Thread: Was Jesus a Pacifist Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020161
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Depends on how you define pacifism. Here is an interesting article
Feel free to discus
[ 26. April 2017, 01:05: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Far be it from me, but that's a VERY weak series of proof text arguments.
I'd like to have seen somebody mug Mother Mary and Jesus come round the corner.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
I think he forgot this one:
quote:
John 2:14-16 New International Version (NIV)
14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Short answer - we have no means of knowing.
Long answer - perhaps but that isn't to say he wasn't above using violence towards people like Temple traders. There is a difference between pacifism and non-violence.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Long answer - perhaps but that isn't to say he wasn't above using violence towards people like Temple traders.
The text does not say that Jesus used violence against the traders. It says quote:
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
It says, 'he drove all, both sheep and cattle'. 'Them' means sheep and cattle.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Thanks Moo. That ALWAYS comes up. We have no record of Jesus EVER abusing His power. However the proof texts in the link are used in a totally context free manner.
This in particular is third rate: "An eye for an eye? Jesus says in response, “Do not resist an evildoer.”". Yet Jesus resisted evildoers all the time. He wasn't passive. He just didn't get His retaliation in early. Or later.
And we don't know how He'd have handled someone manhandling His mother? Do we bollocks.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Corey himself notes Jesus was not passive when action was called for to defend the weak, Walter Wink* argues that further, hence my point above.
They BOTH fail to address the simple, common scenario of immediate other and self defense necessitating physical coercion, force and even violence, whether by citizens or police. Wink is great on Jesus' third way of course.
There is a moral cowardice in NOT addressing that. The third way works very well, I prevented a fight recently by physically interposing myself between two protagonists; most of the time that's what they want, an excuse not to fight. But when one of them at least DOES, all bets are off and appropriate force is MANDATORY. There is no moral defense for passivity including getting your head kicked in as a substitute.
*getting at Walter Wink's argument isn't direct! Indirectly.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Moo, I did some research on that exact point a few days ago, and though I can't remember the Greek at this point (poor failing neurons) I did note that the antecedent in all cases appears to be human--"those who sold" stuff, the moneychangers, etc. I checked all four accounts. It looks to me like the ones on the receiving end of the whip were the ones who deserved it, i.e. the nasty human beings and not the animals who had no say in the matter.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I don't think we have enough evidence to be sure.
He may have taken that as a personal choice, just as he chose a celibate and nomadic lifestyle, but this does not imply he thought the occupation of a soldier was illegitimate.
There is no hint of this in the teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus was at one time a disciple of John, with no evidence of a disagreement on this.
Just to say that he advocated non-violence as the best way is to state the obvious. As is often say, nobody is against war as much as the poor buggers who have to fight it.
Nor do I think that violence solves nothing.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Moo, I did some research on that exact point a few days ago, and though I can't remember the Greek at this point (poor failing neurons) I did note that the antecedent in all cases appears to be human--"those who sold" stuff, the moneychangers, etc. I checked all four accounts. It looks to me like the ones on the receiving end of the whip were the ones who deserved it, i.e. the nasty human beings and not the animals who had no say in the matter.
Aside from brawling with local merchants we also see Jesus taking out his anger on a fig tree. At the very least if we classify Jesus as a "pacifist" we'd have to expand our understanding of pacifism to include vandalism and property damage.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Nor do I think that violence solves nothing.
Alright, what does it solve?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Nor do I think that violence solves nothing.
Alright, what does it solve?
Well, it can be used to resolve certain theological questions:
quote:
A century and a half later, it might seem like [abolitionist theologian Albert] Barnes’ argument was vindicated. Apart from the lunatic fringes, you won’t find any credible American theologian, pastor or biblical scholar who would say that the Bible ought to be cited in defense of slavery. Seek out the most belligerent “defenders of the authority of scripture” and “inerrancy” and you won’t find any dispute over this. Everyone agrees that citing the Bible to defend slavery would be wrong. Everyone agrees that slavery itself was wrong. And everyone agrees that the Bible-quoting defenders of slavery back in Barnes’ day must have been wrong. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and all those other still-influential “eloquent Divines” must have been, somehow, wrong.
But that doesn’t mean that everyone agrees how they were wrong, or why they were wrong. That’s not something we like to talk about.
So Barnes’ “liberal” interpretation of the clobber texts defending slavery did not win the argument. No one today interprets those clobber texts the way Barnes’ opponents once did, but most haven’t embraced his interpretation of them either. Instead, it’s as though those pro-slavery clobber texts have simply … vanished.
<snip>
The dispute wasn’t resolved by exegesis or by theological argument. It was, rather, as Mark Noll wrote, “left to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant.”
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Moo, I did some research on that exact point a few days ago, and though I can't remember the Greek at this point (poor failing neurons) I did note that the antecedent in all cases appears to be human--"those who sold" stuff, the moneychangers, etc. I checked all four accounts. It looks to me like the ones on the receiving end of the whip were the ones who deserved it, i.e. the nasty human beings and not the animals who had no say in the matter.
The passage reads, to me, the way Moo reads it. Jesus used the whip on the animals, which consequently drove everybody out if they didn't want to lose track of their varmints.
Neither did it say Jesus used the whip to flay the animals but to drive them. Unless he happened to have some trained Border Collies around that's how anyone would have to move them from one place to another.
I thought the article's reminders that pacifist doesn't mean passive, were unnecessary, but it seems like the confusion remains. Hence the reminders that he sometimes got angry and once cursed a fig tree. If that was a violent act, loggers must be the most heinous criminals on earth.
I'm against war in almost all circumstances, but, today, my husband brought home three gigantic 48 ounce bags of due-date broccoli from the food pantry where he volunteers. I cursed the broccoli, but it did not wither.
I always thought "pacifist," had the same root as Pacific, meaning "peace."
I just really think Jesus' body of work says "pacifist," but maybe that's what I want him to be.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The dispute wasn’t resolved by exegesis or by theological argument. It was, rather, as Mark Noll wrote, “left to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant.”
So, if the South had won, slavery would be right?
[ 26. April 2017, 19:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The passage reads, to me, the way Moo reads it. Jesus used the whip on the animals, which consequently drove everybody out if they didn't want to lose track of their varmints.
Well, the passage in John reads that way. We get a different telling in Matthew (who has Jesus driving out "all who were buying and selling there" and overturning tables and benches), Mark (who agrees with Matthew but adds the detail that Jesus "would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts", though the method of prevention is not specified), and Luke (who very tersely says "he [Jesus] began to drive out those who were selling"). Unless animals engaged in commerce ("buying and selling" according to Matthew and Mark, just "selling" according to Luke) in first century Judea, the idea that Jesus was only driving out animals doesn't hold up.
Some have speculated that because of these differences the incident described in John and in the Synoptics were actually two different occurrences in the Temple courtyard. The fact that John puts the incident at the beginning of his Gospel (and thus presumably near the beginning of Jesus' ministry) while the other three Gospelteers put it nearer the end is suggestive in this direction, though not definitive.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The dispute wasn’t resolved by exegesis or by theological argument. It was, rather, as Mark Noll wrote, “left to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant.”
So, if the South had won, slavery would be right?
I'm fairly confident that the Confederacy would have a substantially different answer to the question of whether the Bible permits slavery than was determined by a Union victory. If you want to argue that what we view as the correct theological answer is easy and obvious but had somehow eluded most Americans for the 246 years between the landing of the White Lion and Appomattox go ahead. That seems counter-intuitive, though.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The dispute wasn’t resolved by exegesis or by theological argument. It was, rather, as Mark Noll wrote, “left to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant.”
So, if the South had won, slavery would be right?
I'm fairly confident that the Confederacy would have a substantially different answer to the question of whether the Bible permits slavery than was determined by a Union victory. If you want to argue that what we view as the correct theological answer is easy and obvious but had somehow eluded most Americans for the 246 years between the landing of the White Lion and Appomattox go ahead. That seems counter-intuitive, though.
Violence ended slavery in the US. But that is still a might makes right argument, kinda why there were slaves in the first place.
Besides. war didn't break out to end slavery, war was initiated to protect slavery.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The dispute wasn’t resolved by exegesis or by theological argument. It was, rather, as Mark Noll wrote, “left to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant.”
So, if the South had won, slavery would be right?
I'm fairly confident that the Confederacy would have a substantially different answer to the question of whether the Bible permits slavery than was determined by a Union victory. If you want to argue that what we view as the correct theological answer is easy and obvious but had somehow eluded most Americans for the 246 years between the landing of the White Lion and Appomattox go ahead. That seems counter-intuitive, though.
Violence ended slavery in the US. But that is still a might makes right argument, kinda why there were slaves in the first place.
Besides. war didn't break out to end slavery, war was initiated to protect slavery.
Again, so what? The argument I'm making is that the theological question of the permissibility of slavery was resolved via violence in a way a quarter of a millennium of theological debate and persuasive arguments had proved unable to do. Which seems a pretty good answer to your question about what violence can solve. The fact that we agree with that solution is convenient but not necessary, and probably inseparable from the fact that we are living in a society shaped by that solution.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I suppose the question of "what do you mean by pacifist" is important.
I suppose I would consider it means not resorting to violence as a first or early response. It means that someone would resist evil using non-violent means. So often, it means resisting violence with non-violent means.
I don't know if it means never using violence. In Jesus case, maybe, it is about not using violence against other people, but where necessary (e.g. the temple) using an aggressive (and what is today considered moderately violent) tactic.
The point about the temple is that Jesus never hurt people - his anger was very much directed against the tables, the animals, and the activity.
So was Jesus a pacifist? On this definition, maybe he was. According to a very rigorous definition - never using violence in any situation - would not apply to him. Which is not to say that he is wrong, or that this approach is wrong. Just that they don't match. I think a different approach might be - maybe has to be - different today, because the world today is different.
I was going to say the world is more violent. I am not sure it is - the world at Jesus time was very violent, life was often short and in constant danger. I think the nature of violence, or the violent nature of the world, is different. Which makes a more extreme pacifistic approach relevant. Possibly.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The point about the temple is that Jesus never hurt people - his anger was very much directed against the tables, the animals, and the activity.
I'm not sure we can even go that far. He's depicted in three of the four Gospel accounts as "driving out those who were buying and selling there", which seems a remarkably vague description but is nonetheless directed against people, not animals or furniture (unless animals and furniture engage in commerce). Driving someone out of their place of business seems like the kind of thing which would require either violence or the credible threat of violence.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Moo, I did some research on that exact point a few days ago, and though I can't remember the Greek at this point (poor failing neurons) I did note that the antecedent in all cases appears to be human--"those who sold" stuff, the moneychangers, etc. I checked all four accounts. It looks to me like the ones on the receiving end of the whip were the ones who deserved it, i.e. the nasty human beings and not the animals who had no say in the matter.
The way I read it, 'both the sheep and the cattle' is in apposition to 'them'. Moreover, the text does not say that any person or animal was hit with the whip. Most farm animals will move if you crack a whip near them.
Moo
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[Again, so what? The argument I'm making is that the theological question of the permissibility of slavery was resolved via violence in a way a quarter of a millennium of theological debate and persuasive arguments had proved unable to do.
This is true of America, but not everywhere.
quote:
The fact that we agree with that solution is convenient but not necessary, and probably inseparable from the fact that we are living in a society shaped by that solution.
And this is the problem. Society accepts violence in defence of what is good, rather than looking to prevent that confrontation in the first place. The society I would prefer to live in doesn't set itself up for that kind of failure. No, it does not yet exist, but it never will if we accept violence as a solution.
It is a solution to a problem like removing a cancerous lung from a smoker. Yes, it might save a life, but better to have not begun smoking.
[ 26. April 2017, 21:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The passage reads, to me, the way Moo reads it. Jesus used the whip on the animals, which consequently drove everybody out if they didn't want to lose track of their varmints.
Well, the passage in John reads that way.
Take a look at the ESV for another very likely translation. I looked at the Greek and John has Jesus throwing out "all" (masculine plural accusative) which is consistent with the closest antecedents, two participles (also masculine plural accusative) meaning "the ones selling" and "the money-changers". We then get a follow up phrase introduced with "te" which could be tranlated "besides" or "both" depending on your assumptions, I suppose. The "te" phrase is IMO correctly translated "besides sheep and cattle," which suggests the animals escaped the whip. However, the grammar and syntax don't seem to be so water-tight that we have to conclude this. Sheep (though more distant, being in a separate phrase) are also masculine plural accusative.
As for whether animals would move if NOT whipped, it seems to me that any creature forced to stand all day in the temple courts within the smell of sacrificial slaughter would be plenty edgy already, and more than happy to get the hell out of Dodge if only the pen or rope preventing it were removed.
[ 26. April 2017, 21:20: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I looked at the Greek too, but I'm not an expert on Greek syntax. Even if the text means that he drove the men out of the temple with a whip, it doesn't say he hit them. Waving the whip around would be enough to make them decide to leave.
Moo
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It would certainly make ME leave!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Crœsos
Excellent. Bit of a scatter gun approach mind. But yeah, Jesus done run 'em out of town, gangsters and their critters. Twice. Over 40 years ago I was telling Catholic theology students that Jesus cleared the temple twice. And I totally agree, I think, with the Fred Clark article. The NT DOES propound slavery, homophobia, sexism the lot by our criteria. I can't avoid PSA in it either for that matter. God the Killer. All at the start of the Christian trajectory. Jesus said some mean stuff in His humanity. They was 'ard times.
Clearing the temple of the Mafia single handed, twice, is pretty impressive. Nobody got killed in the stampede. And killing a tree ain't exactly hippy eco-freak, but it ain't murder. And it was fearsomely prophetic.
Jesus WAS a pacifist for His day. For any day really. The example He lived was pacifist enough for us: bust yourself finding another way FIRST. Not many of us will get the chance to clean the church of corruption, of evil oppression of the poor and other with a bit of light aggro. Or make terrifying prophecies.
Would He have hidden Jews in occupied Europe? Whilst sabotaging trains? Helping downed allied airmen escape to bomb again? Plotted to assassinate Hitler?
Pretty easy to work out. No?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The point about the temple is that Jesus never hurt people - his anger was very much directed against the tables, the animals, and the activity.
I'm not sure we can even go that far. He's depicted in three of the four Gospel accounts as "driving out those who were buying and selling there", which seems a remarkably vague description but is nonetheless directed against people, not animals or furniture (unless animals and furniture engage in commerce). Driving someone out of their place of business seems like the kind of thing which would require either violence or the credible threat of violence.
I think that was against their activity. I am sure that the people felt threatened, and felt that Jesus would have violently attacked them. But from my reading - and I totally acknowledge that we only have a few brief reports of the action - this was because they realised that he was dangerous.
I think someone with his reputation going around the temple courtyard with a whip would make most people run. There were very few who had the courage to stand up to him when he was in a good mood, never mind when he was angry.
From my reading of the gospels as a whole, if someone had stood up to him, there would have been a heated exchange, but no violence. And Jesus would have won the exchange - the trader would have been humiliated but unhurt (physically).
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
lilBuddha: quote:
Originally posted by anteater: Nor do I think that violence solves nothing.
Alright, what does it solve?
One would refer to military interventions which meet the criteria of the just war. This is certainly not the majority of interventions but there are some.
The one I most often quote is the limited intervention by the French to depose the dictator Bokassa of the CAR.
But I would support the overthrow of Battista by Castro et al. This, though, is more problematical since Castro's later governance has been problematic, although I think the truth will be hard to come by.
I don't see this, though, as inevitable.
On a lower level, routine police action involves violence, although typically not loss of life.
I don't know whether pacifism implies no violence or just no lethal force.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As for Jesus waging total war in the temple, one man with string on a stick (it might as well have been a stick of BOMBS!!!) the first time (He didn't use the string on a stick trick the second time) against the Mafia, and against a tree (presaging His prophecy against the temple), yeah what an evil Killer God bastard.
The reason why one man could do this, twice, is because He was outstandingly, courageously, righteously RIGHT. Everyone knew it. Twice. He acted with the power, the authority of a prophet. Twice.
Bokassa was deposed in a bloodless coup, pretty third way. And yeah, I've got a soft spot for Castro despite him asking Khrushchev to nuke the US ... and the revolutionary 'justice' ... I've got a vastly bigger one for Kennedy who realized he had to be nothing but positive with Khrushchev and restrain his own insane military. Khrushchev gets marks in between.
[ 27. April 2017, 09:18: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Pacifism as a personal attitude, like vegetarianism or (in my case, teetotalism), is fine if it's your personally held-lifestyle choice or attitude.
But I do not think that pacifism is a defensible position when it comes to foreign policy or military strategy on the world stage.
Neither do I believe that Jesus had anything to say about it.
I also believe that some forms of pacifism are little more that western, middle-class, comfortable attitudes of apathy that have no regard for the suffering of those who would actually quite like there to be some form of military action that would save them!
A number of years ago I have an online argument with a Quaker who abhorred all forms of violence 0 that's fine - but who suggested quote strongly that Britain's actions in WWII were entirely wrong, even going to war in defence of the UK.
Why?
Because, he said, had the Germans won life would not have been so bad living under the Germans. They were nice, ordinary people, they lived nice ordinary lives in Germany, how wrong we were to fight and die and kill innocent people simply so that Germany wouldn't rule our every day lives.
Of course it was entirely lost on him that had Herr Hitler simply marched into London, there would not now be any Jews, any disabled people, any gay people, any gypsies or probably any Christians in in his lovely German-administered Vereinigte Königreich.
Somethings are worth fighting against.
Pacifism would allow it's own niceties to trump the needs of the persecuted to be rescued from their hell.
What would Jesus do?
Well, Judgment Day - dies irae - will not be all forgiveness and letting bygones be bygones.
Jesus won't be a pacifist then!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's hindsight. What was happening to the Jews from 1941 was top secret, unknown by the Allied public until '45 and later. Much later. Like 15 years. It was repressed. The Quaker was an idiot mind you.
It's also easily argued that the Final Solution was the result of total war waged by Britain and then by the US. As was Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the even worse Tokyo fire bombings etc, etc, etc.
Jesus would have had NOTHING to do with any of that, be He English, German, American, Russian or Japanese.
He'd have been a medic or bomb disposal expert or full out conscientious objector.
OBVIOUSLY.
And as for the day of wrath, that's OUR projection on Him. We do not know Him anything like that.
[ 28. April 2017, 11:59: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Funny how he never mentioned the Roman's love of warfare and the manner in which they controlled the masses...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Funny how he never mentioned the Roman's love of warfare and the manner in which they controlled the masses...
Yeah, but it's hard to imagine he approved.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Funny how he never mentioned the Roman's love of warfare and the manner in which they controlled the masses...
Yeah His exemplary life, His teachings, the beatitudes are funny like that aren't they. Would he have piloted Enola Gay or been the bomb aimer?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
These discussions of Jesus and pacifism are usually aimed at the issue of whether it is okay for us to be angry, to express it to others, to be violent in some way towards people we're interacting with personally, and to join militaries who are to impersonally kill large numbers of others.
I see no justification for military impersonal killing and am highly sceptical beyond justifying some anger. Did Jesus want us to hit each other?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I don't disagree, broadly.
What I do not see is that Jesus would kneel in the dust and pray while someone hit his mother.
Neither do I see Jesus praying in the church whilst innocent victims of a murderous regime pay the price of pacifist apathy with their lives -
- if one has plenty of time for negotiation, and the 'enemy' is willing to talk, fine.
But where there is no time and no hope of talk, sadly the just thing to do is not hold on to the luxury of one's pacifism but to act decisively and 'surgically' to remove the problem to save the life of the innocent.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Totally agreed. What war has ever done that? What conflict? I can think of some and ... well one comes to mind, two (Oman - which wasn't about the innocent but about oil - and Sierra Leone - which was). No other conflict above policing. You?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I was still in WWII and moaning-Quaker mode. Sorry.
For all the wrongs on the Allied side, declaring war on Hitler was still the only just thing to do.
I'm sure with hindsight some things done by the UK and the US may not have been wise, but the overall intent was 'good'.
Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki - absolutely dreadful acts, saved a lot of other loves by terminating the war as far as Japan was concerned.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't disagree, broadly.
What I do not see is that Jesus would kneel in the dust and pray while someone hit his mother.
Neither do I see Jesus praying in the church whilst innocent victims of a murderous regime pay the price of pacifist apathy with their lives -
What do you see him doing whilst innocent victims of war in Dresden, Nagasaki and Conventry pay the price of a military response with their lives?
It's always the choice:
quote:
Originally said by Tar-Meneldur, King of Numenor:
To prepare or to let be? To prepare for war, which is yet only guessed: train craftsmen and tillers in the midst of peace for bloodspilling and battle: put iron in the hands of greedy captains who will love only conquest, and count the slain as their glory? Will they say to Eru: At least your enemies were amongst them? Or to fold hands, while friends die unjustly: let men live in blind peace, until the ravisher is at the gate? What then will they do: match naked hands against iron and die in vain, or flee leaving the cries of women behind them? Will they say to Eru: At least I spilled no blood?
[ 28. April 2017, 13:58: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Read my last posting.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Read my last posting.
I don't see the answer in your last posting. I may be being thick. It's been known.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I was still in WWII and moaning-Quaker mode. Sorry.
For all the wrongs on the Allied side, declaring war on Hitler was still the only just thing to do.
I'm sure with hindsight some things done by the UK and the US may not have been wise, but the overall intent was 'good'.
Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki - absolutely dreadful acts, saved a lot of other loves by terminating the war as far as Japan was concerned.
Britain and France declaring war on Hitler trashed Poland for six years and six million lives alone. We should have told Poland to lay down its arms, to surrender without a shot. But we had to learn that lesson of history. Eighty million times. Our freedom was so worth it wasn't it?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
What??
Hitler invaded Poland 2 says before the UK declared war.
You want Poland to have simply laid down its arms before Hitler, bearing in mind that he was about to massacre 3,000,000 Polish Jews?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Read my last posting.
I don't see the answer in your last posting. I may be being thick. It's been known.
Sorry, I mentioned "all the wrongs on the Allied side" and, "with hindsight some things done by the UK and the US (that) may not have been wise."
That was a polite way of saying some dreadful things were done that by our standards in our warm, comfortable 2017 living rooms, are not acceptable.
They may not have been 'acceptable' then, but millions of people were dying and at some points of the war it looked like the Allies would lose so there were desperate and disproportionate measures taken.
I don't think we can judge.
What would public opinion say today if thousands of civilians were being bombed in London?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Read my last posting.
I don't see the answer in your last posting. I may be being thick. It's been known.
Sorry, I mentioned "all the wrongs on the Allied side" and, "with hindsight some things done by the UK and the US (that) may not have been wise."
That was a polite way of saying some dreadful things were done that by our standards in our warm, comfortable 2017 living rooms, are not acceptable.
They may not have been 'acceptable' then, but millions of people were dying and at some points of the war it looked like the Allies would lose so there were desperate and disproportionate measures taken.
I don't think we can judge.
What would public opinion say today if thousands of civilians were being bombed in London?
I dread to think. War brings out the worst in people; the demonisation and dehumanisation escalates.
I think my take-home point from Tar-Meneldur's indecision is that the "we can't judge" cuts both ways. Whether we take arms or not, people will die, and those people could be imagined saying "why did you have to do this", or "why did you do nothing", depending on why they died.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I can understand not wanting to go to war when that war is merely to protect oil supplies, etc, but I couldn't in all conscience refuse to go to war when it's a strike to protect the innocent - the strike on Syria.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
lilBuddha: quote:
Originally posted by anteater: Nor do I think that violence solves nothing.
Alright, what does it solve?
One would refer to military interventions which meet the criteria of the just war. This is certainly not the majority of interventions but there are some.
The one I most often quote is the limited intervention by the French to depose the dictator Bokassa of the CAR.
There is solid argument that the French set up the circumstances for the abuses of the CAR leaders. So the just option would have been to not fuck Africa in the first place. And the CAR was hardly paradise after Bokassa.
ETA:It is good to perform surgery to remove a bullet, but best not to have shot the person at all.
[ 28. April 2017, 16:16: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What??
Hitler invaded Poland 2 says before the UK declared war.
You want Poland to have simply laid down its arms before Hitler, bearing in mind that he was about to massacre 3,000,000 Polish Jews?
Sorry? That was known by anyone was it? Even Hitler? And taking up arms helped Poland and the Jews how? And why did the UK declare war?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I can understand not wanting to go to war when that war is merely to protect oil supplies, etc, but I couldn't in all conscience refuse to go to war when it's a strike to protect the innocent - the strike on Syria.
So you're happy if civilization collapses but we must intervene in a civil war we and our 'allies' fomented one way and another, only without the courage to actually put boots on the ground?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Britain and France declaring war on Hitler trashed Poland for six years and six million lives alone. We should have told Poland to lay down its arms, to surrender without a shot. But we had to learn that lesson of history. Eighty million times. Our freedom was so worth it wasn't it?
Allowing a genicidal, tyrannical Dictator to take complete control of the World is one way of keeping the peace I suppose.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Worked for Rome and Jesus.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And again rolyn, hindsight's so clear isn't it?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
How we get from Jesus getting angry about temple merchants to declaring war on Hitler is one of those leaps of logic which makes me not know whether I should want to shoot myself or go bowling. Or do I go to meet the gardener with tears and sun in my eyes asking why he bothered getting up at all?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
....Or do I go to meet the gardener with tears and sun in my eyes asking why he bothered getting up at all?
Definitely better than the other two options, not that I've ever considered bowling.
Jesus' Ministry pursued a course of non violence. Had it not then the authorities would have suppressed it forcefully at a much earlier stage.
As to whether Jesus Himself is a pacifist, that is one of those questions we ask alone with tears in our eyes.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And again rolyn, hindsight's so clear isn't it?
Whether one applies hindsight, foresight, farsight or innersight the conclusion is invariably reached that God may as well have screamed at the Cosmos as think sending His only Son would stop humanity from warring.
[ 29. April 2017, 08:23: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Go bowling. Yeah, may be Crœsos can bridge that category gap for us? Or Mudfrog. Clear the temple with string on a stick or bomb Dresden. Difficult call apparently.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And aye rolyn. I know He screamed. And I know He knew it wouldn't stop war. For a while. Only we can do that. With strong benevolence. I.e. social justice.
[ 29. April 2017, 09:43: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
[Quote]
As to whether Jesus Himself is a pacifist, that is one of those questions we ask alone with tears in our eyes.
Thanks for this and the rest. You didn't mean it as a rebuke, but I need it as one. With a number of upsetting issues these last few days. Let us cry together please.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Go bowling mate, as I said 3 up.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Elie Weisel (Holocaust survivor, Nobel prize) said: quote:
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
If that's just a plea for us to "speak out," then I agree, but if he means we must continually be at war with someone on the planet, then I just couldn't spend my life that way, nor ask anyone else to.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
The bit that tends to get left out when the Hitler war is raised as an anti-pacifist argument is the question - If everybody in 1930s Germany who called themselves a Christian had also followed the biblical teaching on pacifism, what would Hitler have done for an army? Not to mention that if all those Germans had believed in pacifism, would they have voted for Hitler in the first place??
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Why stop there? Take it back further. No World War One, no World War Two ...
All these things are connected. Hitler was the culmination of some cultural and ideological emphases that went way back further and through a toxic combination of circumstances led to the Third Reich ...
I'm reading a biography of S T Coleridge and he highlights how much of an issue anti-Semitism was in early 19th century Germany when he traveled and studied there.
These things go way back and ripple on down to this day. History isn't simply a catalogue of famous names.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My mother grew up in 1930s Germany. She felt that an lot of people were simply entranced by Hitler's economic miracle and were prepared to shut their eyes to the less savoury aspects of what was going on. They were also frightened to say anything, for fear of retaliation. Hence to join the Confessing Church or declare oneself as a pacifist would have been a very costly thing to do, especially if you had dependents.
There is also the argument which I've read about, which said that the Army had a very strong code of loyalty to the nation. Hitler cleverly turned this into a cde of loyalty to himself which many didn't realise until too late. Having said that there were high-ranking military people such as Admiral Canaris who recognised the difference and saw that the only way to save the nation was to subtly subvert Hitler.
So, while I basically agree with Steve' position, I think things would have looked very different to folk actually in Germany at the time, especially as it was a nation with a proud military tradition.
FWIW my father was involved in an anti-Nazi student group while at University (c.1936) and spent a couple of months in Dachau for his pains.
[ 29. April 2017, 16:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You can easily see Luther in the Holocaust.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Sadly, I must agree.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You can easily see Luther in the Holocaust.
You can see Nazi imagery in church if you wish. Martin Luther Memorial Church, Berlin.
So now we have established that it is possible to turn Jesus on his head, and make him into a supporter of Nazism. Which he also can be made to support slavery in the Spanish, British, French, Ottoman, Portuguese, Roman and probably every else's empire. If I go bowling, I will throw the balls overhand.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That would be impressive. You must have shoulders like the Incredible Hulk. You'd trash the alley mind. Not exactly pacific. You need to work on the Zen there no...
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Thanks for this and the rest. You didn't mean it as a rebuke, but I need it as one. With a number of upsetting issues these last few days. Let us cry together please.
No prob NPFS.... Silent tears can deal with something inside every person, something that just about nothing else can.
Godwin seems to be on a roll with this thread. I do get wobbly conscience on Dresden Martin. It cantilevers between not wanting a harsh word said against our brave brylcreem boys, as opposed to an action that did come close to an act of extermination.
When we entered the 21st Century I naively felt it to be an opportunity for humanity to turn it's back on war, you know try and airbrush the horrors of the previous Century. That lasted all of 21 months and 11 days. No turning of cheek on that occasion, so the Beast was woken once again with the unthinkable now becoming daily evermore thinkable.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The bit that tends to get left out when the Hitler war is raised as an anti-pacifist argument is the question - If everybody in 1930s Germany who called themselves a Christian had also followed the biblical teaching on pacifism, what would Hitler have done for an army? Not to mention that if all those Germans had believed in pacifism, would they have voted for Hitler in the first place??
How could they? And how could they not? These are the social evolutionary culs-de-sac we have to explore until we have nothing else to do but try social justice.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Is it too simplistic to say that perhaps the conflicts over the last century are entirely down to the very damaged people that were given (or took) power?
Lenin and Stalin.
Kaiser Wilhelm,
Adolf Hitler
...and all the postwar 'odd people' up to and including our present North Korean 'oddball'...
...none of these people went to war or revolution as a result of the popular democratic will of a change-desiring people; they were all megalomaniacs with serious personality issues and inbred violent tendencies that would crush a political opponent using various means of assassination at whim. Yes, they saw opportunity and rode on the backs of people who wanted genuine and sincere change, but they used their own people as much as they destroyed (or tried to destroy) their enemies.
The bloody century that we call 'Twentieth' is not a century of nations rising against nation, so much as wicked leaders dragging their people into a war with the weaker, defenceless leaders of other peaceful countries.
It seems to me that waging war against such men is entirely proper - though I am guessing that it might actually be 'cleaner' simply to 'take out' that leader and place human beings in his place.
Would I support the assassination of Hitler?
Yes, I think Bonhoeffer was right to sanction it.
Had it succeeded, and had it happened in 1939, the world would be a lot better.
[ 30. April 2017, 14:19: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yes it's too simplistic. Hindsight's wonderful isn't it? There were 14 plots to assassinate Hitler, which would you have participated in?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
John 18 - was Pilate right to declare Jesus innocent?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The article linked to in the OP is flawed because it confuses 'passive' with 'pacifist' - they happen to sound alike in English but their derivations are completely different.
[ 01. May 2017, 17:54: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Would I support the assassination of Hitler?
Yes, I think Bonhoeffer was right to sanction it.
Had it succeeded, and had it happened in 1939, the world would be a lot better.
Wiki suggest knowledge more that sanction and those plots were in 1943. Fewer people would have died. But not sure who else the world would have been "better".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm impressed at how bad predictive text can be!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0