Force VS Pacifism

[kinja]

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.

God doesn’t need us to defend our faith as much as He needs us to proclaim the gospel by our actions and thoughts. He did not run the moneychangers for the sake of any person. He spoke explicitly about them desecrating His Father’s house. When they were going to stone the prostitute He did not get physical in her defense did He?

 

[bmadamsberry]

God doesn’t need us to defend our faith as much as He needs us to proclaim the gospel by our actions and thoughts. He did not run the moneychangers for the sake of any person. He spoke explicitly about them desecrating His Father’s house. When they were going to stone the prostitute He did not get physical in her defense did He?

Defending our faith is part of proclaiming the Gospel. Instructing the ignorant is one of the 7 Spiritual Works of Mercy. And he did run out the moneychangers for the sake of the poor and for his Father. To say that he didn’t ignores Scripture and basic Biblical history.

 

[kinja]

Defending our faith is part of proclaiming the Gospel. Instructing the ignorant is one of the 7 Spiritual Works of Mercy. And he did run out the moneychangers for the sake of the poor and for his Father. To say that he didn’t ignores Scripture and basic Biblical history.

OK we seem to be straying from the topic. Are we speaking about instructing the ignorant or attacking the ignorant? There is a very big difference and this seems to be the matter at hand in this thread. Instruct using force, reasoning or both. Using force against someone attacking ones faith verbally cannot produce any good fruit since fire cannot be used to fight fire. Rather shouldn’t we use water? There is a reason that cult evangelization has been successful in the mass conversion from christianity in the last two decades. They appear to be non violent and loving. This is all some people need. We are all broken people in some way or another. We mostly need love especially the angry ones. The last thing an angry person needs is to heal is anger. If he does need to be responded in anger it should be directed by the Spirit of God not by our own frustration or feeling of offense.

 

[kinja]

And he did run out the moneychangers for the sake of the poor and for his Father. To say that he didn’t ignores Scripture and basic Biblical history.

Where in scripture does it say that this was for the sake of the poor? Here is the passage in John 2:12-17

"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”

His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

I would honestly like someone to show me where Jesus was defending the poor here.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Where in scripture does it say that this was for the sake of the poor? Here is the passage in John 2:12-17

"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”

His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

I would honestly like someone to show me where Jesus was defending the poor here.

Okay. I’m sorry, I sometimes forget that not everyone is a religion and philosophy major:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves

This comes from Matthew 21:12-13. The driving out in the Temple happens in all 4 Gospels, which shows (from a simple historical Jesus point of view) that it indeed happend. However, it happens near the end of the Synoptic Gospels and towards the beginning of John (so, to historial scholars, there were probably two different intances).
There are two points pointing towards Jesus defending the poor:

1. It doesn’t make sense for Christ to drive out the money changers and the dove sellers because of desecration the Temple. They would have been in the gentile area of the Temple (which is outside, not inside the Temple proper). This place would have been an okay place to sell, per Jewish rules and per common sense (theological).
2. Jesus saying “den of theives” points to the fact that money changers and dove sacrifice sellers both cheated people (specifically the poor). These people were stealing from the poor, in essance. In Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 Jesus again accuses the Temple authorities of thieving and this time names poor widows as their victims going on to provide evidence of this in Mark 12:42 and Luke 21:2. Dove sellers were selling doves that were sacrificed by the poor who could not afford grander sacrifices and specifically by women.

Does that help?

 

[bmadamsberry]

OK we seem to be straying from the topic. Are we speaking about instructing the ignorant or attacking the ignorant? There is a very big difference and this seems to be the matter at hand in this thread. Instruct using force, reasoning or both. Using force against someone attacking ones faith verbally cannot produce any good fruit since fire cannot be used to fight fire. Rather shouldn’t we use water? There is a reason that cult evangelization has been successful in the mass conversion from christianity in the last two decades. They appear to be non violent and loving. This is all some people need. We are all broken people in some way or another. We mostly need love especially the angry ones. The last thing an angry person needs is to heal is anger. If he does need to be responded in anger it should be directed by the Spirit of God not by our own frustration or feeling of offense.

You’re falling into the problem of making force and violence the same thing. That’s you’re problem, not mine. Force might refer to forceful words, for example. Some angry people do need love, but there are also some angry people who (in order to hear the Truth) need someone to stand up and yell the Truth at them.
Using force can be good when defending one’s Faith. Are you telling me that if the government tomorrow made a law that it was illegal to be a priest and they could be shot on sight, that it would be wrong to take arms in defense of these priests?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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.

Sorry but force does include the use of violence. In fact, it’s probably more intimidating than mere influence or reputation. Thus, that’s why extreme caution must be exercised when using it.

That doesn’t mean recourse to it is not inevitable in some cases.

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.

That does not in any way rule out that Christ drew a line and the sinners crossed it. I don’t advocate punching people for every single insult. I do however, draw lines myself and do impose heavy consequences if they are crossed. I’ve heard an old saying, “Slap him three times and even Buddha will get angry.”

 

[kinja]

Okay. I’m sorry, I sometimes forget that not everyone is a religion and philosophy major:
This comes from Matthew 21:12-13. The driving out in the Temple happens in all 4 Gospels, which shows (from a simple historical Jesus point of view) that it indeed happend. However, it happens near the end of the Synoptic Gospels and towards the beginning of John (so, to historial scholars, there were probably two different intances).
There are two points pointing towards Jesus defending the poor:

1. It doesn’t make sense for Christ to drive out the money changers and the dove sellers because of desecration the Temple. They would have been in the gentile area of the Temple (which is outside, not inside the Temple proper). This place would have been an okay place to sell, per Jewish rules and per common sense (theological).
2. Jesus saying “den of theives” points to the fact that money changers and dove sacrifice sellers both cheated people (specifically the poor). These people were stealing from the poor, in essance. In Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 Jesus again accuses the Temple authorities of thieving and this time names poor widows as their victims going on to provide evidence of this in Mark 12:42 and Luke 21:2. Dove sellers were selling doves that were sacrificed by the poor who could not afford grander sacrifices and specifically by women.

Does that help?

Yes it does. Noted

 

[kinja]

You’re falling into the problem of making force and violence the same thing. That’s you’re problem, not mine. Force might refer to forceful words, for example. Some angry people do need love, but there are also some angry people who (in order to hear the Truth) need someone to stand up and yell the Truth at them.
Using force can be good when defending one’s Faith. Are you telling me that if the government tomorrow made a law that it was illegal to be a priest and they could be shot on sight, that it would be wrong to take arms in defense of these priests?

That question I cannot answer as certain criteria would have to be satisfied to make offensive action in this case “right”. I don’t see taking up arms to defend the unborn babies being killed by abortion being done by anyone except a few: like the guy who was on trial for killing an abortionist recently (not sure what became of that case).

So does this mean that the rest of us catholics are all pacifists because we are not taking up “arms” (I assume you mean weapons) to defend the most innocent human lives in existence - the unborn? Way more than 50 Million abortions have taken place since Roe vs Wade. Where are the “armed” catholic defenders? No I don’t think it is that simple.

What is using physical force going to achieve in this situation? Taking lives or using physical force to save “certain” lives cannot be justified this way.

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear kinja,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Excellent posts, dear friend and Jolly sound reasoning, if I may say.

Your words above reminded me of a pithy saying I once read, “The best way to hurt an enemy is to try to make him a friend”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[kinja]

Dear kinja,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Excellent posts, dear friend and Jolly sound reasoning, if I may say.

Your words above reminded me of a pithy saying I once read, “The best way to hurt an enemy is to try to make him a friend”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Thank you Portrait. God’s choicest blessings to you. Your comments are much appreciated.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

“The best way to hurt an enemy is to try to make him a friend”.

I’m sorry but gag me with a spoon…

If someone broke into your house with the intent to rape and kill your family falling on your knees and praying to God won’t make him go away and neither will reason. Only violence in the shape of self-defense will cause them to go down and cease being a threat to your family.

I know for certain if I was in this situation I would go as far as to gore them with a knife to protect my family.

 

[kinja]

I’m sorry but gag me with a spoon…

If someone broke into your house with the intent to rape and kill your family falling on your knees and praying to God won’t make him go away and neither will reason. Only violence in the shape of self-defense will cause them to go down and cease being a threat to your family.

I know for certain if I was in this situation I would go as far as to gore them with a knife to protect my family.

I would not use physical aggression to meet a verbal assault. if physical violence is threatened there may be no choice in order to protect self and the innocent. however hitting someone who bad mouths catholics can’t be condoned