Should a Christian be a pacifist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter souldiver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PolarGuy said:
One problem I have with pacifists is that they often will allow the use of violence by others, but not by themselves, i.e., it’s OK to use violence to combat ISIS, Nazis, etc., so long as it’s done by others. They won’t putt a gun to stop a mugging, but they have no problem with a policeman doing so. I see that as rank cowardice: “I want others to do the dirty work that I won’t, or am afraid to, do myself.”
Click to expand...
But in this case, they’re not really pacifist as a matter of ideology, but only in their personal life circumstances. The overwhelming majority of human beings fall under this category, even if they’re not actively committed to it in the way a religious would be.

Unless I’m put into the gravely unhappy scenario of defending a wife or child or other loved one from harm to the best of my limited ability, I expect that I will live and die without ever drawing another human beings’ blood. This doesn’t mean I am ideologically opposed to the use of force. If Rome hasn’t condemned it, then far be it that I should think so highly of myself to do what She does not. My goal in life is to be the most ordinary Catholic I can be.
 
With all due respect, TK421, a person isn’t a pacifist because they have no opportunity to do violence. A pacifist is a person who won’t use violence, period. I don’t become a pacifist because I work in an office at a white collar job. That’s what you seem to think pacifism is. It is not that, at all.

I have in fact debated - on this board - people who simply will not ever use violence, ever, including to stop the rape of their own daughter. I have major problems with that sort of extremism, as anyone would. That’s pacifism, and most of those people, I suspect, would want others to use violence to protect their daughters but wouldn’t do so themselves. That, to me, is cowardice, all the worse because it’s cowardice in the face of innocents who would expect the pacifists to protect them. Christians are not required to adhere to such extreme views.
 
PolarGuy said:
I have in fact debated - on this board - people who simply will not ever use violence, ever, including to stop the rape of their own daughter. I have major problems with that sort of extremism, as anyone would. That’s pacifism, and most of those people, I suspect, would want others to use violence to protect their daughters but wouldn’t do so themselves. That, to me, is cowardice, all the worse because it’s cowardice in the face of innocents who would expect the pacifists to protect them. Christians are not required to adhere to such extreme views.
Click to expand...
👍
 
PolarGuy said:
One problem I have with pacifists is that they often will allow the use of violence by others, but not by themselves, i.e., it’s OK to use violence to combat ISIS, Nazis, etc., so long as it’s done by others. They won’t putt a gun to stop a mugging, but they have no problem with a policeman doing so. I see that as rank cowardice: “I want others to do the dirty work that I won’t, or am afraid to, do myself.”

Further, I’ve had heated discussions on this board as to whether, for example, there is any behavior that would “get a pacifist to use violence.” The example I’ve offered – which has occasionally gotten me excoriated – is the personal observation of one’s own daughter being raped. Show me someone who wouldn’t use violence in that situation, to end or prevent the rape, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t a human being, and no amount of their Scripture quoting or discussion will change my view on that. Some things are just so heinous that violence is not only allowable to combat, it’s required.
Click to expand...
I would suspect that whoever excoriated you had no daughter, and likely no wife.
 
Peccavi said:
Blessed are he peacemakers All my family are military I am a pacifist It’s a choice we make when we accept the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus).
Click to expand...
Correction: it is a choice some make. Others, who accept the teachings understand the very real necessity for both pacifists and non pacifists.
 
rose_kelly said:
This is rather interesting, its all about Pacifism and the different types. bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/against/pacifism_1.shtml
Click to expand...
Coming from the BBC, it is (not surprisingly) written from a secular viewpoint. It does, in a very thumbnail sketch, cover the matter reasonably well.

And one might note that there is a difference between being a pacifist and a conscientious objector. In the US, the position of a CO is essentially moot as we now have an all volunteer military. One might enter into intellectual arguments concerning the pros and cons of being a CO, but with no reality (aka a draft), it becomes nothing more than an intellectual game. Put the draft back in (not likely) and it puts skin on the argument.

Moving from the issue of CO to pacifist, however, can have a dimension of involvement in daily living. And again, with an all volunteer military, a significant part of the decision for or against a pacifist position really amounts to intellectual gaming, as there is no skin in the decision.
 
The early Christians were pacifists prepared to die but not to kill of their faith.
 
otjm said:
Coming from the BBC, it is (not surprisingly) written from a secular viewpoint. It does, in a very thumbnail sketch, cover the matter reasonably well.

And one might note that there is a difference between being a pacifist and a conscientious objector. In the US, the position of a CO is essentially moot as we now have an all volunteer military. One might enter into intellectual arguments concerning the pros and cons of being a CO, but with no reality (aka a draft), it becomes nothing more than an intellectual game. Put the draft back in (not likely) and it puts skin on the argument.

Moving from the issue of CO to pacifist, however, can have a dimension of involvement in daily living. And again, with an all volunteer military, a significant part of the decision for or against a pacifist position really amounts to intellectual gaming, as there is no skin in the decision.
Click to expand...
I’m not informed enough to comment on the military position, but I thought the BBC presented a brief but clear article at defining pacifism.

Some of their website articles may appear secular, but they are usually expressed from a position of impartiality.
 
rose_kelly said:
I’m not informed enough to comment on the military position, but I thought the BBC presented a brief but clear article at defining pacifism.

Some of their website articles may appear secular, but they are usually expressed from a position of impartiality.
Click to expand...
It was brief and clear, but the comment mid stream about the acceptance of euthanasia and abortion highlights that its comments are from a secularist point of view, and not grounded on Christianity.

A secularist view is not always a view defined by relativism, but definitely can part company from one that is grounded on religion.
 
Peccavi said:
The early Christians were pacifists prepared to die but not to kill of their faith.
Click to expand...
I thought about this too. Is this right?

I also thought that in the Apocalypse, Christians didn’t go to war, God single handedly killed the enemies of Christians. Or maybe I remember it wrong.
 
souldiver said:
I thought about this too. Is this right?

I also thought that in the Apocalypse, Christians didn’t go to war, God single handedly killed the enemies of Christians. Or maybe I remember it wrong.
Click to expand...
This is found in the histories of the first and second centuries AD where the persecution of Christians was frequent. Christians died singing hymns to Jesus and to God. They did not pick up the sword. It is with Constantine who adopted Christianity as his state religion that his theologians turn Jesus calls for peace into Crusades against Christs enemies. It is one of the reason I have rejected as heresy the teachings of those who believe in the Just War. Wars are never Just and always involve the slaughter of innocents.
 
Peccavi said:
This is found in the histories of the first and second centuries AD where the persecution of Christians was frequent. Christians died singing hymns to Jesus and to God. They did not pick up the sword. It is with Constantine who adopted Christianity as his state religion that his theologians turn Jesus calls for peace into Crusades against Christs enemies. It is one of the reason I have rejected as heresy the teachings of those who believe in the Just War. Wars are never Just and always involve the slaughter of innocents.
Click to expand...
Among other things, you should read a bit more history.

You might also read a bit more about Just War theory.

Neither of which should be taken as any indication that I am opposed to you being a pacifist. But if you are going to do so, make sure it is not from an armchair. Get out and live it.
 
Peccavi said:
This is found in the histories of the first and second centuries AD where the persecution of Christians was frequent. Christians died singing hymns to Jesus and to God. They did not pick up the sword. It is with Constantine who adopted Christianity as his state religion that his theologians turn Jesus calls for peace into Crusades against Christs enemies. It is one of the reason I have rejected as heresy the teachings of those who believe in the Just War. Wars are never Just and always involve the slaughter of innocents.
Click to expand...
You talk of the ‘heresy’ of Just War. But what about the wars that God commanded the Israelies to conduct. The killing of Goliath?

Were those unjust in any way? Was it a different God, other than Christ, who commanded those wars?
 
Why bother to read the Gospels if you choose to think in terms of the Old Testament. It is as if Jesus never had spoken and if he had not in language you approved of.
 
Peccavi said:
Why bother to read the Gospels if you choose to think in terms of the Old Testament. It is as if Jesus never had spoken and if he had not in language you approved of.
Click to expand...
The gospels clearly speak against unnecessary violence but not against policing. And Jesus clearly used force on one occasion.
 
Peccavi said:
Why bother to read the Gospels if you choose to think in terms of the Old Testament. It is as if Jesus never had spoken and if he had not in language you approved of.
Click to expand...
Are the Gospels the story of a different God that that of the Old Testament? Are they not one and the same word of God?

Was it not the same Christ who aided Moses in battle against the Amalekites?

Did God assist in an unjustice?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top