Soldiers also have a job to keep the peace, particularly at that time and place, like police.Jesus would have said to the soldiers, “Quit being soldiers”, if war was not a necessity.
Solders are not to be pacifists to their enemies.
Exactly.Soldiers also have a job to keep the peace, particularly at that time and place, like police.
As I said before:FrancisBenedict;10708449:
Exactly.Soldiers also have a job to keep the peace, particularly at that time and place, like police.
I think part of the problem as to why we just keep going in circles in this discussion is that you fail to distinguish between someone who is a pacifist at a personal level and someone who believes in pacifism at an institutional/governmental level.
Oh I see, good point.As I said before:
As do I. I think it is a very important distinction to make. Everyone who has posted on the side of pacifism seems to all be pacifists on a personal level (I do not speak for all pacifists obviously, these are just my observations), hence there is no contradiction between allowing for (and appreciating) police and military, and being a pacifist. But we are constantly accused of pushing pacifism at a institutional/governmental level, which I have yet to see anyone defend.I personally believe in pacifism on a personal level.
True.As do I. I think it is a very important distinction to make. Everyone who has posted on the side of pacifism seems to all be pacifists on a personal level (I do not speak for all pacifists obviously, these are just my observations), hence there is no contradiction between allowing for (and appreciating) police and military, and being a pacifist. But we are constantly accused of pushing pacifism at a institutional/governmental level, which I have yet to see anyone defend.
Interesting, this was kind of the though in my head while making this post. I feel the New Testiment talks to us as indaviduals rather than large government organizations. I see the gospel as less a political/social system and more of something to help us live our own lives to do good for others. Am I uderstanding you correctly? Ya feel me on that?Oh I see, good point.
I personally believe in pacifism on a personal level.
Did Jesus ever teach any institutions how to live? I wonder if he speaks to our hearts personally instead of to us as a group. Institutions are made of men and women, of individuals and he speaks to us directly not via our position in society. Perhaps that is one of the differences between the Old Testiment communication where God speaks to a group sometimes and the New Testiment where Jesus speaks to us as individuals.
The only case I can think of right now was when he said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Just exploring the idea.
Pax+
Yes I agree with you that’s how I see it too except, I think we can deduce some principles of government starting with helping the ‘lowest’ in society through to not starting wars.Interesting, this was kind of the though in my head while making this post. I feel the New Testiment talks to us as indaviduals rather than large government organizations. I see the gospel as less a political/social system and more of something to help us live our own lives to do good for others. Am I uderstanding you correctly? Ya feel me on that?
When Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, decided to rearm in1935, the signers of the Treaty did nothing. It was a bluff on the part of Hitler, and it paid off handsomely. He learned that his European opponents were wimps. So he marched into the Rhineland in 1936 in another violation of the treaty. Again nobody did anything about it. He then laid claim to the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, and the naivete of British P.M. Neville Chamberlain allowed him to annex it as long as he did not annex any other territory. Well Hitler lied and promptly marched into the rest of Czechoslovakia. It was another bluff that paid off. Then in 1938 he took over Austria. Hitler was weak in 1935, and the French could easily have beaten him in a conflict. But no, they did nothing. Finally when WWII started in 1939, Hitler had the largest army in Europe. His opponents had lost their chance to easily stop him.The old adage: “The reason evil triumphs is that good men sit by and do nothing.”
Non violent opposition is sitting by and doing nothing. Somebody should have killed Hitler before he could get started. No, everybody just sat around and did nothing.
You are picking on the wrong side:When Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, decided to rearm in1935, the signers of the Treaty did nothing. It was a bluff on the part of Hitler, and it paid off handsomely. He learned that his European opponents were wimps. So he marched into the Rhineland in 1936 in another violation of the treaty. Again nobody did anything about it. He then laid claim to the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, and the naivete of British P.M. Neville Chamberlain allowed him to annex it as long as he did not annex any other territory. Well Hitler lied and promptly marched into the rest of Czechoslovakia. It was another bluff that paid off. Then in 1938 he took over Austria. Hitler was weak in 1935, and the French could easily have beaten him in a conflict. But no, they did nothing. Finally when WWII started in 1939, Hitler had the largest army in Europe. His opponents had lost their chance to easily stop him.
Neville Chamberlain was more interested in peace than stopping an aggressive Hitler, and he lived to regret it.
What does “did nothing” mean?You are picking on the wrong side:
If the men who joined the National Sociaist Party and the SS and the Totenkopf, and the Gestapo, decided to follow the example of Christ and “did nothing,” there there wouldn’t have been a holocaust or a war etc., etc.
I think what he means by “did nothing” was not to strike back at the Allies for the Treaty of Versailles.What does “did nothing” mean?
Germany was a disaster area when Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. People had been in dire straits since about 1917. After 16 years of economic crisis to the extent that people were starving to death, a man who promises to fix things is regarded as their Messiah. They were willing to believe anything. So along comes the Nazis with their SA brown shirt private army, and things begin to happen. Suddenly the economy is beginning to recover. Why do nothing if doing nothing did not work?
Er… chose not to live by the excuse - “I was just following orders” and so refused to single out, round up, mark, herd, imprison, tattoo, beat, starve and kill Jews for instance.What does “did nothing” mean?
Germany was a disaster area when Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. People had been in dire straits since about 1917. After 16 years of economic crisis to the extent that people were starving to death, a man who promises to fix things is regarded as their Messiah. They were willing to believe anything. So along comes the Nazis with their SA brown shirt private army, and things begin to happen. Suddenly the economy is beginning to recover. Why do nothing if doing nothing did not work?
Pacifism is another word for appeasement. What happened when Chamberlain gave into Hitler’s territorial demands? Hitler got more bright ideas that a few brave Brits and Poles refused to give into.