities.

I’ve said this once, I’ll say it proudly agai:n God is not some magic genie who does all your things for you. My abilities are a gift from God and for all you know, I could be the light that’ll knock this guy off his horse on his road to Damascus. Trusting in them is in fact trusting in God but I’ve already long felt that you think we’re all just to reject whatever God has already given us and sit down, pray like little sheep because you think everything would turn out right. Why don’t we all just apply this to everything else in our lives? Sit down, do nothing but pray because you think God does everything for you.

 

[bmadamsberry]

I’ve said this once, I’ll say it proudly agai:n God is not some magic genie who does all your things for you. My abilities are a gift from God and for all you know, I could be the light that’ll knock this guy off his horse on his road to Damascus. Trusting in them is in fact trusting in God but I’ve already long felt that you think we’re all just to reject whatever God has already given us and sit down, pray like little sheep because you think everything would turn out right. Why don’t we all just apply this to everything else in our lives? Sit down, do nothing but pray because you think God does everything for you.

You sound like a very angry person. The very problem with this entire thread’s line of thinking has started in the very title. Why is it force vs. pacifism? There is a balance inbetween them! It is always wrong to be always forceful. It is always wrong to always be a pacifist. There are times to be forceful, there are times to be a pacifist. There are times to stand up for the Church against the evils of other people and institutions. There are also times when it is better to go and pray, to take the injustice that is done and offer it up.

 

[kinja]

I’ve said this once, I’ll say it proudly agai:n God is not some magic genie who does all your things for you. My abilities are a gift from God and for all you know, I could be the light that’ll knock this guy off his horse on his road to Damascus. Trusting in them is in fact trusting in God but I’ve already long felt that you think we’re all just to reject whatever God has already given us and sit down, pray like little sheep because you think everything would turn out right. Why don’t we all just apply this to everything else in our lives? Sit down, do nothing but pray because you think God does everything for you.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between waiting on a directive from the Almighty Father *** to what course of action you should take and doing nothing but praying. I am suggesting the former. Your abilities or gifts are not given to you to be used as you see fit. God gave them to you for you to offer to Him to use as He sees fit. Satan was thrown out of Heaven for that very reason. Can you not see that? Satan got the bright idea that he could use the power God had given to him to do what God did not give him authority to do, be a god himself.

“Pride goes before destruction a haughty spirit before a fall” - Proverbs 16:18

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You don’t seem to understand the difference between waiting on a directive from the Almighty Father *** to what course of action you should take and doing nothing but praying. I am suggesting the former. Your abilities or gifts are not given to you to be used as you see fit. God gave them to you for you to offer to Him to use as He sees fit. Satan was thrown out of Heaven for that very reason. Can you not see that? Satan got the bright idea that he could use the power God had given to him to do what God did not give him authority to do, be a god himself.

“Pride goes before destruction a haughty spirit before a fall” - Proverbs 16:18

Oh and you believe God and I aren’t thinking the same thing about using skills of force even though in the Old Testament He had directed His people in battle?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You sound like a very angry person. The very problem with this entire thread’s line of thinking has started in the very title. Why is it force vs. pacifism? There is a balance inbetween them! It is always wrong to be always forceful. It is always wrong to always be a pacifist. There are times to be forceful, there are times to be a pacifist. There are times to stand up for the Church against the evils of other people and institutions. There are also times when it is better to go and pray, to take the injustice that is done and offer it up.

Funny how you say that when I believe the exact same thing: balance.
It’s the pacifists here you ought to take issue with.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Funny how you say that when I believe the exact same thing: balance.
It’s the pacifists here you ought to take issue with.

Sorry, but what I have gleaned from all of your posts has been more forceful than balanced. Maybe you were just trying to balance out the pacifists, but all I really got from you was force. Sorry if that wasn’t what you were trying to get across.

Anyway, balance is important. Christ tells us to turn the other cheek. Christ also overturned the money changers in the temple. G-d sent 10 plagues to Egypt. G-d also stayed his hand against creation during the Flood (he saved Noah and the animals).

 

[kinja]

Oh and you believe God and I aren’t thinking the same thing about using skills of force even though in the Old Testament He had directed His people in battle?

Yes I do believe that God and you are definitely NOT thinking the same thing. The Old Testament is the old dispensation. With the coming of Christ came the new dispensation and the fullfillment of the Law of God…Love.

Christ did not fight those who blasphemed and did not accept Him. He simply left them. His apostles certainly did not fight physical battles for God since “we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places”. Don’t use God to justify your desire for vengeance and physical gratification. That would be prostituting the word of God which He clearly forbids. The Word of God is your most powerful weapon against any foe.

What did Jesus tell Peter when the guards came to capture Him and Peter cut off a guard’s ear? “He who lives by the sword shall die by it.”

Kill the guy with love not aggression. You will win his heart for Jesus. Fight him on his turf and you both have lost.

 

[kinja]

Anyway, balance is important. Christ tells us to turn the other cheek. Christ also overturned the money changers in the temple. G-d sent 10 plagues to Egypt. G-d also stayed his hand against creation during the Flood (he saved Noah and the animals).

I agree with your call for balance but using Christ in the marketplace is not the best example. Christ is both God and Man 100% each. The only example of 200% that exists. He acted in His Godliness when He overturned the tables. This is what my catholic teaching has taught me. We are not 100% or even 50% God. We have no right taking this action unless EXPRESSLY inspired to do so. The way God dealt with Egypt was in the old dispensation. Besides He is God anyway and can take life and strike who He wishes. He wants us only to trust not on our own understanding but in all ways trust in Him. That is my point. Once God is in total control you WILL be balanced. He will balance you.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Sorry, but what I have gleaned from all of your posts has been more forceful than balanced. Maybe you were just trying to balance out the pacifists, but all I really got from you was force. Sorry if that wasn’t what you were trying to get across.

Anyway, balance is important. Christ tells us to turn the other cheek. Christ also overturned the money changers in the temple. G-d sent 10 plagues to Egypt. G-d also stayed his hand against creation during the Flood (he saved Noah and the animals).

Sometimes when dealing with people who are clearly on one extreme, it’s best to come off as the other. I like how you say Christ drove out the money changers from the table while the other guy here claims He didn’t fight blasphemers.

Just so you know, I have drawn a line, several times in fact. Guys like the bully I’m speaking of here just keep pushing it and it’s time I put my foot down.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What did Jesus tell Peter when the guards came to capture Him and Peter cut off a guard’s ear? “He who lives by the sword shall die by it.”

Yet I know at least one saint who participated heavily in battle… a woman no less!

Kill the guy with love not aggression. You will win his heart for Jesus. Fight him on his turf and you both have lost.

I’m sorry, are you a Christian or a hippie?

Man are you naive. Honestly just reading your words give the impression that we oughta all just sit down and pray while waiting for God to hit our enemies with lightning. The fact that you leave out the only example in the Bible of Christ being violent is the biggest proof of that.

 

[bmadamsberry]

I agree with your call for balance but using Christ in the marketplace is not the best example. Christ is both God and Man 100% each. The only example of 200% that exists. He acted in His Godliness when He overturned the tables. This is what my catholic teaching has taught me. We are not 100% or even 50% God. We have no right taking this action unless EXPRESSLY inspired to do so. The way God dealt with Egypt was in the old dispensation. Besides He is God anyway and can take life and strike who He wishes. He wants us only to trust not on our own understanding but in all ways trust in Him. That is my point. Once God is in total control you WILL be balanced. He will balance you.

Umm… what you’re saying is actually herasy. To say that Christ acted in his G-dliness in one instance and then in his humanness the next is basically saying he could turn it on and off. He is always both, at the same time. Not either or.
However, here is the important point about the moneychangers. Christ was angry because of what the moneychangers were doing in His Father’s house. He wasn’t angry because of what they did to him. He had justifiable angry on behalf of someone else. He wasn’t being self-rightous or showing off or trying to get vengence. He was angry because other people were taking advantage of others and were blasphaming His Father. This is the important point.

It’s actually something very few people realize: That it is okay to be angry as long as it is justifiable and on someone else’s behalf. Anger isn’t bad in itself. What it can lead to is, though.

 

[kinja]

Umm… what you’re saying is actually herasy. To say that Christ acted in his G-dliness in one instance and then in his humanness the next is basically saying he could turn it on and off. He is always both, at the same time. Not either or.

Yes both at the same time. However how do you explain Jesus crying tears falling to the ground as blood in the garden? Would God cry for this cup to be taken fom Him. His humanity was illustrated and brought forth here.

However, here is the important point about the moneychangers. Christ was angry because of what the moneychangers were doing in His Father’s house. He wasn’t angry because of what they did to him. He had justifiable angry on behalf of someone else. He wasn’t being self-rightous or showing off or trying to get vengence. He was angry because other people were taking advantage of others and were blasphaming His Father. This is the important point.

His anger was an expression of God the Father’s anger by the power of The Spirit. Christ’s anger was not His own but that of God. I hardly think the same applies to using your God-given abilities to do what you THINK should be done without being directed by the Holy Spirit. I am not saying all force is bad but I am saying it should come from the will of God not our own will. This is the essential difference between Joan of Arc, Christ at the temple and even Elijah with the young scoffers, and telling off or beating up a bully or someone who mocks my beliefs.

It’s actually something very few people realize: That it is okay to be angry as long as it is justifiable and on someone else’s behalf. Anger isn’t bad in itself. What it can lead to is, though.

I disagree. When truly at peace you are led totally by the Spirit of God and any anger or agression is directed by the Holy Spirit. You see God is God (Father Son and Holy Spirit) and He can be angry because everything belongs to Him and He IS and WAS and WILL ALWAYS BE. We have no right being angry outside of the Holy Spirit power since this speaks to a lack of trust that God is always in total control (even when bad things happen to good people).

There is a reason why anger is one of the seven deadly sins. I don’t recall scripture or our catholic doctrine saying that anger is a sin if it is “on someone else’ behalf”. That is moral relativism not christianity.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Yes both at the same time. However how do you explain Jesus crying tears falling to the ground as blood in the garden? Would God cry for this cup to be taken fom Him. His humanity was illustrated and brought forth here.

Illustrated, sure. Careful with your wording of brought forth, however. You’re again falling into herasy. The point still stands that at the same time as Christ is man he is G-d. So yes, that is G-d crying tears.

His anger was an expression of God the Father’s anger by the power of The Spirit. Christ’s anger was not His own but that of God. I hardly think the same applies to using your God-given abilities to do what you THINK should be done without being directed by the Holy Spirit. I am not saying all force is bad but I am saying it should come from the will of God not our own will. This is the essential difference between Joan of Arc, Christ at the temple and even Elijah with the young scoffers, and telling off or beating up a bully or someone who mocks my beliefs.

Ha! You totally pulled a Protestant move there. You’re adding things into Scripture that just aren’t there. His anger might have been an expression, but it was also totally His anger.

I disagree. When truly at peace you are led totally by the Spirit of God and any anger or agression is directed by the Holy Spirit. You see God is God (Father Son and Holy Spirit) and He can be angry because everything belongs to Him and He IS and WAS and WILL ALWAYS BE. We have no right being angry outside of the Holy Spirit power since this speaks to a lack of trust that God is always in total control (even when bad things happen to good people).

Go ahead and disagree. People have disagreed with the Catholic Church for 2000 years.
We can have justifiable anger. We can have anger towards those that cause Sept. 11. We can be angry at Satan trying to get people’s souls to Hell. In these cases we are being angry on behalf of others.

There is a reason why anger is one of the seven deadly sins. I don’t recall scripture or our catholic doctrine saying that anger is a sin if it is “on someone else’ behalf”. That is moral relativism not christianity.

Okay, I really didn’t want to have to start quoting people, but here I go:
This is what Jimmy Akin had to say

Anger isn’t sinful in itself. In Ephesians 4:26, Paul tells us, “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger.” But this passage speaks of our responsibility to manage our feelings. Paul doesn’t mean that we literally have to get rid of our anger before sundown. He means don’t nurture it. Let it pass. As before, that’s something we can’t guarantee since we can only influence our feelings.

Paul makes the exhortation “Be angry” because anger is part of human nature. It isn’t just something that we inherited from Adam. Even Jesus himself got angry (cf. Mark 3:5). Anger is something God designed into us, just like he designed it in certain other creatures. It plays a useful function. It motivates us to protect things that need protecting, whether they are tangible (like family) or intangible (like reputation).

Thus Thomas Aquinas notes that “evil may be found in anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason demands. But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one’s anger is deserving of praise” (Summa Theologiae II-II:158:1).

You can read it here.

So, again, it is okay to be angry. It wasn’t a matter that it was okay for Christ to be angry because “everything belongs to Him and He IS and WAS and WILL ALWAYS BE”. He was angry on someone’s behalf, and acted on His anger on behalf of those that couldn’t defend themselves.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by bmadamsberry
You sound like a very angry person. The very problem with this entire thread’s line of thinking has started in the very title. Why is it force vs. pacifism? There is a balance inbetween them! It is always wrong to be always forceful. It is always wrong to always be a pacifist. There are times to be forceful, there are times to be a pacifist. There are times to stand up for the Church against the evils of other people and institutions. There are also times when it is better to go and pray, to take the injustice that is done and offer it up.

I think that bmadamsberry brings up a good point about balance. Also he mentions the title of the thread pointing to a particular line of thinking.

LW, your response seems to indicate also a misconception about where I (as the so called pacifist) am coming from.

If you recall, LW, this whole discussion began on another thread where we were (or at least I was) concerned about what types of things were being learned by playing violent videogames. The key word here being violent. My position being that we, and Christ’s kingdom are better served in developing non-violent methods of dealing with things.

In this thread, by virtue of the title, you have generalized that idea of “violence” to "force and “non-violence” to “pacificism”.

So - Perhaps what needs to be looked at is what is meant by “Force”, being “forceful” etc. for there certainly have been forceful people, forceful Christians, who also been non-violent.
Mother Theresa was a “forceful” person and not one to be trifled with. Her “force” came from her absolute humility and unwillingness to compromise her values or her faith.
Pope John Paul II was a forceful person whe even forgave the man who tried to kill him and preached non-violent revolution in his native Poland. His “force” came from the strength he gained living under two different totalitarian and oppressive regimes. This combined with his position as pope made him extremely powerful.
Martin Luther King, was a forceful speaker, who lifted up a people while also advocating non-violent methods of “force” (sit-ins, peaceful marches etc.) to overcome much hate.
Ghandi, though not a Christian, also used “non-violent force” to help attain the freedom of India from the British.
St Francis of Assisi used a most radical form of Christian Living absolute Poverty, imposed freely and willingly upon himself, to help reform a troubled Church. His “Forceful” example of Christian virtues in action moved many hearts and still does today.

Many more examples of strong and “forceful” - nonviolent men and women can undoubtedly be found. Ones who fought, non-violently, threats both inside and outside the Church.
The point of these examples is not to debate the particular pro’s and con’s of each persons life, but to demonstrate that “Force” does not necessarily equal “violence” and “Strength” is not a trait exibited only by those willing to use violence. Many non-violent people have suffered injury and even death in service to God.
As on e example, the injuries sustained by blacks in the southern U.S. were filmed and became hugely powerful images precisely because these people refused to hurt others, even while being injured themselves. In a sense they, “threw themselves on a granade”, that old war film cliche for self sacrifice and something I am sure you would consider to be a very brave act.

Would you agree then that a non-violent person can also be brave, strong and forceful?
That being Non-violent, does not necessarily equate to pacificsm?
That one can be both non-violent and forceful at the same time?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Man are you naive. Honestly just reading your words give the impression that we oughta all just sit down and pray while waiting for God to hit our enemies with lightning. The fact that you leave out the only example in the Bible of Christ being violent is the biggest proof of that.

How about if we sit down and pray for God to:

1. Grant to us the wisdom to know how to apprach this enemy.
2. Give us the words needed to speak to this persons heart.
3. For God to soften this other person’s heart and open it to receive His word.
4. The Strength to reach out to this person in Holy Love and in Powerful argument.

As to Christ in the Temple, Who all participated in this action? Who did He kill? Yes he used, one time, a very limited and controlled bit of violence. But let’s also look at what He did NOT do.
Jesus, at the time this occurred had just entered Jerusalem to the Hosanas and Alleluia’s of the People who called him "He who comes in the name of the Lord. Many, I dare say most, including his Apostles, expected Him to restore Isreal and drive out the Romans. He did not do this.
Christ did not call on his disciples to make whips, or arm themselves for battle. He did not throw out the money changers to the crowds with instructions that they be stoned to death. He did nothing that would incite any more violence than He - Himself did.
So what He did do was to make a demonstration using the absolute minimum violent force possible to get across His point.

Weigh this single aggressive act against the volumes of teaching on the use of Prayer, of prayer, and repentance, and non-violence.

Just something to consider.

Peace
James

 

[kinja]

Okay, I really didn’t want to have to start quoting people, but here I go:
This is what Jimmy Akin had to say
You can read it here.

Thanks for this. I must admit that I had not read this before. I am no protestant though I am catholic.

So, again, it is okay to be angry. It wasn’t a matter that it was okay for Christ to be angry because “everything belongs to Him and He IS and WAS and WILL ALWAYS BE”. He was angry on someone’s behalf, and acted on His anger on behalf of those that couldn’t defend themselves.

He was not agry on just someone’s behalf. He was angry on behalf of the Father so please do not equate being angry on behalf of creation and the Creator. That sounds to me like suggestion of euqlity of man and God which does not exist.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Thanks for this. I must admit that I had not read this before. I am no protestant though I am catholic.

No problem. I re-read my post and it sounded a little mean. If you took it as mean I’m sorry, it wasn’t my intent.

He was not agry on just someone’s behalf. He was angry on behalf of the Father so please do not equate being angry on behalf of creation and the Creator. That sounds to me like suggestion of euqlity of man and God which does not exist.

Well, he was angry on behalf of the Father, but also for the poor. The money changers would have been ripping off people, and people selling pidgeons would have been ripping off the poor (pidgeons were the sacrifice of the poor). So Christ was angry on the Father’s behalf and on behalf of the poor.
However, I do agree not to attribute to equality of G-d with equality of man. However, wouldn’t what Lost Wanderer was talking about (in regards to defending the Catholic Faith to a “bully”) be getting angry on G-d’s behalf? I don’t totally know the entire argument of Lost Wanderer’s about the bully, but that’s what I’ve assertained.