Christian Pacifism yay/ nay?

[Dunemeister]

I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,

I have yet to be convinced

Read The Politics of Jesus by Yoder.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Read The Politics of Jesus by Yoder.

Bit cheap, got a summery

 

[XionComrade]

Jesus made the point not to pass judgement, and that by doing so the people had executed and condemned the innocent not knowing. Mercy and Forgiveness, that is the way to avoid such a atrocity, something that happens all to often in today's society. Repay evil with love, not with punishment. There is great wisdom to what this man said, he was truly far ahead of his time, we just don't realize it yet. It is a hard thing to consider or imagine in today's time, we have not reached that point of consciousness yet. This is the Christian "Jihad" so to speak, the Muslim one as well.

Gandhi, if I am not mistaken, understood. Do not resist evil, if someone harms you do not harm them back, look for no retribution. Allow them to continue with hope that they will see the error of their ways. There is no point in striking back, no wisdom in it. Modern society's lust for retribution has led it into terrible times indeed today, but the matter I speak of is controversial. It is a tool of the "Devil", our hate and retribution, it accomplishes nothing. It is the cause of all wars. A hard pill to swallow for most people I think.

The point, I think, that could be made is what is this life to a practicing Christian? It matters nothing except what you learn from it/what good you can do in it. Did any of the first Christians fight back as they were boiled alive, stripped of their skin, and crucified? No...And even for that they were mocked. But they would have been destroyed completely if they had, observe. The people would have said "They are devil worshipers AND dangerous/violent as well!?"

There is a struggle, a war that the Christian/Religious person fights, and Jesus said this himself if I am not mistaken. It is not against flesh though, not at all. It is not a physical matter, but a Spiritual one. This is something that has been lost to Christianity for near 2000 years, the manner of the true war and how to wage it. In effect Christianity was eventually the agent of the Devil before long. In the Channeled messages this matter that you inquire of was discussed at great length, but it was quite complicated, and I did not get to read much/understand it. Maybe some other time...But from what I gathered, there just was no point in war or violence of any kind, it accomplishes nothing, and is utterly foolish even in defense. The inner struggle of all people, something to ponder here.

 

[Pegg]

I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,

I have yet to be convinced

just because we live in violent world, doesnt mean we should also add to that violence.

God hates violence of any sort. He does not condone it and he will not tolerate it or the people who perpetrate it. So we should never think that by becoming violent ourselves we can remain at peace with God because we can't.

Isaiah 2:44 And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore

Romans 12:17 Return evil for evil to no one. Provide fine things in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends upon YOU, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.” 20 But, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals upon his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.

Our job is to fight violence with goodness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus made the point not to pass judgement, and that by doing so the people had executed and condemned the innocent not knowing.

I call shenanigans. The Gospels are full of instances of Jesus calling all sorts of people "vipers", "evil-doers", and "whitewashed tombs"... IOW, passing judgement on them.

The point, I think, that could be made is what is this life to a practicing Christian? It matters nothing except what you learn from it/what good you can do in it. Did any of the first Christians fight back as they were boiled alive, stripped of their skin, and crucified? No...And even for that they were mocked. But they would have been destroyed completely if they had, observe. The people would have said "They are devil worshipers AND dangerous/violent as well!?"

I think you're ignoring the fact that much of early Christianity's rise in popularity was due to it being adopted by soldiers in the Roman army. In general, they didn't stop being soldiers when they became Christians. While we can point to pacifist leanings in early Christianity, we can point just as easily to decidedly non-pacifist leanings as well.

 

[XionComrade]

I call shenanigans. The Gospels are full of instances of Jesus calling all sorts of people "vipers", "evil-doers", and "whitewashed tombs"... IOW, passing judgement on them.


I think you're ignoring the fact that much of early Christianity's rise in popularity was due to it being adopted by soldiers in the Roman army. In general, they didn't stop being soldiers when they became Christians. While we can point to pacifist leanings in early Christianity, we can point just as easily to decidedly non-pacifist leanings as well.

Using the word differently though, he didn't put them to death did he? Never ordered a punishment for them to be carried out by his followers. That is what I meant, and I think what he meant as well. No judgement being passed as in no punishment/"Correction" being prescribed.

True, but I find it hard to justify using the New Testament myself. Were the soldiers even literate(I wouldn't know myself, not that well versed in Roman history yet :/)?Would be interesting and even pivotal, I think, to look into WHY the soldiers took in Christianity as well. Seems likely to me that they would do so for hopeful protection from a new god, or by being forced?...There seems to be to me, in religion a need for a separation between what it's founders/scriptures say and what it's followers actually do. As well as the doctrines and interpretations that sprout up afterwards, among its followers. As we all know, people are all to happy to skew scripture so that it fits what they want to do. It matters none what people call themselves in my experience.

 

[Valjean]

Jesus always struck me as a pacifist.

Bible Pacifism - Christian Pacifism is the Scriptural Position

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What the Lord advocated was not pacifism but non-violent resistance and peace-making. He advocated the humiliation of the violent and power-hungry. He advocated forgiveness and reconciliation between the have's and the have-not's

 

[Me Myself]

Is it Kill or Murder?
to my knowledge and from the council of my Israeli friend, it's murder

Granted God may have might murder in the Old Conveant and magnified it as he did with the other commandments to include killing now.

We do see Just War in the Old Testament, it may have been a tolerated evil, but I still have trouble recociling it with Pacifism

It´s simple, The quotes have already been provided to you.

If it was "not murder" then he would not have stood in front of the adulterious woman, because that killing was good according to law. It was lawful that she died stoned so not murder.

The old testament was scratched and made new to what goes of morals. As ithas been said "nose for nose" was replaced by "if they slap your cheek, give them the other one". Jesus wring a new message, and it was clearly peace.

About the temple, I am sure he didn´t kill anyone there.

 

[XionComrade]

What the Lord advocated was not pacifism but non-violent resistance and peace-making. He advocated the humiliation of the violent and power-hungry. He advocated forgiveness and reconciliation between the have's and the have-not's

I agree with this myself, well put!

 

[ForeverFaithful]

About the temple, I am sure he didn´t kill anyone there.

But he made a point with violence, and did not condemn any of the soldiers he met or any of the disciples for carrying swords

 

[Me Myself]

But he made a point with violence, and did not condemn any of the soldiers he met or any of the disciples for carrying swords

Carrying a swod intimidates other people. He never said use them, and when they did he reprimended them and HEAL the soldier that was wounded by his disciple.

He didn´t condemn prostitues or most sinners anyways. He mostly condemn hipocritical sinners who wanted to teach what is right when they themselves were sinners.

edit: Also, there is no commandment of "you shall not be violent" but there is a commandment of "you shall not kill"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Using the word differently though, he didn't put them to death did he? Never ordered a punishment for them to be carried out by his followers. That is what I meant, and I think what he meant as well. No judgement being passed as in no punishment/"Correction" being prescribed.

He prescribed quite a bit of punishment. He declared that the unrighteous would be gathered up and burned like chaff; his message was inherently violent.

True, but I find it hard to justify using the New Testament myself. Were the soldiers even literate(I wouldn't know myself, not that well versed in Roman history yet :/)?

They were probably just as literate as the non-violent Christians who you wanted to cite as support when it was convenient for your argument.

Would be interesting and even pivotal, I think, to look into WHY the soldiers took in Christianity as well. Seems likely to me that they would do so for hopeful protection from a new god, or by being forced?...There seems to be to me, in religion a need for a separation between what it's founders/scriptures say and what it's followers actually do. As well as the doctrines and interpretations that sprout up afterwards, among its followers. As we all know, people are all to happy to skew scripture so that it fits what they want to do. It matters none what people call themselves in my experience.

IOW, the beliefs of individual believers don't matter when judging the qualities of the religion itself.

So why did you bring up the beliefs of the pacifist early Christians in support of your argument, then?

But he made a point with violence, and did not condemn any of the soldiers he met or any of the disciples for carrying swords

Quite right. On one occasion, he even commanded his disciples to get swords if they didn't have them.

Carrying a swod intimidates other people. He never said use them, and when they did he reprimended them and HEAL the soldier that was wounded by his disciple.

He didn't say not to use them either, and the whole point of carrying a sword is to prepare onesself to commit violence (maybe violence in defense of onesself or others, but still violence).

Also, a declaration that one specific instance of violence was inappropriate does not necessarily imply that violence is always inappropriate. I think it's just as plausible, if not moreso, to say that Jesus reprimanded Peter because he was interfering with Jesus' plan to be crucified, or because Jesus considered it an act of defiance against the Law and not because it was violent per se.

edit: Also, there is no commandment of "you shall not be violent" but there is a commandment of "you shall not kill"

It's more accurately translated "you shall not murder"... i.e. engage in unlawful killing. Lawful killing, such as self defense, battlefield deaths, or official executions were A-OK by Mosaic law.

 

[kaknelson]

LOL christian pacifism, there is no such thing if christians were willing to murder, rape and make war with each other for hundreds and hundreds of years. That shows what their idealogy is cabable of doing

 

[Pegg]

LOL christian pacifism, there is no such thing if christians were willing to murder, rape and make war with each other for hundreds and hundreds of years. That shows what their idealogy is cabable of doing

Christianity only exists in practice.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

LOL christian pacifism, there is no such thing if christians were willing to murder, rape and make war with each other for hundreds and hundreds of years. That shows what their idealogy is cabable of doing

SDA,JW, Mennonites, Amish etc. Christian pacifism is alive and well

 

[Muffled]

I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,

I have yet to be convinced

It is God who justifies. Man is not capable of deciding what is just. More often a call for justice is just an excuse for hate.

Jesus is my Lord. No evil can overtake me without His permission. For that reason I don't have to fight to defend myself. I have a defender.

 

[Muffled]

What the Lord advocated was not pacifism but non-violent resistance and peace-making. He advocated the humiliation of the violent and power-hungry. He advocated forgiveness and reconciliation between the have's and the have-not's

Jesus didn't even support non-violent resistence. My Quaker friends were into this recently sitting in at legislative sessions to oppose budget cuts for programs that help the needy. I am a pacifist beyond that point. I don't need to oppose evil. I don't even need to rail against it. God will work all of that out. Now if Jesus had commanded me to sit in, I would do so but He didn't.

I don't know where this concept comes from.

You have the ten commandments. Don't covet another man's goods or wife.

I have what I have by the grace of God and if God deems it enough then it is enough.

Am I at peace with a sinful world? Not really. The presence of sin is not comforting. However I am at peace with God and that overcomes the world.

 

[johnpeter1970]

I'm entirely willing to renounce all my support of Just War theory if some can irrefutable show me that Just War is unbiblical,

I have yet to be convinced

The Scripture is very clear on this matter. What proof are you looking for?

 

[Sleeppy]

You'll believe what you want..

God's own Son was crucified. His followers are being martyred.

There are angels all around. If there is a war to be fought, they will fight.