• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Defending religious liberty with violence

Audie

Veteran Member
I prefer to follow the way Jesus taught when it comes to this. Nonviolent resistance was what he did, just like Gandhi and MLK. So resist, yes. Violence, no.

And that works just fine when your "enemy" is
civilized and tries to adhere to the law.

If the Panzers just broke through the Adrennes,
not so much.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
And what exactly would I be "defending" ?

I did write "yourself". If you do not care to defend yourself,
dont care if someone kills you, perhaps after a torture
session, that is your deal.
Presenting it as a good move, and the moral high ground,
is bonkers.
 

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
I did write "yourself". If you do not care to defend yourself,
dont care if someone kills you, perhaps after a torture
session, that is your deal.
Presenting it as a good move, and the moral high ground,
is bonkers.

And again I say.....nobody gets out of here alive.
also, the "yourself" you speak of.....ain't me.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And that works just fine when your "enemy" is
civilized and tries to adhere to the law.

If the Panzers just broke through the Adrennes,
not so much.
I addressed this with Vouthon above. I say "Violence, no", to what the OP said about responding to one having their religious liberties denied them, like gathering together to worship. Defending your life from being taken from you, is not the same thing as not be allowed to practice a certain type of religion. Violence is not the answer to injustice. But violence may be necessary if your life is being threatened. That's self-defense, not retribution.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I addressed this with Vouthon above. I say "Violence, no", to what the OP said about responding to one having their religious liberties denied them, like gathering together to worship. Defending your life from being taken from you, is not the same thing as not be allowed to practice a certain type of religion. Violence is not the answer to injustice. But violence may be necessary if your life is being threatened. That's self-defense, not retribution.

In bold, too vague to have any particular meaning.
Sure, dont bomb the police station coz you think the
speed trap was unfair.
But something like forcible conversion to islam?
A profound injustice, and one against which I
personally would fight to the death, I will not
submit to it.
If its cool with you to be forced to this, or that,
its on you. But you cannot preach passive acceptance
as some universal virtue, and not get called on it
because it is garbage.
 

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
IOW you cannot defend the indefensible posture you
assumed, so you try a quip.

No, you just can't understand how some people can be so sure about something you don't know.
and that there are some people who are not afraid of death.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No, you just can't understand how some people can be so sure about something you don't know.
and that there are some people who are not afraid of death.

i understand that some people can talk themselves
into believing all sorts of things.

There are two relevant sayings "no atheists the foxholes"
and
"no christians in the foxholes".*

* for lo, none will say "Glory be, I is about to receive eternal
life" when they see the tanks coming.

Even if you have succeeded in being suicidal, nothing
about your state of affairs is either morally sound, nor
a good idea for others.
 

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
i understand that some people can talk themselves
into believing all sorts of things.

There are two relevant sayings "no atheists the foxholes"
and
"no christians in the foxholes".*

* for lo, none will say "Glory be, I is about to receive eternal
life" when they see the tanks coming.

Even if you have succeeded in being suicidal, nothing
about your state of affairs is either morally sound, nor
a good idea for others.

lol.....come now Audie, or do you not know that TRUE Christians would never be in a "foxhole".
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In bold, too vague to have any particular meaning.
Sure, dont bomb the police station coz you think the
speed trap was unfair.
But something like forcible conversion to islam?
A profound injustice, and one against which I
personally would fight to the death, I will not
submit to it.
If its cool with you to be forced to this, or that,
its on you. But you cannot preach passive acceptance
as some universal virtue, and not get called on it
because it is garbage.
First of all, I did not say passive acceptance. I said nonviolent resistance. Not compliance, Not acceptance. Not passivity. So, why are you claiming I said that?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
First of all, I did not say passive acceptance. I said nonviolent resistance. Not compliance, Not acceptance. Not passivity. So, why are you claiming I said that?

Ah my bad. Nonviolent resistance.
It is of course not the same.

Substitute the correct words in what I said.
Any response to that?
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Probably not. I'm for the most part a pacifist.

However, I probably would provoke them into using violence against me to silence me. Publicly exposing them would make my death somewhat worth it.
 
Top