self-preservation is very much a part of the golden rule. self-defense is not the same as transferred or projected anger
-
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!
Violence on Violence
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
The way I see it, it doesn't.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I must admit there is a difference between man-on-man violence returned with violence, and man-on-"the world" violence on violence. Again, I think one main distinction (which I made with an additional post) is whether or not the violence is distinctly tied to the violence original undertaken. If it is disconnected even some minimal way, then it can very well miss the mark of intended message to be sent.Now this hurt my feelings
Well, actually violence brings terror, and if we respond with violence we help build the terror. Who wants to live with terror? We should have ''counter-action''.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree. And that was why I posted that follow-up post where I indicated that violence that is unrelated to the original form of assault is very likely unproductive, and possibly very detrimental to your "cause." Looting in response to police violence is disconnected in a way that makes it a very foolish, self-destructive act.
In my judgment, violence should never be one's baseline method for effecting political change. One often cannot control the consequences of violence spiralling out of control and while sometimes justified as to cause in extreme cases, violent actions can also result - sometimes - in worse situations than the conditions that gave rise to them in the first place. It will serve to create new hurts, new wounds, new bereavements, new injustices, lingering resentments, grievances, bitternesses and lasting traumas for a society.
However, in very extreme circumstances when all other options have been exhausted and the 'oppressor' proves impervious to dialogue and/or resists all efforts to ameliorate the situation through peaceful channels that could have led to a legal accommodation with the opposition or a negotiated settlement (i.e. protest movements, boycotts, strikes, legislative reform) - then yes, it can sometimes be justifiable to prevent greater harm from ensuing by resorting to limited and proportionate violence in a revolutionary struggle or waging a defensive war in response to overwhelming aggression.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):
"If any society of people have a right of choosing a king, then the king so established can be deposed by them without injustice, or his power can be curbed, when by tyranny he abuses his regal power" (De Rege et Regno, Bk. I, c. 6).
Thomas Aquinas says: "to [a tyrant] no obedience is owed".(Thomas Aquinas. Commentum in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum. Liber Secundus. Dist. XLIV, Q. II, A. 2. (Translated by J.G. Dawson))
Thomas Aquinas says: "to [a tyrant] no obedience is owed".(Thomas Aquinas. Commentum in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum. Liber Secundus. Dist. XLIV, Q. II, A. 2. (Translated by J.G. Dawson))
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542 – 1621), a great Doctor and Cardinal of the Church, tells us in chapters 3-6 of his De Laicis:
De Laicis — Saint Robert Bellarmine’s Treatise on Civil Government
"...Individual forms of government in specific instances derive from the law of nations, not from the natural law, for, as is evident, it depends on the consent of the people to decide whether kings, or consuls, or other magistrates are to be established in authority over them; and, if there be legitimate cause, the people can change a kingdom into an aristocracy, or an aristocracy into a democracy, and vice versa...."
Populorum Progressio (March 26, 1967) | Paul VI
30. The injustice of certain situations cries out for God's attention. Lacking the bare necessities of life, whole nations are under the thumb of others; they cannot act on their own initiative; they cannot exercise personal responsibility; they cannot work toward a higher degree of cultural refinement or a greater participation in social and public life. They are sorely tempted to redress these insults to their human nature by violent means.
31. Everyone knows, however, that revolutionary uprisings—except where there is manifest, longstanding tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—engender new injustices, introduce new inequities and bring new disasters. The evil situation that exists, and it surely is evil, may not be dealt with in such a way that an even worse situation results.
31. Everyone knows, however, that revolutionary uprisings—except where there is manifest, longstanding tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—engender new injustices, introduce new inequities and bring new disasters. The evil situation that exists, and it surely is evil, may not be dealt with in such a way that an even worse situation results.
Where there is "manifest tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights", as when a national leader declares war on his own people and denies them their constitutional freedoms (such as freedom of assembly and expression) in violation of the rule of law, insurrection can be 'just'.
But it is not an option that anyone should avail themselves of except with great sobriety and careful reflection, mindful of the "new injustices, disasters" that may well ensue.
An example would be the Nicaraguan Revolution of 1979, when the Sandinista rebels announced an offensive against the Samoza dictatorship and the Catholic Bishops' conference of Nicaragua issued a document endorsing the Revolution as a "just insurrection". From the period, a New York Times interview in 1979 with one of the leading revolutionary-backing priests:
Nicaragua's Revolution
June 30, 1979
Following is an interview with Father Ernesto Cardinal, the Trappist poet and philosopher:
In Nicaragua today, there is no recourse other than revolutionary violence. What is going on is the exact same thing that went on in Hitler's Germany. Every day, in many places in the country young people are being assassinated, for the crime of being young. Somoza's National Guard imagines — and not without reason that to be young is to be a revolutionary and a Sandinista. And what happens is that a boy leaves in the morning for work, or goes out at night to see his sweetheart, or goes to the corner for a drink, and he never returns home. He is captured by some military patrol. Other times these boys are pulled out of their homes and then their bodies show up in the morgue or in vacant lots by the side of the highway or in garbage bins. Their arms are broken; their eyes torn out; their tongue is cut and they are.
The bishops who believe in the traditional doctrine of the Church, have said that the Sandinistas’ armed struggle is legitimate.- The Archbishop of Managua cites St. Thomas Aquinas, who recognized in some cases the need to use violence. The Bishop of the City of Leon has said that the Sandinistas are not looking for bloodshed, but that it happens in spite of them. All the Nicaraguans bishops have defended the armed struggle.
The right to rebel has always been a part of the Church's traditional doctrine. And I would say that rebellion is not only a right but an obligation when a country is confronted with an overt entrenched dictatorship.
The bishops who believe in the traditional doctrine of the Church, have said that the Sandinistas’ armed struggle is legitimate.- The Archbishop of Managua cites St. Thomas Aquinas, who recognized in some cases the need to use violence. The Bishop of the City of Leon has said that the Sandinistas are not looking for bloodshed, but that it happens in spite of them. All the Nicaraguans bishops have defended the armed struggle.
The right to rebel has always been a part of the Church's traditional doctrine. And I would say that rebellion is not only a right but an obligation when a country is confronted with an overt entrenched dictatorship.
At the time, there was a lot of naive optimism:
The Catholic Church in the Nicaraguan Revolution
The arrival to power of a revolutionary regime on 19 July 1979 presented the Church with a radically different situation. It seemed that finally, after years of denouncing government abuses and injustices, the Church could finally ‘announce the Kingdom of God’. Amidst the heady euphoria in the wake of the triumph, even the most sceptical clergy had a kind word for the new Junta de Gobierno de Reconstrucción Nacional (JGRN). Progressive clergy were especially elated by what they saw as a historic opportunity to join together both believers and non-believers in a national project of reconstruction.
Their optimism was given added impetus by the bishops’ 17 November 1979 pastoral letter. In it, the bishops recognized the historic struggle of the people against the dictatorship and the role of the FSLN within that struggle and during the period of reconstruction. They also reaffirmed the Church’s preferential option for the poor and its commitment to the revolution. While the pastoral did not constitute a blanket endorsement of the new government — it did, in fact, contain a number of conditions — it was clearly favourable towards the revolutionary process.
Their optimism was given added impetus by the bishops’ 17 November 1979 pastoral letter. In it, the bishops recognized the historic struggle of the people against the dictatorship and the role of the FSLN within that struggle and during the period of reconstruction. They also reaffirmed the Church’s preferential option for the poor and its commitment to the revolution. While the pastoral did not constitute a blanket endorsement of the new government — it did, in fact, contain a number of conditions — it was clearly favourable towards the revolutionary process.
But the post-revolutionary landscape was far from the paradise of naive churchmen:
Nicaraguan Revolution - Wikipedia
Immediately following the fall of the Somoza regime, Nicaragua was largely in ruins. The country had suffered both war and, earlier, natural disaster in the devastating 1972 Nicaragua earthquake. In 1979, approximately 600,000 Nicaraguans were homeless and 150,000 were either refugees or in exile,[30] out of a total population of just 2.8 million.[31]
In response to these issues, a state of emergency was declared. President Carter sent US$99 million in aid. Land and businesses of the Somoza regime were expropriated, the old courts were abolished, and workers were organized into Civil Defense Committees. The new regime also declared that "elections are unnecessary", which led to criticism from the Catholic Church, among others.[9]
In response to these issues, a state of emergency was declared. President Carter sent US$99 million in aid. Land and businesses of the Somoza regime were expropriated, the old courts were abolished, and workers were organized into Civil Defense Committees. The new regime also declared that "elections are unnecessary", which led to criticism from the Catholic Church, among others.[9]
Last edited:
Depends entirely on what the problem is.
Eyes to See
Well-Known Member
For everything there is an appointed time. A time for peace. A time for war. That is in Ecclesiastes 3:8.
Even God knows that he will need to use violence to bring an end to violence. He will destroy all the bad people at Armageddon.
If God never acted against the evildoers they would continue to commit crimes. And they would make the meek and the lovers of peace suffer and never find the peace that Bible prophecy promises will come.
I would like to add that the law "eye for eye" has been used as an excuse for retaliation. But it was not meant as such. Even the law said:
“‘You must not take vengeance nor hold a grudge against the sons of your people, and you must love your fellow man as yourself. I am Jehovah."-Leviticus 19:18.
If you read the context of the "eye for eye" law [I added the law at the end of this post] it was relating to what would happen if two men were fighting and a woman with an unborn child was struck. The man who struck the woman would have to pay restitution for the damages incurred. Now if you look a little further you will see that the other man was not authorized to strike back. Rather this was taken to the judges and the judges then imposed a fine based on what happened to the unborn child. If the child was born fine then they would impose a fine and make the person who struck the woman pay restitution to the woman. It wasn't that the other man he was fighting with got revenge. Also if the unborn child died, then the judges would have to impose the sentence of death on the perpetrator who caused the death of the unborn child.
In each case it was the court not the victim who imposed the penalty. And the law reminded the judges that a punishment should not be too excessive nor to lenient. One scholar of the Bible put it:
“The basic principle appears to be that punishment should correspond to the crime and never exceed it.”
Jesus did say this:
“You heard that it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him."-Matthew 5:38, 39.
So it appears that by Jesus' time religious leaders had included the "law of retaliation" in their oral teachings. Not a part of the divine law given to Moses, and approved of personal vengeance. Jesus corrected them and showed that this teaching had no support in God's law.
Here is the full context of the "eye for eye" law:
“If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow.-Exodus 21:22-25.
Even God knows that he will need to use violence to bring an end to violence. He will destroy all the bad people at Armageddon.
If God never acted against the evildoers they would continue to commit crimes. And they would make the meek and the lovers of peace suffer and never find the peace that Bible prophecy promises will come.
I would like to add that the law "eye for eye" has been used as an excuse for retaliation. But it was not meant as such. Even the law said:
“‘You must not take vengeance nor hold a grudge against the sons of your people, and you must love your fellow man as yourself. I am Jehovah."-Leviticus 19:18.
If you read the context of the "eye for eye" law [I added the law at the end of this post] it was relating to what would happen if two men were fighting and a woman with an unborn child was struck. The man who struck the woman would have to pay restitution for the damages incurred. Now if you look a little further you will see that the other man was not authorized to strike back. Rather this was taken to the judges and the judges then imposed a fine based on what happened to the unborn child. If the child was born fine then they would impose a fine and make the person who struck the woman pay restitution to the woman. It wasn't that the other man he was fighting with got revenge. Also if the unborn child died, then the judges would have to impose the sentence of death on the perpetrator who caused the death of the unborn child.
In each case it was the court not the victim who imposed the penalty. And the law reminded the judges that a punishment should not be too excessive nor to lenient. One scholar of the Bible put it:
“The basic principle appears to be that punishment should correspond to the crime and never exceed it.”
Jesus did say this:
“You heard that it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him."-Matthew 5:38, 39.
So it appears that by Jesus' time religious leaders had included the "law of retaliation" in their oral teachings. Not a part of the divine law given to Moses, and approved of personal vengeance. Jesus corrected them and showed that this teaching had no support in God's law.
Here is the full context of the "eye for eye" law:
“If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow.-Exodus 21:22-25.
Last edited:
What is not clear to me is whether you are aware that restitutions according to Jewish oral law have always been monetary ones and not actually inflicting the same injury upon a person? That is, not a literary "eye for an eye" (except in the very very rare cases (again, according to oral law) in which capital punishment was deemed necessary).
WWII
Eyes to See
Well-Known Member
I do not know all the oral law. I know much of it conflicted with Gods divine law given to Moses. Even Jesus exposed the oral law and its heavy burden on the people, and its hypocrisy.
For example Jesus said:
“You skillfully disregard the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For example, Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Let the one who speaks abusively of his father or mother be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is corban (that is, a gift dedicated to God),”’ you no longer let him do a single thing for his father or his mother. Thus you make the word of God invalid by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.”-Mark 7:9-13.
To show the harshness and the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who imposed very strict and imposing oral traditions, while ignoring God's law Jesus exposed them this way:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!"-Matthew 23:23, 24.
The abuse that the Jewish religious leaders perpetuated upon the people made Jesus weep for them he saw they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd:
On seeing the crowds, he felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd.-Matthew 9:36.
That is why Jesus said to do as they say not as they do. Because while they imposed the law, and added their oral tradition making it extremely abuseive on the people, they themselves refused to obey it. But wanted to be seen by all as righteous and above them.
"The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say. They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger. All the works they do, they do to be seen by men, for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards and lengthen the fringes of their garments. They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men."-Matthew 23:2-7.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Personally I don't see how we could have stopped Hitler from dominating the world if we hadn't used violence to counter the violence he was perpetuating. In this case it certainly solved the problem of Nazi expansionism.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
People shouldn't be rioting in the first place. I'm not sure it makes a difference rural versus urban, honestly. Defensive weapons protect a building from attack. This is not violence, nor is the holding of weapons violence (snapping someone's neck can be done without any weapons at all). Violence is the act of going through attacking others.
Here's how to prevent violence:
1. Open stores for business as soon as feasible. I said feasible, not possible, some logistical barriers (or stubborn people) may still exist.
2. Start employing people again. When people can afford things, they no longer need to steal. When owners of stores in turn get money, they can afford to keep their stores open and stocking items.
3. A closed store is a goose. You read the kid's story, Jack and the Beanstalk, right? Well, the goose (closed store) is tasty for meat, but this benefit is a one-off, then no more goose. However, an open store (by analogy, the goose that lays golden eggs), can continue to sell products for weeks and months. So it is important that these rioters understand how short-sighted they are being.
4. If these stores do not open, the rioters should therefore be directing their rioting at those people preventing them from doing so.
2 things....
- Rural folk are different from city folk.
The former will defend their property.
- Rioters have no sense of consequences affecting the future.
Last edited:
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
When 2 groups act violently towards each other, eventually one group overcomes the other group, and one of them is defeated and submits.
Then the problem is apparently solved, because one group now has to keep quiet, and let the other group take control, thus no more fighting. Same as what is seen in the animal kingdom. Two lions fight over a female, or territory, until one wins. Two bears fight until one wins. In some cases, no body wins, but they get so exhausted and sick of it, that they just abandon the fight, and become calm. That is another way, violence against violence solve a problem.
Last edited:
It solves a problem when the responding violence halts the violence of the originator. I think that is the only time that violence against violence will solve a problem. Note that I did not mention any reasons or justification. I'm simply referring to violence on violence.
Korban means sacrifice (one could argue that every sacrifice is a gift to God, but that's still not the meaning of the word...).
Look, I've heard all of Jesus's claims before. This may come as a shock to you, but some of the Jews who read the NT discover that Jesus sometimes acted in a manner that did not befit a Jew of his era (and no, not in a good way), nor was it a manner that, for all of his claims about keeping the law, does not appear to be that.
However, that is not my point at all. You appeared to suggest about the principle of "an eye for an eye" that in the oral law it means x, when in fact, it does not. Or are you perhaps referring to the oral law of a different people?
syo
Well-Known Member
Yup. Modern society is corrupted. Modern humans will misuse and misinterpret the old testament only to corrupt. the old testament has wisdom. modern humans are bloodthirst.