quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

That's nonsense. 'Pacifism' does not mean that at all. Stop poisoning the well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

That's nonsense. 'Pacifism' does not mean that at all. Stop poisoning the well.

---

The Second World War, for example, was a war to protect the weak against a strong evil. Pacifism would have allowed Hitler to walk into Britain.

Sometimes a violent reaction in self-defence is the only way to defeat evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

The right to end another's life does not belong to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

That's nonsense. 'Pacifism' does not mean that at all. Stop poisoning the well.

---

The Second World War, for example, was a war to protect the weak against a strong evil. Pacifism would have allowed Hitler to walk into Britain.

Sometimes a violent reaction in self-defence is the only way to defeat evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The right response to evil can only be to do good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

That's nonsense. 'Pacifism' does not mean that at all. Stop poisoning the well.

---

The Second World War, for example, was a war to protect the weak against a strong evil. Pacifism would have allowed Hitler to walk into Britain.

Sometimes a violent reaction in self-defence is the only way to defeat evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

Dude, do you even read your Bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Six Million Jews

Yeah, they were really protected by a handful of pacifist Germans.
On the other hand, every single Jew, homosexual, disabled person and gypsy living in Britain was saved because Hitler was defeated by the Allied Armies, Navies and Air Forces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
That, DT, is of course the point.

So,mudfrog, in your view would jesus have killed to defend a life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
Bit early in the thread for personal insult isn't it Doc?

[Posted before Doc Tor's eta.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
would jesus have killed to defend a life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
That, DT, is of course the point.

So,mudfrog, in your view would jesus have killed to defend a life?

---

So, if Hitler had invaded Britain and set up death camps to gas all the British Jews, you would say that British Christians would be following the way of Christ if they just allowed them to get on with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
That, DT, is of course the point.

So,mudfrog, in your view would jesus have killed to defend a life?

---

So, if Hitler had invaded Britain and set up death camps to gas all the British Jews, you would say that British Christians would be following the way of Christ if they just allowed them to get on with it?

---

No, they would be following the way of Christ to do what Corrie Ten Boom and others in Nazi occupied Europe did - hide Jews and help them escape. Protecting and defending people doesn't mean killing others. It might also mean risking death by blockading death camps, speaking openly about what was happening. Pacifism doesn't mean hiding and saying "I'm alright, Jack". It means being more willing to die for a just cause than to kill for one.

---

 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Six Million Jews

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

Dude, do you even read your Bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No, they would be following the way of Christ to do what Corrie Ten Boom and others in Nazi occupied Europe did - hide Jews and help them escape.

---

[/QB][/QUOTE]

But they didn't did they!!!
There were 6 million failures of this 'Christlike' attitude to the death camps.

I wonder how many British Jews would have had to die to allow the self-indulgence of pacisism to tell the the world how wonderful they were at hiding a couple of hundred Jews behind their wardrobes.

Let me remind you that a couple of years of hiding a few Dutch families behind a wardrobe is one thing. Hiding every single British Jew for the entire time - maybe a generation - that the Nazis ruled Britain unopposed, is another.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But it wasn't 'just' six million Jews was it? It was the democratic governments of ll the European countries, it was the potential deaths of all the minorities in the occupied countries as we moved into a Nazi-controlled 1950s Europe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
That, DT, is of course the point.

So,mudfrog, in your view would jesus have killed to defend a life?

---

So, if Hitler had invaded Britain and set up death camps to gas all the British Jews, you would say that British Christians would be following the way of Christ if they just allowed them to get on with it?

---

No, they would be following the way of Christ to do what Corrie Ten Boom and others in Nazi occupied Europe did - hide Jews and help them escape. Protecting and defending people doesn't mean killing others. It might also mean risking death by blockading death camps, speaking openly about what was happening. Pacifism doesn't mean hiding and saying "I'm alright, Jack". It means being more willing to die for a just cause than to kill for one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't believe that this is a thread on a Christian forum! Somebody, please pinch me, and tell me that I'm actually reading the comments in the Daily Mail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't believe that this is a thread on a Christian forum! Somebody, please pinch me, and tell me that I'm actually reading the comments in the Daily Mail.

---

That's hardly appropriate. The Daily Mail was sympathetic to Mosley's Blackshirts. Lord Rothermere was a personal friend of Mussolini and Hitler. Nothing much changes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Mudfrog, I've never fought in a war. However, the clients I work with are sometimes violent. Several have served time for serious crimes involving violence.

These people are generally both disabled (often intellectually) and ill (usually psychiatrically). IOW, they sometimes lack the inner resources to stop their own impulses toward violence.

My staff and I take two days of training every six months in methods for defending ourselves and each other from violent attack without hurting our clients. This training works; I've had to put it to the test more than once.

It is perfectly possible to defend oneself and others without inflicting harm, and when dealing with certain of my clients, it is what I'm required to do by law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We're talking pacifism here in the face of the massed armies of the Third Reich! What would you have proposed? That the entire population of 1940s Britain were sent on a two day course on how to disarm Nazi soldiers? That they should learn how to talk an entire German company out of shooting the population of any given English Village?

Your suggestion is just too ridiculous for words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No, they would be following the way of Christ to do what Corrie Ten Boom and others in Nazi occupied Europe did - hide Jews and help them escape.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think the Daily Mail would favour pacifism, would they? I bet they soon turned round and advocated hitting the hun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

Dude, do you even read your Bible?

---

I believe he does, but either it isn't the same as mine or he reads it with one eye shut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

No, they would be following the way of Christ to do what Corrie Ten Boom and others in Nazi occupied Europe did - hide Jews and help them escape.

---

---

But they didn't did they!!!
There were 6 million failures of this 'Christlike' attitude to the death camps.

I wonder how many British Jews would have had to die to allow the self-indulgence of pacisism to tell the the world how wonderful they were at hiding a couple of hundred Jews behind their wardrobes.

Let me remind you that a couple of years of hiding a few Dutch families behind a wardrobe is one thing. Hiding every single British Jew for the entire time - maybe a generation - that the Nazis ruled Britain unopposed, is another.

---

Oh and 13m died in death camps, not 6m - not sure why only the Jewish victims matter to you here.

Also, why the assumption that pacifism = the Nazis ruling Britain unopposed? Pacifism doesn't mean a lack of opposition, and it's not like we know that the Nazis would have lasted in Britain anyway...? Forgot that you were omniscient

[Code fix
-Gwai]

[ 11. November 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

Dude, do you even read your Bible?

---

I believe he does, but either it isn't the same as mine or he reads it with one eye shut.

---

Or he reads the whole thing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My phrase 'self-indulgent pacifism' simply means a holding onto one's pacifist views regardless of the consequences for others. If my pacifism allows the potential for others to be harmed simply to maintain my high-minded views, then it is self-indulgence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh and 13m died in death camps, not 6m - not sure why only the Jewish victims matter to you here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh and 13m died in death camps, not 6m - not sure why only the Jewish victims matter to you here.

Also, why the assumption that pacifism = the Nazis ruling Britain unopposed? Pacifism doesn't mean a lack of opposition, and it's not like we know that the Nazis would have lasted in Britain anyway...? Forgot that you were omniscient

[Code fix
-Gwai]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh and 13m died in death camps, not 6m - not sure why only the Jewish victims matter to you here.

---

Well, some of those 13m were gay, you can't expect Mudfrog to count them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Come on mudfrog, answer my question, do you think jesus would have killed another to save a third? And if so why? You can't just keep saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the difficult questions.

I think the answer is that he would not have done. Faced with the woman caught in adultery he didn't wade in and kill or injure anyone but he did defend her. Putting himself in harm's way he prevented her lynching without using violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My phrase 'self-indulgent pacifism' simply means a holding onto one's pacifist views regardless of the consequences for others. If my pacifism allows the potential for others to be harmed simply to maintain my high-minded views, then it is self-indulgence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My phrase 'self-indulgent pacifism' simply means a holding onto one's pacifist views regardless of the consequences for others. If my pacifism allows the potential for others to be harmed simply to maintain my high-minded views, then it is self-indulgence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Come on mudfrog, answer my question, do you think jesus would have killed another to save a third? And if so why? You can't just keep saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the difficult questions.

I think the answer is that he would not have done. Faced with the woman caught in adultery he didn't wade in and kill or injure anyone but he did defend her. Putting himself in harm's way he prevented her lynching without using violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Come on mudfrog, answer my question, do you think jesus would have killed another to save a third? And if so why? You can't just keep saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the difficult questions.

I think the answer is that he would not have done. Faced with the woman caught in adultery he didn't wade in and kill or injure anyone but he did defend her. Putting himself in harm's way he prevented her lynching without using violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My phrase 'self-indulgent pacifism' simply means a holding onto one's pacifist views regardless of the consequences for others. If my pacifism allows the potential for others to be harmed simply to maintain my high-minded views, then it is self-indulgence.

---

So stop labelling all pacifism as self-indulgent then, when by your own admission not all is the same. And I would distinguish between self-indulgent anti-war feelings, and the general pacifist peace-seeking life Jesus commands His followers to lead. Pacifism is seeking peace and justice in all areas and not just being opposed to war. Re WWII, many many pacifists were still part of the war effort but in a non-combatant role eg ambulance drivers - do you consider that to be wrong? That would have been my position, I think (although it is obviously impossible to know for certain).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The pacifist resistance in Germany, Poland, France, Holland, Norway, Czechoslovakia, etc, etc, etc didn't do much to save the 13 million did it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Surely a true pacifist would want nothing whatever to do with the logistics of the war effort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Come on mudfrog, answer my question, do you think jesus would have killed another to save a third? And if so why? You can't just keep saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the difficult questions.

I think the answer is that he would not have done. Faced with the woman caught in adultery he didn't wade in and kill or injure anyone but he did defend her. Putting himself in harm's way he prevented her lynching without using violence.

---

He acted promptly too. Had Britain, France and a few other countries got their act together earlier they wouldn't have been confronted by the 'Massed armies of the Third Reich' as these were pretty puny until the very late 'thirties. Action against Hitler when Germany's armed forces entered the Rhineland in 1936 would very probably been successful and Hitler might have been toppled. Unfortunately, France was in a mess and Britain didn't think it significant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Well whatever he would have done I don't think he would have killed anyone. What do you think he would have done? Are you going to answer my question or not?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Come on mudfrog, answer my question, do you think jesus would have killed another to save a third? And if so why? You can't just keep saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the difficult questions.

I think the answer is that he would not have done. Faced with the woman caught in adultery he didn't wade in and kill or injure anyone but he did defend her. Putting himself in harm's way he prevented her lynching without using violence.

---

He acted promptly too. Had Britain, France and a few other countries got their act together earlier they wouldn't have been confronted by the 'Massed armies of the Third Reich' as these were pretty puny until the very late 'thirties. Action against Hitler when Germany's armed forces entered the Rhineland in 1936 would very probably been successful and Hitler might have been toppled. Unfortunately, France was in a mess and Britain didn't think it significant.

---

And wasn't Chamberlain trying to negotiate with Hitler and trying to avoid conflict?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mudfrog.

Your pacifism is a complete straw man. Has nothing to do with the heroism of non-violent civil disobedience in Nazi occupied Denmark from the Royal Family on down. In the Raj. In Montgomery Alabama.

For the second time I had to censor myself there.

How long are we, the church, going to keep gutlessly denying Christ?

Therefore I call you to Hell Mudfrog.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And wasn't Chamberlain trying to negotiate with Hitler and trying to avoid conflict?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My phrase 'self-indulgent pacifism' simply means a holding onto one's pacifist views regardless of the consequences for others. If my pacifism allows the potential for others to be harmed simply to maintain my high-minded views, then it is self-indulgence.

---

So stop labelling all pacifism as self-indulgent then, when by your own admission not all is the same. And I would distinguish between self-indulgent anti-war feelings, and the general pacifist peace-seeking life Jesus commands His followers to lead. Pacifism is seeking peace and justice in all areas and not just being opposed to war. Re WWII, many many pacifists were still part of the war effort but in a non-combatant role eg ambulance drivers - do you consider that to be wrong? That would have been my position, I think (although it is obviously impossible to know for certain).

---

How can a pacifist be part of the war effort? Surely, by being part of the war effort - carrying out ambulance duties, or bomb disposal, you are actually facilitating the main purpose of the military which is to be as efficient as possible in their combat role.

Surely a true pacifist would want nothing whatever to do with the logistics of the war effort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is, in my opinion, a very selfish attitude to take. It simply means 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'

---

Dude, do you even read your Bible?

---

I believe he does, but either it isn't the same as mine or he reads it with one eye shut.

---

Or he reads the whole thing

---

Is your copy missing the Sermon on the Mount?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I interpret scripture based on the entirety of scripture not just the few verses that support my opinion. Pacifists can be Christians. However, the Bible taken as a whole does not teach anything close to Pacifism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
A pacifist centurion must have had a lot to think about, then.

---

quote:

---

Sometimes a violent reaction in self-defence is the only way to defeat evil.

---

quote:

---

There were 6 million failures of this 'Christlike' attitude to the death camps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
A pacifist centurion must have had a lot to think about, then.

---

Yes. I imagine he probably did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
A pacifist centurion must have had a lot to think about, then.

---

Yes. I imagine he probably did.

---

Thinking about this over the washing up. A young Wehrmacht officer on occupation duty in a small provincial town, a resentful populace, small acts of daily defiance against the invaders, flicked Vs behind his back, steps into a church and encounters the risen Christ in the stained glass behind the altar.

He walks out, a new creation, and still part of the occupying army. Yes, I imagine that would be very hard indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
A pacifist centurion must have had a lot to think about, then.

---

Yes. I imagine he probably did.

---

Thinking about this over the washing up. A young Wehrmacht officer on occupation duty in a small provincial town, a resentful populace, small acts of daily defiance against the invaders, flicked Vs behind his back, steps into a church and encounters the risen Christ in the stained glass behind the altar.

He walks out, a new creation, and still part of the occupying army. Yes, I imagine that would be very hard indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Jesus wasn't a fan of cutting off ears with swords, though. Just worth noting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Jesus wasn't a fan of cutting off ears with swords, though. Just worth noting.

---

He did command the disciples to buy swords just before that.

---

Damned inconsistent, that man.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Um, Orefeo, there was plenty of very violent resistance in Denmark. Sabotauge, assasinations, you name it.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Um, Orefeo, there was plenty of very violent resistance in Denmark. Sabotauge, assasinations, you name it.

---

quote:

---

The brutalities of the Nazis stand for many people as the ultimate refutation of nonviolence. Surely, they reason, only violence could have stopped Hitler. The facts indicate just the opposite. Nonviolence did work whenever it was tried against the Nazis. Bulgaria's Orthodox Bishop Kiril told Nazi authorities that if they attempted to deport Bulgarian Jews to concentration camps, he himself would lead a campaign of civil disobedience, lying down on the railroad tracks in front of the trains... [further examples from Bulgaria]... Ron Sider and Richard K. Taylor comment, "Because of these and other nonmilitary measures, all of Bulgaria's Jewish citizens were saved from the Nazi death camps."

Finland saved all but six of its Jewish citizens from death camps through nonmilitary means. Of 7,000 Danish Jews, 6,500 escaped to Sweden, aided by virtually the whole population and tips from within the German occupation force itself. Almost all the rest were hidden safely for the balance of the war. Denmark's resistance was so effective that Adolf Eichmann had to admit that the action against the Jews of Denmark had been a failure.

The Norwegian underground helped spirit 900 Jews to safety in Sweden, but another 756 were killed, all but 20 in Nazi death camps. German wives of Jes demonstrated in Berlin on behalf of their husbands in the midst of the war, and secured their release for the duration. In Italy, a large percentage of Jews survived because officials and citizens sabotaged efforts to hand them over to the Germans.

During the Nazi occupation of Holland, a general strike by all rail workers paralyzed traffic from Nov. 1944 until liberation in May 1945-- this despite extreme privation to the people, who held out all winter without heat and with dwindling food supplies...

The tragedy is that even though nonviolence did work when used against the Nazis, it was used too seldom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Until liberation in 1945?

Who did this liberating?

How did they do it exactly?

Wink gives examples of nonviolent partisan resistance during World War II. The Nazi's couldn't devote their full attention to cracking down on local resistance because they were busy fighting a war. The best you can say is that some of the ways partisans in occupied Nazi territory aided the Allied war effort were nonviolent. I'd say that was hardly a ringing endorsement for Pacifism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A case for pacifism can certainly be made from the NT (though it is not remotely as clear-cut as simplistic proof-texting artificially restricted to the Sermon on the Mount might suggest), and those who adopt a consistent Christian pacifist stance deserve respect.

Such a consistency would involve a realistic and theologically rigorous understanding of this present world’s fallenness, a recognition that pacifism must involve the (temporal) triumph of evil; and a readiness to tolerate the suffering that this will mean for the pacifist, their loved ones, and the world at large.

This is a clear-sighted and ruthless attitude that obedience to a perceived dominical pacifist imperative is paramount, despite the fact that it will never ‘work’ this side of the Kingdom.

Those pacifists who do not deserve respect are those who imagine that evils such as fascism and communism could have been prevented by pacifism.

Campaigns by Gandhi and Martin Luther King succeeded because they were undertaken against systems which were, for all their faults, liberal democracies.

The occasional ameliorations of Nazi atrocities by non-violent means do not even begin to counter the overwhelming truth that those atrocities were, overall, successful, and were only stopped by counter-violence or the threat thereof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
not reluctant at all) to serve the war effort in some non-combative role (not that I would have been asked anyway, as a woman...).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
not reluctant at all) to serve the war effort in some non-combative role (not that I would have been asked anyway, as a woman...).

---

Thousands and thousands of women served in WWII in all sorts of non-combatant capacities.

I am talking about the Western democracies; in the Red Army they also served as combatants, such as snipers and pilots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynnk:
surely the bottom line is, if you are not prepared to look after your country and your family by almost any means necessary then you don't deserve them.I'm not saying pacifism isn't a good idea,I'm just suggesting that is in NO way a practical way of life.Or do you men think it would be ok to watch your family killed or maimed? Or acceptable to watch your country destroyed and just standby?I'll bet there aren't to many wives or partners think that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynnk:
surely the bottom line is, if you are not prepared to look after your country and your family by almost any means necessary then you don't deserve them.I'm not saying pacifism isn't a good idea,I'm just suggesting that is in NO way a practical way of life.Or do you men think it would be ok to watch your family killed or maimed? Or acceptable to watch your country destroyed and just standby?I'll bet there aren't to many wives or partners think that

---

I'm certainly not prepared to look after my country by any means necessary, not even close. I'm British because of an accident of birth. My real citizenship is that of Heaven. My duty is to Christ and my siblings in Christ, far far far above my country. And Jesus says the same goes for one's family. It's a rather more difficult situation regarding family, but Jesus is clear - His followers are to be loyal to Him over their families, and their countries aren't even mentioned.

And why are you just asking men? Do women not have countries or families?
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynnk:
surely the bottom line is, if you are not prepared to look after your country and your family by almost any means necessary then you don't deserve them.I'm not saying pacifism isn't a good idea,I'm just suggesting that is in NO way a practical way of life.Or do you men think it would be ok to watch your family killed or maimed? Or acceptable to watch your country destroyed and just standby?I'll bet there aren't to many wives or partners think that

---

I'm sure the World would agree with you on that. I'm just not sure that Christ would. Absolute loyalty to country and family is not an idea that seems to be endorsed by the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynnk:
surely the bottom line is, if you are not prepared to look after your country and your family by almost any means necessary then you don't deserve them.I'm not saying pacifism isn't a good idea,I'm just suggesting that is in NO way a practical way of life.Or do you men think it would be ok to watch your family killed or maimed? Or acceptable to watch your country destroyed and just standby?I'll bet there aren't to many wives or partners think that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose non-pacifists are saying that Jesus should have started an insurgency group, to fight the Romans? Well, you could argue that that would be foolish, since the Romans always crushed opposition, but that is a reason of expediency. Otherwise, insurgency has a lot going for it, doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is a little like being in a workforce that is represented and supported by a trades union. The anti-unionist on the factpory-floor will not attend the union meetings, will refuse to pay the union levy, will disagree with the union's policies and actions but will quite happily accept the favourable pay, terms and conditions that the union negotiates for and even strikes for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is a little like being in a workforce that is represented and supported by a trades union. The anti-unionist on the factpory-floor will not attend the union meetings, will refuse to pay the union levy, will disagree with the union's policies and actions but will quite happily accept the favourable pay, terms and conditions that the union negotiates for and even strikes for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's also quite amusing to see how many liberal Christians suddenly become all 'sola-scriptura' when it comes to this issue!

Any other liberal issue and the Bible goes out of the window and Tradition and Reason suddenly become the final authority.

At the moment all I'm suddenly seeing is a Quaker version of WWJD?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose non-pacifists are saying that Jesus should have started an insurgency group, to fight the Romans? Well, you could argue that that would be foolish, since the Romans always crushed opposition, but that is a reason of expediency. Otherwise, insurgency has a lot going for it, doesn't it?

---

Jesus didn't come to fight on a political level. neither did he come to bring peace - he knew his message would stir up hostility and hatred: it didn't stop him though.

And neither did Jesus encourage healthcare, education, female equality or any kind of welfare system or feeding programme.

It seems Jesus didn't do a lot of stuff that people might expect him to do if he were here today.

---

quote:

---

One thing is plain - EVERY TRUE SOLDIER OF THE SALVATION ARMY WOULD CRY DAY AND NIGHT TO GOD TO AVERT SO DREADFUL A CALAMITY. Let him shut his ears to all the worldly, unscriptural, unchristian talk about war being a necessity. It cannot be a necessity before God that tens of thousands of men should be launched into eternity will all manner of revengeful passionate feelings in their souls, and too often, according to the testimony of these who know all about it, with dreadful blasphemies on their lips. Whatever may be the right method of setting human disputes and preventing earthly calamities, this cannot be the Divine plan. This cannot be the will of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynnk:
... I'm not saying pacifism isn't a good idea,I'm just suggesting that is in NO way a practical way of life....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For the first couple of hundred years, all Christians were pacifists, and therefore conclude you are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
Really? I think the evidence points the other way. Can you expand please?

---

quote:

---

If anyone be a soldier or in authority, let him be taught not to oppress or to kill or to rob, or to be angry or to rage and afflict anyone. But let those rations suffice him which are given to him. But if they wish to be baptized in the Lord, let them cease from military service or from the [post of] authority, and if not let them not be received.

Let a Catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desire to be a soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not let him be rejected. For he hath despised God by his thought, and leaving the things of the Spirit, he hath perfected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Mudfrog, let's look at your own tradition then shall we?

From William Booth himself from The General's Letters (website very slow to load!) talking about the possibility of war with Russia at page 115:

quote:

---

One thing is plain - EVERY TRUE SOLDIER OF THE SALVATION ARMY WOULD CRY DAY AND NIGHT TO GOD TO AVERT SO DREADFUL A CALAMITY. Let him shut his ears to all the worldly, unscriptural, unchristian talk about war being a necessity. It cannot be a necessity before God that tens of thousands of men should be launched into eternity will all manner of revengeful passionate feelings in their souls, and too often, according to the testimony of these who know all about it, with dreadful blasphemies on their lips. Whatever may be the right method of setting human disputes and preventing earthly calamities, this cannot be the Divine plan. This cannot be the will of God.

---

Agree? Disagree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
So you disagree with Booth's statement presumably?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
So you disagree with Booth's statement presumably?

---

In 2013 I do.
Had I had his pre-Great war mindset and limited knowledge, then maybe I would have done. He was speaking as a colonialist, PreMillennial, Victorian who knew war as it was seen then.

He died in 1912 at the height of Edwardian confidence and optimism. I wonder what he would have said in 1918?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
So you disagree with Booth's statement presumably?

---

In 2013 I do.
Had I had his pre-Great war mindset and limited knowledge, then maybe I would have done. He was speaking as a colonialist, PreMillennial, Victorian who knew war as it was seen then.

He died in 1912 at the height of Edwardian confidence and optimism. I wonder what he would have said in 1918?

---

Did the Gospel change between 1912 and 1918, or between 1912 and 2013?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Don't you dare q. Stick around. Christ is coming back to the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:


It is harder to be peaceful, it is harder to love your enemies. This is the higher calling Jesus wishes for us. Killing to defend your family or home is something even animals do, it is not a reflection of the Holy Spirit but a basic instinct with no inherent virtue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Pacifism hasn't really been tried yet

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Fighting in defense of a country, to protect the innocent, can be justified, though still evil, it is a necessary and justified action to take.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pacifism is a little like being in a workforce that is represented and supported by a trades union. The anti-unionist on the factpory-floor will not attend the union meetings, will refuse to pay the union levy, will disagree with the union's policies and actions but will quite happily accept the favourable pay, terms and conditions that the union negotiates for and even strikes for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Passivity is, indeed, a cowardly choice that allows others to get their hands dirty and take the risks of opposing systemic evil while they reap the benefits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
But anyway, surely if most Germans had been pacifist Hitler would have had serious problems with his blitzkrieg ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Susan Doris:
Idealism is fine, but there are times when practical considerations are more urgent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I think a woman can push a man down the stairs if he's trying to hurt her baby, and still be a pacifist. The definition of a pacifist is someone who is against war as a means of solving problems, not someone who would never resort to an act of violence to defend an innocent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I think a woman can push a man down the stairs if he's trying to hurt her baby, and still be a pacifist. The definition of a pacifist is someone who is against war as a means of solving problems, not someone who would never resort to an act of violence to defend an innocent.

---

The distinction is the same in my mind as well.

Pacifism doesn't mean I will never engage in violence, but it means that I seek not to.

What I am getting from some is, killing someone to protect the innocent is right. Whereas I think, if I had to kill someone to protect an innocent, I would immediately seek God's forgiveness for such a serious wrongdoing. Not think to myself that I had achieved something that God would be proud of!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
Really? I think the evidence points the other way. Can you expand please?

---

From the 4th Century document Testamentum Domini:

quote:

---

If anyone be a soldier or in authority, let him be taught not to oppress or to kill or to rob, or to be angry or to rage and afflict anyone. But let those rations suffice him which are given to him. But if they wish to be baptized in the Lord, let them cease from military service or from the [post of] authority, and if not let them not be received.

Let a Catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desire to be a soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not let him be rejected. For he hath despised God by his thought, and leaving the things of the Spirit, he hath perfected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Passivity is, indeed, a cowardly choice that allows others to get their hands dirty and take the risks of opposing systemic evil while they reap the benefits.

---

One wonders how many of the people proclaiming this truth have ever "got their hands dirty" in the armed forces themselves. Maybe they're all grizzled combat veterans who have personally taken the risks of opposing systemic evil and so can now justly reap the benefits on civvy street, but somehow I doubt it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Thank goodness for obscure, extra-biblical documents that just happen to reinforce your preconceived notions, eh?

---

The question asked was "What evidence is there that the early church was pacifist?"

I gave some evidence. The question wasn't about Biblical sources, as someone previously had asked about the first several hundred years of the church, which goes well past the New Testament writings.

Anyone on the other side of the debate is just as free to post their own sources from church writings to support their view. It's an open forum.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I just looked up this Testamentum Domini that seekingsister cited and laughed out loud. It's an apocryphal Gospel from the 5th century, and has Jesus dictating the floor plans of churches.

If you want to admit as authoritative documents of that dubiousness and obscurity, we're also all obliged to keep perpetual continence and vegetarianism.

[ 12. November 2013, 15:09: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I just looked up this Testamentum Domini that seekingsister cited and laughed out loud. It's an apocryphal Gospel from the 5th century, and has Jesus dictating the floor plans of churches.

---

:strolls over to hell:
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
You consider looking up the sources you cite a hell-worthy trespass?
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
fwiw, this wiki article
includes a long list of pacifist citations from prominent church fathers in the era leading up to Constantine, while also suggesting at the same time that many Christians in the patristic era served in the military.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
How about Tertullian?

quote:

---

To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord's day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? 1 Corinthians 8:10 And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ's side was pierced?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I just looked up this Testamentum Domini that seekingsister cited and laughed out loud. It's an apocryphal Gospel from the 5th century, and has Jesus dictating the floor plans of churches.

---

:strolls over to hell:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sometimes a violent reaction in self-defence is the only way to defeat evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Did you read my whole post? I'm having trouble figuring out if you're responding to the "passivism" comment or the "pacifism" comment. Especially since you don't need to wonder whether I've gotten "my hands dirty" since I addressed that in the post...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just to clarify: as far as I can tell, no one here is advocating passivism (several of us are advocating pacifism).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For the first couple of hundred years, all Christians were pacifists, and therefore conclude you are wrong.

---

Really? I think the evidence points the other way. Can you expand please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
From the 4th Century document Testamentum Domini:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Some links to evidence would be nice...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Can't speak for the validity of this website or writer's opinions, but it has a lot of citations and quotes from early church leaders pointing to a doctrine of pacifism for the first few hundred years of Christianity.

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

---

That's more like it. Something to answer.

This site seems to work on the principle that if you repeat something enough times it will be believed. So if they keep saying that Christians were pacifists from 70 to 170 AD then it must be so, even when they give no direct evidence of this. (They even add the dates in parentheses to quotes which do not include these dates.

What they do not say is that there are graves from the 180s identified as being in the army and Christian. Neither does it mention The Thundering Legion, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius Caesar (emporer from 161 t0 180) there seems to have been a whole Christian Legion. It looks like they have chosen a convenient datein 170. Convenient because there is no evidence that there were Christians in the military before this.

But neither is there evidence that they were not in the Army.

The Church Fathers are no help here either. Some claim that words they wrote against taking personal revenge is evidence of pacifism, but why? If they believed that States should not raise armies and go to war, or that Christians should not serve in these armies, why not say something? Could it be that they didn't see the topic as important?

Now we come on to the people they do cite: Origen and Tertullian. Both advised Christians not to join the army and both gave the same reason. Idolitory. It has nothing to do with pacifism.

Would a pacifist write this:

quote:

---

Tertullian
Without ceasing, for all our emperors, we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies…

---

quote:

---

Origen
For those fighting in a righteous cause, and for the King who reigns righteously, that whatsoever is opposed to those who act righteously be destroyed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Depending on the definitions, I may be. I've repeatedly said that if any putative war would cause more deaths than the evil it seeks to prevent, it shouldn't be fought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just to clarify: as far as I can tell, no one here is advocating passivism (several of us are advocating pacifism).

---

Depending on the definitions, I may be. I've repeatedly said that if any putative war would cause more deaths than the evil it seeks to prevent, it shouldn't be fought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:


My conclusions.

At the end of this 200 year period Christians were being told not to enter the military because of idolatry, not because of pacifism.
Before that there were Christian graves found with rank and legion marked on them, and a whole Christian Legion.
Between 70 and 170 there is no evidence either way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
My conclusions.

At the end of this 200 year period Christians were being told not to enter the military because of idolatry, not because of pacifism.
Before that there were Christian graves found with rank and legion marked on them, and a whole Christian Legion.
Between 70 and 170 there is no evidence either way.

---

quote:

---

The issue of killing was prohibited in every mention by early church writers. Whenever the issue of military service and warfare was discussed, Christians were prohibited from participating. Nowhere in the written record in the first three hundred years of Christianity is killing ever justified. Not even for soldiers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
even if no JWs fought in the Allied forces, neither did they in the Wehrmacht, for which they were sent en masse to the concentration camps.

Some bloody self-indulgence Muddie!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why not do a bit more reading?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why not do a bit more reading?

---

Nothing I havn't already seen. Do you really think two links to reviews of the same book is conclusive proof? Links which only speak in generalisations except when quoting Origen, Tertullian and Lactantius.

I've already dealt with Origen and Tertullian in the last post, I don't intend to go over it again, other than to say maybe it's you who who needs to read more. Lactantius, advisor to Constantine, as a pacifist, did he advise Constantine to be a pacifist. I laughed when I realised who Lactantius was, thank you for brightening my evening.

If you do want to read more, try Googling "Eusebius Thundering Legion."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
[QUOTE]
I defend anyone's right to hold what opinions they like, but also have always bought into the saw that, in the world as it is (and we all want a better world naturally), in reality, the only reason people can hold those views and sleep soundly in their beds at night is because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf, whether they want that or indeed even accept that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Did you read my whole post? I'm having trouble figuring out if you're responding to the "passivism" comment or the "pacifism" comment. Especially since you don't need to wonder whether I've gotten "my hands dirty" since I addressed that in the post...

---

The "passifism" one.

---

Uh... were you trying to be funny here?

 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why not do a bit more reading?

---

Nothing I havn't already seen. Do you really think two links to reviews of the same book is conclusive proof? Links which only speak in generalisations except when quoting Origen, Tertullian and Lactantius.

I've already dealt with Origen and Tertullian in the last post, I don't intend to go over it again, other than to say maybe it's you who who needs to read more. Lactantius, advisor to Constantine, as a pacifist, did he advise Constantine to be a pacifist. I laughed when I realised who Lactantius was, thank you for brightening my evening.

If you do want to read more, try Googling "Eusebius Thundering Legion."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Mudfrog - you've mentioned fighting for one's country. Why is a good thing for Christians? I've mentioned before why I think it's not an approach Christians should follow, since Christ comes before nationalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Mudfrog: Well I've found some of your posts quite depressing to read, but it is fatuous to accuse you of being a Christ-denier.

But from your posts I would deduce you have a visceral contempt for pacifists and have never seriously tried to understand them.

Would you at least admit to that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just to clarify: as far as I can tell, no one here is advocating passivism (several of us are advocating pacifism).

---

Depending on the definitions, I may be. I've repeatedly said that if any putative war would cause more deaths than the evil it seeks to prevent, it shouldn't be fought.

---

Well that's a reasonable point of view to take. However, it does seem to come harshly down on anyone on the wrong side of reality.

---

quote:

---

[snip]
However, and I do apologise for invoking Godwin's Law yet again on this thread. Your contention is that World War 2 caused say 60 million deaths on all sides, and the holocaust killed *only* 6 million Jews and a few million others therefore we shouldn't have fought?

---

quote:

---

Let's leave aside that we didn't go into the war specifically to stop that - although I'm pretty sure Chamberlain *was* talking about the evils of nazism in 1939 - I find it abhorrent that in that reading because we can't know in advance how many are going to die in a war we should just let them get on with it.

---

quote:

---

I also struggle with the morality of thinking, and let's be quite clear here, we're going to run out of Jews (for exaample) in pre-1939 Europe before we get anywhere near 60 million so we just let the Nazis crack on. Incidentally, I agree with the A Level view that the Treaty of Versailles bears some responsibility, but Germany rolling into Czechoslovakia and Poland (even if it has a claim to East Prussia what on earth was it doing in Bohemia and Moravia?), and annexing Austria because it felt like it still leaves, if we just accept that it can do it and don't lift a finger, an awful lot of "undesirables" of various stripes for Mr Himmler's boys to get to work on *even if* as a result of our passivity they don't invade France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc.

---

quote:

---

Possibly those people who died thinking they were fighting for freedom and civilisation (and again I have served) might have thought their deaths were to an extent justified by helping to stop the kind of lawless barbarism into which Germany had descended.

I defend anyone's right to hold what opinions they like, but also have always bought into the saw that, in the world as it is (and we all want a better world naturally), in reality, the only reason people can hold those views and sleep soundly in their beds at night is because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf, whether they want that or indeed even accept that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Mudfrog - you've mentioned fighting for one's country. Why is a good thing for Christians? I've mentioned before why I think it's not an approach Christians should follow, since Christ comes before nationalism.

---

Fighting for one's country does not mean fighting to protect the government or even the land we live on - it means fighting for the freedom of my family, my community, my way of life and my freedom to enjoy it. It means fighting for those who live here - especially if they would be the vulnerable ones.

To paraphrase Mrs Thatcher, there is no such thing as 'my country'. There are individual men and women, and there are families... It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.

---

But why fight only for those who live in your country? Why are they more deserving than people who live in other countries? Our neighbours include those who live in other countries after all.

Also, I am puzzled by you saying you would fight for your country and then say there is no such thing If you are defining a country by national boundaries, then there clearly is such a thing as a country. You're not using any other way of grouping people together.

Also the idea that there are only individuals flies directly in the face of Christian teaching about the Church - the Church is a community, not a group of individuals.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Good Samaritan teaches us a very important lesson. The two men, the priest and the Levite, did nothing wrong in walking by on the other side: they had their ideals, they were obeying the Torah, the will of God. The knew that in their life there was nothing higher than being pure and holy in the sight of God. They were respected for it, they may have been very humble in their service of God. BUT they placed that personal sense of service and holiness above the needs of a fellow human being. And THAT was wrong. The Samaritan saw the need before he saw his own personal standards.

Would the Samaritan have used physical force to protect the man who was being being up, had he arrived when the attack was being carried out? I don't know.

But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.

I am not a war-mongering Christ denier as I have been accused of elsewhere. Even our wartime PM said 'It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.' But if war comes then it's too late to have a peace march, you've got to respond - especially when it's other people you are protecting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Mudfrog - you've mentioned fighting for one's country. Why is a good thing for Christians? I've mentioned before why I think it's not an approach Christians should follow, since Christ comes before nationalism.

---

Fighting for one's country does not mean fighting to protect the government or even the land we live on - it means fighting for the freedom of my family, my community, my way of life and my freedom to enjoy it. It means fighting for those who live here - especially if they would be the vulnerable ones.

To paraphrase Mrs Thatcher, there is no such thing as 'my country'. There are individual men and women, and there are families... It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.

---

But why fight only for those who live in your country? Why are they more deserving than people who live in other countries? Our neighbours include those who live in other countries after all.

Also, I am puzzled by you saying you would fight for your country and then say there is no such thing If you are defining a country by national boundaries, then there clearly is such a thing as a country. You're not using any other way of grouping people together.

Also the idea that there are only individuals flies directly in the face of Christian teaching about the Church - the Church is a community, not a group of individuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Good Samaritan teaches us a very important lesson. The two men, the priest and the Levite, did nothing wrong in walking by on the other side: they had their ideals, they were obeying the Torah, the will of God. The knew that in their life there was nothing higher than being pure and holy in the sight of God. They were respected for it, they may have been very humble in their service of God. BUT they placed that personal sense of service and holiness above the needs of a fellow human being. And THAT was wrong. The Samaritan saw the need before he saw his own personal standards.

Would the Samaritan have used physical force to protect the man who was being being up, had he arrived when the attack was being carried out? I don't know.

But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.

I am not a war-mongering Christ denier as I have been accused of elsewhere. Even our wartime PM said 'It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.' But if war comes then it's too late to have a peace march, you've got to respond - especially when it's other people you are protecting.

---

So we are to put people above following Christ? Jesus said rather the opposite. Yes, people's needs > 'a sense of holiness' (which is not what pacifism is as has been said ad nauseum) - but as Christians we have to respond to people's needs in a Christian way! It's perfectly reasonable to class pacifism - which involves resistance and is not passive - as a Christian approach to violence. It was so for much of early Christianity. To mislabel pacifism as a selfish 'sense of holiness' is insulting and just not true. Have you ever actually engaged with pacifists IRL? Plenty of Christians in historical denominations are pacifists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.

---

Mudfrog, assuming that you're talking about pacifism here again:

Despite the many times it has been pointed out to you, it seems that you remain frustratingly unable to distinguish PACIFISM from PASSIVE-ISM. Only Marvin seems to be arguing for the latter.

If you want to argue against something, then you need to understand what you're arguing against. You simply don't seem to understand what pacifism is.

So, in reply to the above. Your approach doesn't ignore the suffering of innocents, but pacifists don't ignore that suffering either. You both strongly care and want to do something about that suffering. The difference is that you each choose to do different things about that suffering. The difference is not between action and inaction, but different types of action, and the question, therefore, is which actions are better and righter? The question is most definitely not "why aren't those people doing something when they should be doing something?".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but would have done nothing to prevent it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Good Samaritan teaches us a very important lesson. The two men, the priest and the Levite, did nothing wrong in walking by on the other side: they had their ideals, they were obeying the Torah, the will of God. The knew that in their life there was nothing higher than being pure and holy in the sight of God. They were respected for it, they may have been very humble in their service of God. BUT they placed that personal sense of service and holiness above the needs of a fellow human being. And THAT was wrong. The Samaritan saw the need before he saw his own personal standards.

Would the Samaritan have used physical force to protect the man who was being being up, had he arrived when the attack was being carried out? I don't know.

But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.

I am not a war-mongering Christ denier as I have been accused of elsewhere. Even our wartime PM said 'It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.' But if war comes then it's too late to have a peace march, you've got to respond - especially when it's other people you are protecting.

---

So we are to put people above following Christ? Jesus said rather the opposite. Yes, people's needs > 'a sense of holiness' (which is not what pacifism is as has been said ad nauseum) - but as Christians we have to respond to people's needs in a Christian way! It's perfectly reasonable to class pacifism - which involves resistance and is not passive - as a Christian approach to violence. It was so for much of early Christianity. To mislabel pacifism as a selfish 'sense of holiness' is insulting and just not true. Have you ever actually engaged with pacifists IRL? Plenty of Christians in historical denominations are pacifists.

---

You miss the point.

In the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite were doing just that - they were pitting their love for the Torah - their spiritual ideals - above the needs of a man. I am saying that some people put their ideals above the needs of others.

And yes, I have engaged with pacifists. And I found them to be honourable people with high ideals but who were unwilling to allow that their ideals could be moderated in order to engage with the needs of others. I was particularly amazed to hear a Quaker tell me that being ruled by a victorious German government post WWII would not have been that bad and that we shouldn't have fought to prevent that from happening. The fact that Jews, gays and the disabled wouldn't have lasted past 1950 didn't bother him; as long as he got his way and seen no one in khaki fighting on the beaches.

His ideals were more important to him than the lives of innocent Britons who he would not have been happy to see go to the gas chambers, but would have done nothing to prevent it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Mudfrog - you've mentioned fighting for one's country. Why is a good thing for Christians? I've mentioned before why I think it's not an approach Christians should follow, since Christ comes before nationalism.

---

Fighting for one's country does not mean fighting to protect the government or even the land we live on - it means fighting for the freedom of my family, my community, my way of life and my freedom to enjoy it. It means fighting for those who live here - especially if they would be the vulnerable ones.

To paraphrase Mrs Thatcher, there is no such thing as 'my country'. There are individual men and women, and there are families... It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.

---

But why fight only for those who live in your country? Why are they more deserving than people who live in other countries? Our neighbours include those who live in other countries after all.

Also, I am puzzled by you saying you would fight for your country and then say there is no such thing If you are defining a country by national boundaries, then there clearly is such a thing as a country. You're not using any other way of grouping people together.

Also the idea that there are only individuals flies directly in the face of Christian teaching about the Church - the Church is a community, not a group of individuals.

---

I was trying to say that 'my country' isn't an ideal or an amorphous 'thing' - it's my people, my community. To refuse to fight for 'my country' implies a disregard for the people. Some people believe that fighting for one's country means simply to fight for the government. That's not it at all.

In any case, you misquote me in order to make your argument. You wrote "the idea that there are only individuals flies directly in the face of Christian teaching..."

I never said there were 'only individuals' at all!
I wrote, 'There are individual men and women, and there are families... It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.'

So, there are indeed individuals AND families AND neighbours.

---

quote:

---

Why do I have to have a 'visceral contempt' just because i don't agree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

[snip]
However, and I do apologise for invoking Godwin's Law yet again on this thread. Your contention is that World War 2 caused say 60 million deaths on all sides, and the holocaust killed *only* 6 million Jews and a few million others therefore we shouldn't have fought?

---

Fewer people would have died had we not fought. I therefore consider that option to be the lesser evil...Assuming that all lives are of equal worth, it becomes a simple question of numbers. If evil is going to happen regardless of what we do, and all we can decide is which evil will happen, then should we not choose the one that leaves the fewest corpses behind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Despite the many times it has been pointed out to you, it seems that you remain frustratingly unable to distinguish PACIFISM from PASSIVE-ISM. Only Marvin seems to be arguing for the latter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not think that belonging to a church, being in the Body of Christ, means that we are no longer individuals. I don't think my quote about individuals, families and neighbours is against the christian ideal of a faith community at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

Of course, I realise that my analysis above ignores the fact that without the war and armed resistance movements the shelter of Jews would likely have been less succesful, even ultimately pointless as the Nazis probably wouldn't have stopped hunting Jews if they hadn't been eventually overthrown militarily. But I think it's still interesting to note that pacifist methods of resistance were very effective at saving lives, and definitely far more effective than relying solely on armed force.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not think that belonging to a church, being in the Body of Christ, means that we are no longer individuals. I don't think my quote about individuals, families and neighbours is against the christian ideal of a faith community at all.

---

But of course it does, if there are ONLY individual people and families, which is what Thatcher's quote says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not think that belonging to a church, being in the Body of Christ, means that we are no longer individuals. I don't think my quote about individuals, families and neighbours is against the christian ideal of a faith community at all.

---

But of course it does, if there are ONLY individual people and families, which is what Thatcher's quote says.

---

The word 'only' does not appear. It is put there by you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
His ideals were more important to him than the lives of innocent Britons who he would not have been happy to see go to the gas chambers, but would have done nothing to prevent it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.

---

Yes, I'm sure those civilians will be much safer once they've been handed a rifle and marched out to war
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But of course it does, if there are ONLY individual people and families, which is what Thatcher's quote says. It says there is no such thing as society - which is impossible to agree with for Christians, since the Church (properly understood) is a society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Where your argument fails is in assuming that evil can be quantified only in number of deaths. Such a simplistic and reductionist approach is pointless as a way of judging events IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But of course it does, if there are ONLY individual people and families, which is what Thatcher's quote says. It says there is no such thing as society - which is impossible to agree with for Christians, since the Church (properly understood) is a society.

---

This is a bit of a tangent, but surely what Mrs Thatcher was driving at is that the problems we face cannot be pinned on an abstract concept called 'society' and that it's thing called 'society's' fault, because our communities are made up of real people and we must look to ourselves and others to improve our lot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Where your argument fails is in assuming that evil can be quantified only in number of deaths. Such a simplistic and reductionist approach is pointless as a way of judging events IMO.

---

Only if you think that some deaths are less important than others, or that lives are less important than political ideology.

Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Where your argument fails is in assuming that evil can be quantified only in number of deaths. Such a simplistic and reductionist approach is pointless as a way of judging events IMO.

---

Only if you think that some deaths are less important than others, or that lives are less important than political ideology.

Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.

---

But isn't there a point when we actually don't know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.

---

What if the political ideology you oppose is one that says sixty million+ humans should be exterminated, including any future 'undesirable' humans who are born?

---

quote:

---

Again, you simplify things too far Marvin. Weighing human lives against political theories seems like an easy decision on the surface. But its much more complicated in reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Good Samaritan teaches us a very important lesson. The two men, the priest and the Levite, did nothing wrong in walking by on the other side: they had their ideals, they were obeying the Torah, the will of God. The knew that in their life there was nothing higher than being pure and holy in the sight of God. They were respected for it, they may have been very humble in their service of God. BUT they placed that personal sense of service and holiness above the needs of a fellow human being. And THAT was wrong. The Samaritan saw the need before he saw his own personal standards.

Would the Samaritan have used physical force to protect the man who was being being up, had he arrived when the attack was being carried out? I don't know.

But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.
.

---

But again, ignoring the suffering of others would be passivity, not pacifism. No one here is arguing for passivity. Continuing to swat at your strawmen is getting tiresome.


 

---

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.

---

What if the political ideology you oppose is one that says sixty million+ humans should be exterminated, including any future 'undesirable' humans who are born?

---

What if it does? Does that make it right to exterminate a different sixty million+ in the name of stopping it? Are those deaths less important? Are those people less innocent or less worthy of protection? Is the grief of their bereaved families and friends less real?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, you simplify things too far Marvin. Weighing human lives against political theories seems like an easy decision on the surface. But its much more complicated in reality.

---

I disagree. I think the ones who oversimplify things are those who act as if the situations that lead to war are like something out of Lord of the Rings, where the Bad Guys will kill every last man, woman and child in existence if they win. Real-world conflicts - even ones that feature Nazis - are not like that, and real-life Bad Guys - even Hitler - are not Sauron.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]
So I'll do you a deal. I'll accept that war is sometimes necessary if you accept that it should only ever be fought by those who volunteer to do so. Acceptable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We now have a military made up almost entirely of young men and women from the poorest communities in our country. It is very, very unusual to see a serviceperson from a wealthy or privileged family. Yet the wealthy have an increasingly outsize political influence in our country, leading to a very similar situation to what we saw during Vietnam-- the people voting to send us to war are often completely isolated from the effects of war, unlikely to ever have a vet in their family or community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.

---

Mudfrog, assuming that you're talking about pacifism here again:

Despite the many times it has been pointed out to you, it seems that you remain frustratingly unable to distinguish PACIFISM from PASSIVE-ISM. Only Marvin seems to be arguing for the latter.

If you want to argue against something, then you need to understand what you're arguing against. You simply don't seem to understand what pacifism is.

So, in reply to the above. Your approach doesn't ignore the suffering of innocents, but pacifists don't ignore that suffering either. You both strongly care and want to do something about that suffering. The difference is that you each choose to do different things about that suffering. The difference is not between action and inaction, but different types of action, and the question, therefore, is which actions are better and righter? The question is most definitely not "why aren't those people doing something when they should be doing something?".

---

No, I think what I am saying is that pacifism may be OK during peacetime when we all have the luxury of private beliefs and high-minded ivory-tower intellectual beliefs, but when it comes down to the crisis of a war actually happening, those beliefs should be overridden by the need of the moment.

Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

Of course, I realise that my analysis above ignores the fact that without the war and armed resistance movements the shelter of Jews would likely have been less succesful, even ultimately pointless as the Nazis probably wouldn't have stopped hunting Jews if they hadn't been eventually overthrown militarily. But I think it's still interesting to note that pacifist methods of resistance were very effective at saving lives, and definitely far more effective than relying solely on armed force.

---

Mind you, one of the main reasons Denmark managed to save so many of its Jews were that there was a neutral state 20 minutes away by boat. The neutral state was kept neutral by its use supporting the war effort, trading iron to the Wehrmacht. Also, the Swedish prime minister threatened to blow up all the mines rendering Sweden ultimately worthless to the Germans, should they enter. This is supposed to have saved the safe haven, and provided opportunities like saving Danish Jews or saving around 40 000 Jews in Hungary through Raoul Wallenberg's efforts. Depending on the view you take, you could say that the pacifist movements depended on a passivist country, a pacifist country or a war-prepared country. Not sure what that says about the argument, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Simply put, if we give ourselves permission to kill, others will too. Whether they do so before or after we have armed ourselves is moot. It is the thought itself that condemns us to fight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
No, but an ideology that says human life is meaningless or that certain people are sub-human and should be persecuted and/or eradicated has an effect on human life far greater than the mere number of people they can suceed in killing between 1939-45. Such long-term affects need to be taken into consideration. And sometimes there are worse evils than shooting people. Shooting someone only takes away their life, whereas a particularly evil ideology can create a permenant system where human life or equality of individuals is no longer sacred. In a thousand year Reich how many people would have suffered compared to a five year war - however devestating?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
And sometimes there are worse evils than shooting people.

---

quote:

---

Shooting someone only takes away their life, whereas a particularly evil ideology can create a permenant system where human life or equality of individuals is no longer sacred.

---

quote:

---

We can see the effects of an unrestrained ideology which cares nothing for human lives in the lessons of Lenin and Stalin's Russia and Mao's China - which exterminated around 40-70 million and more because they considered such deaths to be nothing compared to the goals of the Party.

---

quote:

---

As well as the Kim's North Korea, whose devestating effects on human lives are even today ongoing, supported by a society specifically designed to shelter and support the continuation of torture, oppression and murder, with no signs of this ever ending.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the people voting to send us to war are often completely isolated from the effects of war, unlikely to ever have a vet in their family or community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]
So I'll do you a deal. I'll accept that war is sometimes necessary if you accept that it should only ever be fought by those who volunteer to do so. Acceptable?

---

Just as an aside: sometimes these seemingly obvious ethical positions have unintended consequences. An all-volunteer military has been the rule here in the US ever since the deeply unpopular and famously divisive Vietnam War draft. I doubt we'll see a draft again while my generation is still living-- our memories of thousands of young men sent off to die in a war they could not ethically support are just too fresh. The fact that 18 year olds couldn't vote until 5 years into the war was also an issue-- those bearing the burden of war did not even have a say in the act of war.

But the unintended consequence of that is also none too pretty. We now have a military made up almost entirely of young men and women from the poorest communities in our country. It is very, very unusual to see a serviceperson from a wealthy or privileged family. Yet the wealthy have an increasingly outsize political influence in our country, leading to a very similar situation to what we saw during Vietnam-- the people voting to send us to war are often completely isolated from the effects of war, unlikely to ever have a vet in their family or community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why not do a bit more reading?

---

Nothing I havn't already seen. Do you really think two links to reviews of the same book is conclusive proof? Links which only speak in generalisations except when quoting Origen, Tertullian and Lactantius.

I've already dealt with Origen and Tertullian in the last post, I don't intend to go over it again, other than to say maybe it's you who who needs to read more. Lactantius, advisor to Constantine, as a pacifist, did he advise Constantine to be a pacifist. I laughed when I realised who Lactantius was, thank you for brightening my evening.

If you do want to read more, try Googling "Eusebius Thundering Legion."

---

I appreciate that you've made your mind up, but since I have church fathers saying "don't kill, and that applies if you're in the army", why not wheel some out who say, "Sure, go ahead! Hit them with the pointy end!"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
But isn't there a point when we actually don't know?

---

Don't know what? Whether having the right political ideology in charge of a country is more important than the people of that country being alive?

I'm not sure what your "for example" was trying to argue, to be honest. It doesn't seem directly related to what I've been saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Simply put, if we give ourselves permission to kill, others will too. Whether they do so before or after we have armed ourselves is moot. It is the thought itself that condemns us to fight.

---

But removing the thought from ourselves has no effect on removing the thought from others. In fact if we don't give ourselves permission to kill if we're attacked then it may actually encourage others to do so because we'll be seen as an easy target.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I appreciate that you've made your mind up, but since I have church fathers saying "don't kill, and that applies if you're in the army", why not wheel some out who say, "Sure, go ahead! Hit them with the pointy end!"?

---

Because I have never alleged any of them said that. Stop building straw men.

---

quote:

---

At the moment all I'm suddenly seeing is a Quaker version of WWJD?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I appreciate that you've made your mind up, but since I have church fathers saying "don't kill, and that applies if you're in the army", why not wheel some out who say, "Sure, go ahead! Hit them with the pointy end!"?

---

Because I have never alleged any of them said that. Stop building straw men.

---

No, but you are saying that the early church fathers didn't mind if Christians were in the Roman army. I have evidence that they did. That's hardly a straw man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I was going to post to respond to this from Mudfrog...

quote:

---

At the moment all I'm suddenly seeing is a Quaker version of WWJD?

---

with asking what was bad about that, but I then saw about his meeting with a particular Quaker.
I probably don't need to remind anyone else that there is no such thing as a single Quaker who can give the Quaker interpretation about anything. No one Quaker can speak for the whole Society. A meeting - of various sizes according to the locality - can arrive at a group interpretation and publish it. (And then, as in the case of the American Civil War, separate from other meetings which disagree, though this is difficult to explain in terms of guidance from the Holy Spirit.) This is a good thing (or possibly, with regard to 1066 and All That, A Good Thing).
It applies to other denominations as well. Fortunately. The separation of a friend of mine from the Anglicans was contributed to by a vicar who answered a question by saying that, if the Nazis had invaded, and demanded the identification and delivering up of Jews, he would have done it. Because it was important to obey the law, apparently, and if the law changed to make that demand, then, regardless of the consequences, it must be obeyed. (I want an emoticon showing someone hitting a vicar around the head. Despite it not being particularly pacifist.) Not a man who spoke for the CofE, I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
Actually, that is not quite true in the case of the US. Rosa Brooks in Foreign Policy quotes a study from 2008 that shows that only 10 % of new recruits come from neighbourhoods in the lowest income quintile but 25 % come from neighbourhoods in the highest income quintile. The Ivy League schools are more likely to provide ROTC recruits than other schools. The demand for a high school diploma in order to sign up means most of the poorest are actually ineligible, she points out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
The neutral state was kept neutral by its use supporting the war effort, trading iron to the Wehrmacht. Also, the Swedish prime minister threatened to blow up all the mines rendering Sweden ultimately worthless to the Germans, should they enter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Aye, the worst kind of pacifist. A gutless collaborator. Civil disobedience, passive resistance and subversion are mandatory, as Jesus showed.

---

Again, a gutless collaborator is, by definition, NOT a pacifist, but a passivist.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I do not think I have been told the priest claimed to be a pacifist. Just a gutless collaborator. (Is priesthood a reserved occupation?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Interestingly students were also exempt from conscription in WWII which I did not expect but I suppose they were a small group back then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I probably don't need to remind anyone else that there is no such thing as a single Quaker who can give the Quaker interpretation about anything. No one Quaker can speak for the whole Society.

---

Quite. I would actually go as far as saying that the Quaker Mudfrog mentions and the priest you mention are not actual pacifists at all, but as Martin says, gutless collaborators.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I probably don't need to remind anyone else that there is no such thing as a single Quaker who can give the Quaker interpretation about anything. No one Quaker can speak for the whole Society.

---

Quite. I would actually go as far as saying that the Quaker Mudfrog mentions and the priest you mention are not actual pacifists at all, but as Martin says, gutless collaborators.

---

I'm sure there are gutless Quakers about - I may even be one of them - but I wouldn't rush to condemn anyone on the basis of Mudfrog's account of a conversation with them.

More generally, I don't think there is one right answer to what one does when war breaks out in a world committed to war as the ultimate (as opposed to the worst) way of resolving disputes. Yes, pacifists should work for peace; they should work to try and reduce the amount of time, energy, money and effort that goes into preparing for war. However, whenever a situation breaks out such as we had in 1939, each individual has to make a choice. Quite a few Quakers enlisted - and had I lived then, I might have been one of them. But maybe that's just because I don't have the guts to be 100% pacifist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


Again, a gutless collaborator is, by definition, NOT a pacifist, but a passivist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

Of course, I realise that my analysis above ignores the fact that without the war and armed resistance movements the shelter of Jews would likely have been less succesful, even ultimately pointless as the Nazis probably wouldn't have stopped hunting Jews if they hadn't been eventually overthrown militarily. But I think it's still interesting to note that pacifist methods of resistance were very effective at saving lives, and definitely far more effective than relying solely on armed force.

---

Mind you, one of the main reasons Denmark managed to save so many of its Jews were that there was a neutral state 20 minutes away by boat. The neutral state was kept neutral by its use supporting the war effort, trading iron to the Wehrmacht. Also, the Swedish prime minister threatened to blow up all the mines rendering Sweden ultimately worthless to the Germans, should they enter. This is supposed to have saved the safe haven, and provided opportunities like saving Danish Jews or saving around 40 000 Jews in Hungary through Raoul Wallenberg's efforts. Depending on the view you take, you could say that the pacifist movements depended on a passivist country, a pacifist country or a war-prepared country. Not sure what that says about the argument, though.

---

Actually, what you're describing is two pacifist countries working in tandem. Blowing up mines is an excellent example of what Wink calls "creative non-violence", particularly since, as with most such acts, it comes with great personal sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

Denmark was overrun by the Germans in one day having been totally taken by surprise. Until then Denmark too was neutral, not pacifist. What is your evidence for claiming that the subsequent Danish response to occupation, including the successful evacuation of the Jews, was down to pacifism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


Again, a gutless collaborator is, by definition, NOT a pacifist, but a passivist.

---

OED definition of pacifism: "The policy or doctrine of rejecting war and every form of violent action as means of solving disputes". There is nothing there to suggest pacifism demands active resistance to occupying forces or that pacifism and passivism are mutually exclusive. It seems to me you are using a No True Pacifist fallacy to try to redefine pacifism to exclude anything that could be considered negative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, I think what I am saying is that pacifism may be OK during peacetime when we all have the luxury of private beliefs and high-minded ivory-tower intellectual beliefs, but when it comes down to the crisis of a war actually happening, those beliefs should be overridden by the need of the moment.

Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
But removing the thought from ourselves has no effect on removing the thought from others. In fact if we don't give ourselves permission to kill if we're attacked then it may actually encourage others to do so because we'll be seen as an easy target.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

Denmark was overrun by the Germans in one day having been totally taken by surprise. Until then Denmark too was neutral, not pacifist. What is your evidence for claiming that the subsequent Danish response to occupation, including the successful evacuation of the Jews, was down to pacifism?

---

It was an active response to evil, and was non-violent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
And it wasn't pacifist, unless you can show it was a result of following a deliberate policy of non-violence on moral grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's what happens when we let go of Christ: we've never grasped Him in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's what happens when we let go of Christ: we've never grasped Him in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes. Good people wrestle with the moral dilemmas, weigh up consequences.

I guess there will always be paradoxes in learning what it really means to try to love your enemies. I'm kind of bothered by anyone who finds them straightforward. Maybe because I don't?

---

I agree.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
By gutless (and certainly 'collaborator') I meant the person being prepared to welcome a Nazi government

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Black and white don't come in to it except as devices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
And sometimes there are worse evils than shooting people.

---

I disagree. Death is the ultimate evil, the only thing that utterly precludes any future joy, contentment or peace. Anything else can be worked through and survived. Death cannot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
We can see the effects of an unrestrained ideology which cares nothing for human lives in the lessons of Lenin and Stalin's Russia and Mao's China - which exterminated around 40-70 million and more because they considered such deaths to be nothing compared to the goals of the Party.

---

Fun fact - neither Stalin nor Mao were brought to an end by armed conflict. Yet end their reigns did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
And sometimes there are worse evils than shooting people.

---

I disagree. Death is the ultimate evil, the only thing that utterly precludes any future joy, contentment or peace. Anything else can be worked through and survived. Death cannot.

---

So being slowly tortured to death over a period of weeks is better than being shot outright?
What about watching your family being starved, tortured, beaten, dehumanised and eventually dying? Is that better than dying yourself? If a mother in the concentration camps thought that by her death she could protect her child from living a year in the camp I am sure she would have chosen so. Other people in extreme situations of war have killed their children, their wives and themselves outright to prevent them from falling into the hands of the enemy – knowing what horrors would await them if they did.

Claiming death is the ultimate evil and only evil worth talking about just shows a blasé ignorance of the realities of evil.

---

quote:

---

But I’ve said before you have a tendency to oversimplify the situation to make difficult questions easier for you to answer. You obviously disagree that there is anything worse or comparable to death and have no intention of changing your mind whatever I say.

---

quote:

---

I’m glad you’re having fun. You’re right that evil ends eventually. I’m sure eventually even the North Korean regime will end as well. I’m not sure that’s such a fun fact for the people who were abused and killed at the time though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
By gutless (and certainly 'collaborator') I meant the person being prepared to welcome a Nazi government

---

Out of interest, does that mean that every single person in Germany, Austria, France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Poland or any of the other German-occupied territories in the Second World War who didn't actively oppose the Nazis was a gutless collaborator? Is there any room in your worldview for anyone who was just trying to keep themselves and their loved ones alive, or is it a binary, black-and-white worldview where people are either fighting to the death or gutless cowards?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's what happens when we let go of Christ: we've never grasped Him in the first place.

---

Easy for you to judge.

Tell that to Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes. Good people wrestle with the moral dilemmas, weigh up consequences.

I guess there will always be paradoxes in learning what it really means to try to love your enemies. I'm kind of bothered by anyone who finds them straightforward. Maybe because I don't?

---

I agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Try walking in his moccasins?

I'm nearer to WW2 than you, I guess, and my late father was involved in the clearance and rehabbing of concentration camp victims in the immediate post war period. He had nightmares about his experiences for years.

It is hard for any of us who haven't lived in a totalitarian regime governed by a mad man to fully come to terms with the impact of the control by fear such people generate, the evil they are responsible for.

I really do not think it is fair for any of us to judge Bonhoeffer's ethics from the comfort of our armchairs. To slightly misquote Thomas Moore from a Man for All Seasons, there were very good reasons for 'the tangle in Bonhoeffer's mind'.

Why not simply suspend such academic judgments and leave the judging to God? It is also a Christian principle that we will be judged in the manner we judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I could never say that Bonhoeffer was never a Christian to begin with or that he lost his faith

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I could never say that Bonhoeffer was never a Christian to begin with or that he lost his faith

---

That's awfully big of you.

---

I was responding to Martin's assessment of Bonhoeffer. Obviously Bonhoeffer was a Christian!
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think Kaplan's sarcasm is directed at the spectacle of you judging his actions as a denial of Christ from the comfort of your internet connection in a liberal democracy, and offering the crumb of comfort that you don't deny his Christianity. Fantastic.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think Kaplan's sarcasm is directed at the spectacle of you judging his actions as a denial of Christ from the comfort of your internet connection in a liberal democracy, and offering the crumb of comfort that you don't deny his Christianity. Fantastic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what am I supposed to say? That disobeying Christ is OK if it's someone on our side? Or that Hitler ultimately losing means it doesn't matter? Whether or not I would do the same as Bonhoeffer in his position doesn't exactly change the Bible, does it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what am I supposed to say? That disobeying Christ is OK if it's someone on our side? Or that Hitler ultimately losing means it doesn't matter? Whether or not I would do the same as Bonhoeffer in his position doesn't exactly change the Bible, does it?

---

You are supposed to say something that recognizes that you are going up against a man of very serious Christian conviction and deep thought on the matter, who wrestled long and hard with a particularly difficult situation, and that maybe there's a possibility that the bible doesn't say exactly what you think it says. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, but to view him as obviously wrong without pause for reflection seems rather blasé.

[ETA - there are a number of dead horse issues where you would see some Christians using similar language about their position. You would presumably expect them to extend you something of the same courtesy in their view of your obvious denial of Christ on the matter?]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Maybe what Jesus taught in the gospels was not a simple set of rules that we can all agree on as cut and dried.

For instance have you ever referred to anyone as "father"? or as "good" for that matter? Have you always given to those who ask things of you and walked extra miles?

And would you argue that you ought to correct your behaviour in these things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm intrigued by the paradoxical elements in Jesus' teachings. In one place, he who is not for us is against us; in another, he who is not against us is for us! Surely both statements cannot be true?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm intrigued by the paradoxical elements in Jesus' teachings. In one place, he who is not for us is against us; in another, he who is not against us is for us! Surely both statements cannot be true?

---

I don't see why not. It works if the set of all people is divided into two subsets: those who are for us (A) and those who are against us (B). Jesus' two statements are consistent with the idea that those two subsets are complementary - together they imply both that there's no overlap (no one is both for and against us, A∩B=∅) and no third set (everyone is either against us, A∪B=U.)

---

quote:

---

mpc: That's what happens when we let go of Christ: we've never grasped Him in the first place.

quote:

---

mdijon: Pacifism clearly doesn't preclude a presumptive dismissive comment on what appears to be an account of a principled man agonizing over his stand.

---

---

quote:

---

Barnabas: Yes. Good people wrestle with the moral dilemmas, weigh up consequences.

I guess there will always be paradoxes in learning what it really means to try to love your enemies. I'm kind of bothered by anyone who finds them straightforward. Maybe because I don't?

quote:

---

mpc: Me too Barnabas. It's easy to say. Easy to lose it. To err is human. Therefore divine.

---

---

quote:

---

mpc: Black and white don't come in to it except as devices.

quote:

---

MtM: Devices that have been - and no doubt will again be - used to send millions of people to their deaths.

quote:

---

mpc: Riiiiiiight. If you say so MtM.

---

Fighting back is a valid response to evil, but so is trying to survive it. People shouldn't be condemned just for doing what they can to stay alive.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
A saint in losing his compass when faced with the temptation to do something about evil on the vilest and greatest scale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Bonhoeffer - I'm not fit to wipe the dog shit off his moccasins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Because I missed the edit window - in what ways are Bonhoeffer's actions obeying Christ (being literal not sarcastic here)? Perhaps sin is a better term to use than denial of Christ, although to me they mean the same thing. But certainly my judgement of Bonhoeffer's actions isn't intended as judgemental, just as a statement of fact - surely if one is going against what Jesus teaches in the Gospels, then that's sinful? That's not me saying it's the wrong decision to make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm intrigued by the paradoxical elements in Jesus' teachings. In one place, he who is not for us is against us; in another, he who is not against us is for us! Surely both statements cannot be true?

---

I don't see why not. It works if the set of all people is divided into two subsets: those who are for us (A) and those who are against us (B). Jesus' two statements are consistent with the idea that those two subsets are complementary - together they imply both that there's no overlap (no one is both for and against us, A∩B=∅) and no third set (everyone is either against us, A∪B=U.)

---

Yes, if you assume that Jesus was dolt enough to believe that everyone in the world had an opinion about His little group, you can save logic at the expense of reason.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
mdijon - it's the starkness of Jesus' example I keep seeing before me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
hope 'thinking about it' doesn't seem like a cop-out

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0