|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pacifism
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
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...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Just to clarify: as far as I can tell, no one here is advocating passivism (several of us are advocating pacifism).
[ 12. November 2013, 15:05: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
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 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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:
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You consider looking up the sources you cite a hell-worthy trespass? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Very interesting thread - although I have not listened to every single word, I'm afraid.
If the thoughts and words of wise men throughout history are that it is better to solve conflicts with peaceful means, then that seems obvious. Since Jesus's words are at best unpfroven and could have been those of many a wise person of the time, I certainly don't care a jot about what that particular man is reported to have said. I'll look for the accumulated wisdom as brought up to date and do my best not to use violence ...
and thanks to those who ensured that my country was not invaded during WWII, I lived through it and I am here to be able to say what I think; as also are pacifists, militants, etc.
[ 12. November 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sometimes a violent reaction in self-defence is the only way to defeat evil.
We did not declare war on Germany in self-defence, we did so in order only to honour our treaty with Poland, a treaty set up to protect what we saw as the right balance of power in Europe. We were playing political chess and the declaration of war was a decisive move in this game.
We were not in danger of being invaded before we declared war on Germany. What is little recognised is that before the war Hitler respected Britain and originally anticipated the Reich and the Empire co-existing peacefully. He never thought we'd care enough about far-away Poland to go to war over it, and was astonished when we did.
And despite our treaty being to protect Poland, we quickly allied with France and sent troops there, and to Scandanavia, North Africa and elsewhere. We chose to escalate the war step-by-step into a conflict the size of which had never been seen before. Part of this was of course Hitler's aggression, part of it was our all-out aggression in attempting to stop him.
WWII was not a self-defensive war, neither was it a war to protect the innocent or save lives. It was a war to force Germany back behind the borders we had drawn for it - borders we had imposed on them when they were too weak to protest and that many British thought were unfair as well as Germans.
In any case more died as a result of us declaring war, than were saved by our eventual victory. Europe was destroyed, ancient cities burned to the ground, whole ways of life eradicated and displaced, millions suffered horrors of loss, suffering and death. People have argued that we fought to save Britain from from being devestated. Yet we were devestated. London, Coventry, hundred of thousands of homes and lives wiped out, all because we chose to fight.
The question is what these acts of violence we chose to carry out, or were carried out to us as a result of our opposition, accomplished, and whether it was worth it. What were we fighting for and was there any point where we would have decided that the evils we were carrying out weren't worth the purpose of our fight?
Churchill famously claimed we would 'never' surrender. If this wasn't just empty propaganda then is 'victory by any means' a valid position to take? Would we have carried on fighting if half our population was killed - two thirds, what if it continued on into the atomic age - how much destruction would we have willingly wrought across Europe in order to beat Hitler?
At what point does victory become hollow? At what point do we become worse than the enemy we are fighting? These are valid questions, and ones that should be asked before any decision to go to war. And probably questions that have never been answered by any government ever.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
So it seems we have some evidence from early church writings that pacifism was the norm in the first centuries of the church.
However we also know that there were soldiers as members within the early church.
I think because of mudfrog's affiliation, a lot of the conversation has been about war. But the reality is that the majority of us will not be enlisted military members.
So the type of pacifism we are talking about is the use of violence in our day-to-day lives. Or more specifically, are we obliged to love our neighbor when our neighbor not only hates us but wants to harm us?
Christians particularly in the US seem to think that the answer to that question is no.
I have yet to see anything in Scripture that convinces me that Jesus provides such a get-out clause. But I wait with bated breath for a response from someone who thinks otherwise.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
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:
4th Century? That's outside the "first couple of hundred years" that Doc Tor mentioned. quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Some links to evidence would be nice...
Of course it would, but Doc Tor's unsubstantiated allegation that "all Christians were pacifists," was made first, don't you think that that is the position that needs proving?
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. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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…
or this:
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.
That's the 200 years covered.
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.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
Ah, if only such impossible calculations could be made!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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. I think the one thing that has been skirted around on this thread with regard to more people dying in the war than were killed by the regimes we were fighting (taking WW2 as an example) is the extent to which the former deaths were or were not occcuring in a vacuum).
What I mean is it was the default position of regime A to kill people B. Not all people B were dead by the end of the war. Now, we can cavil about to what extent the killing of people B was stepped up due to the war going on, *rather than being killed at a slower rate at the regime's leisure in peacetime.* We can also ask, in the case of world war 2, whether the ending of specifically intra-ethnic genocide (amongst many other crimes) of one of the combatants was anything other than a happy accident? Particularly when the result of the defeat of Germany was to allow the USSR a free pass to continue being appalling?
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?
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
I appreciate a considered response that poses good questions about the historical evidence.
I am unconvinced of mudfrog's perspective, that having an attitude of pacifism is worse for a Christian than violence is, because it means allowing innocents to suffer. I haven't seen anything in church writings that aligns with that view anyway.
My understanding is that our primary role as Christians is to exhibit God's love to our neighbors as means to spread the Gospel. I wouldn't say that such a goal can't be achieved through war - I find it hard to believe frankly but it might be possible - but I think it opens Christians up to the claims of hypocrisy that I mentioned previously. If we act like the world, then the world sees no reason to enter the Kingdom; what's the difference?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
Why not do a bit more reading?
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
First, I apologize that I have not ploughed through all the posts, much of which are either Mudfrog's conscie-bashing or replies thereto. Deeply depressing.
But I would advocate the views of a catholic theologian Gordon Zahn. I'm quoting from memory, but his viewpoint is that the classical definition of Just War (have I missed the discussion on this) is still valid but virtually never can be applied to modern conflicts given the nature of all-out modern warfare, and the extent of the destruction caused especially to non-combatants. (80 milion dead in the 2nd World War if you include the Sino-Japanese war).
So he advocates a clear application of the requirements for a just war, and believes that this will virtually always lead to a decision to desist from warfare.
That is my view. I could give examples of military interventions which met these requirements, for example the French intervention to forcibly remove the corrupt and despotic Emperor Bokassa. So I am not a total pacifist.
In the early days, as a JW I was berated by the Mudfrogs of this world for our attitude to war, and indeed I do not wholly support it now. But I did at least manage to point out that 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!
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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!
I take the broader point you're making of course, but probably worth bearing in mind that the Nazis had decided to deal with the JWs long before they were given any opportunity to not join the Wehrmacht. It wasn't their refusal to fight that did for them, given that a) they were being rounded up before 1939, and b) you could say the same about Quakers, who weren't deported to the camps en masse. I think they'd just decided you were undesirable, for whatever twisted reason.
For the avoidance of doubt, none of that for one moment detracts from the integrity of those JWs who did, for want of a better term, die for their faith in the camps.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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!"?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
Again, you seem to be confusing pacifism with passivity. A true pacifist is called to actively resist evil, so they will not be "sleeping soundly" in their beds at night-- they will be out there on the front lines opposing evil alongside all those "rough men" (and women, one might add), but doing so w/o benefit of guns-- so at even greater risk to personal life and safety. MLK, Ghandi, and Andre Trocme hardly lived the easy life.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
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."
How do you reconcile the conflicting Tertullian quotes?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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?
A visceral contempt? That's a very strong statement. I don't have contempt for anyone. I just do not agree with their point of view.
What doesn't help in this and many other arguments is the use of such a term to describe the view of another. Why do I have to have a 'visceral contempt' just because i don't agree? Why could you not suggest that I have a 'strong disagreement' with the pacifist position?
Once people start using terms like this then the discussion is over.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
As does war.
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.
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.
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:
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.
All I'm hearing you say is it's better to trade one set of innocent deaths for another.
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.
I guess it depends on how you see those "rough men". If they're all volunteers choosing freely to put themselves in that position then it's considerably different to if they're conscripts being forced to fight whether they want to or not.
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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 ![[Confused]](confused.gif) 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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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?".
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but would have done nothing to prevent it.
I know it was a cross-post, and all, but you're still doing it.
Are you sure he would have done nothing? Or would he just have done something different? Did you ask him?
And even if he would have done nothing, do you genuinely think that this is the norm for pacifists - inaction? Is that what you think Gandhi and MLK did? Nothing?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.
I haven't actually said what my ideals are. I've just pointed out (as others have) that it's a pretty giant strawman that you're still arguing against.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
But pacifism is not a 'high-minded ideal'. It's a spiritual way of life. It's living out a life of peace in all areas. This has been said repeatedly on this thread, not just by myself - why do you feel you can ignore that and not listen to us at all?
I certainly disagree with the Quaker you spoke to re a Nazi government and to tar all pacifists with the same brush is appalling. Do you seriously think that MLK would have welcomed the Nazis, for example?
You have a very fixed idea of what pacifists think and it's not actually the truth.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
I wasn't misquoting you at all, I was directly quoting you. 'There are individual men and women, and there are families' still opposes Christian teaching about the Church, as does the idea that it's our duty to look after ourselves and our families first. It's not. That's not what Jesus teaches. Jesus teaches about putting Him and the Church before us and our families.
And our neighbours (in the Gospel sense) still include those in other countries - why do they matter less? In the Epistles, for instance, Christians in other cities mattered to Paul and other early Christian leaders just as much as their home churches did. National boundaries made no difference. While I would agree that we have a responsibility towards each other, that actually extends to ALL people and not just our friends and families. Our enemies are our neighbours too.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Mudfrog:
quote:
Why do I have to have a 'visceral contempt' just because i don't agree?
It comes out in the way you argue. The sarcasm. The accusations and general lack of understanding.
For example, you characterise all pacifists as having the attitde: 'I don't care what threatens you, I will not lift a finger to defend you,'
You right sarcastic letters to Hitler supposingly representing pacifists as weak collaborationsists ("what we would like to do is send a ferry over and invite you to England to have a good look round and see what you think".)
"Yeah, they were really protected by a handful of pacifist Germans." Showing a total lack of respect for those pacifists who sacrificed to help and protect Jews.
And so it goes on. You may say this is just the rough and tumble of polemic. Maybe it is, but I do not believe you would argue in this derisory way, with people who you merely disagreed with and yet still viewed with respect.
[ 13. November 2013, 09:24: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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?
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.
The eradication of fascism as a viable political ideology definitely counts as a significant point against evil IMO. As does the prosecution of war crimes at Nuremberg. If we hadn't fought then the Nazi ideology would have been triumphant, the holocaust would have been successful and worse, hidden or maybe even justified. And the war crimes of the Nazi's would be de rigeur even today.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
Only in the context of using war as the solution to evil. I've made no comment either way about non-violent means of changing the world.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
Regarding countries, I think it could be fair that we tend to seem them as the political instruments for achieving good. By the international principles, going back to Westphalia in 1648, nations are supposed to be independent and get to do what their rulers wish. I'd say this is sometimes bollocks. However, nations of today have also become expressions of agreed principles, legitimate centres of culture and administration, and that culture and administration would by many be found to be the basis of welfare and better lives. I think that's why most dictators, even the leftist ones, are nationalist to some degree - remember the name of WWII in Russia, "The Great Patriotic War". But the nation is not just a tool for evil, but like religion it's a tool for emphasizing different things. Apart from the actual oppression that would likely appear in Sweden if we were taken over by Russia - and I believe liberty to be a good thing in the eyes of the Lord, if possibly not as good as life - the independence lost would also amount to a semi-fascist system imposed on the country, meaning many people losing possibly a decade of life expectancy due to the social changes and the loss of social democacy (the horror! the horror!). Childbirth mortality figures would rise. If we're only counting lives, would these lives lost count?
It does seem ridiculous to think of war waged based on this kind of economics. Still, I think there are a couple of interesting perspectives that can be seen from these things. So, what say ye?
Also, Gandhi is often invoked here. Let's not remember he not only sought increased liberty - he sought the Brits kicked out, and without the nonviolent movement stepping up and arranging marches and protests, Amritsar would not have happened.* Could he be said to have gambled with the lives of others?
*Not in any way saying they caused it, but they could in some way have avoided it by accepting oppression, couldn't they? Or was that another economic calcule, that the lives lost would amount to less than that of a revolution that would otherwise have happened?
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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. 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. The Apostles lived in society together, even if one discounts the society in which they lived. The quote you cite models an individualism which is totally absent from the Bible, the early Church and how Christians should live.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.
You have repeatedly refered to this idea that pacifism means doing nothing against the enemy, and mentioned that if pacifists had been in power and Germany decided to invade Britain then all Jews, disabled etc would have been wiped out.
If your concern is the saving of lives during the holocaust then it would be helpful to look at the different methods, how many Jews were saved through military efforts and how many were saved through pacifist efforts.
Others have mentioned Denmark's sterling efforts to save the Jews in their country, saving 99% of their Jewish population through pacifist means such as diplomatic and Red Cross efforts. Albanian muslims protected almost all of their 2000 Jews through pacifist resistance; many Jewish survivors told how their Albanian hosts vied for the privilege of offering sanctuary to them. Other individuals and groups rescued many hundreds of thousands across Europe and the Muslim world. And these Jews were of course rescued before suffering the horrors of the camps.
In comparison, the allied war efforts liberated only a few hundred from most of the camps, arriving far too late to save most of them. Only in Auschwitz were a significant number of survivors liberated, around 6,000, and in Bergen-Belsen the biggest and almost only true rescue occured, with 60,000 prisoners found still living. However, after liberation these poor people, half-dead already, died rapidly. Half of those at Auschwitz, and around 10,000 of the people liberated from Bergen-Belsen, died within a few weeks of liberation. Those who did survive were of course haunted for the rest of their lives.
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.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
