Who's a pacifist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Inspired by another thread, but I didn't want to take that thread off track:

There are some religious denominations where the members are personally non-violent because they believe that only God can legitimately use violence. IOW, they're against violence in human society, but they would be fine with any violence committed by God.

Are these denominations pacifist? I would say they aren't. Thoughts?

 

[Thief]

well....it sure wasn't Jesus

that temple event was hell on earth

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Inspired by another thread, but I didn't want to take that thread off track:

There are some religious denominations where the members are personally non-violent because they believe that only God can legitimately use violence. IOW, they're against violence in human society, but they would be fine with any violence committed by God.

Are these denominations pacifist? I would say they aren't. Thoughts?

can you point out some examples?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

can you point out some examples?

Mennonites and Quakers, off the top of my head.

(Though the Quakers are tricky, since they're non-doctrinal, so there's quite a bit of variation in belief from individual to individual)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Mennonites and Quakers, off the top of my head.

(Though the Quakers are tricky, since they're non-doctrinal, so there's quite a bit of variation in belief from individual to individual)

okay, thanks! I'm not sure that they would be "fine" with divine violence, but I also don't know a great deal about them.

 

[Quintessence]

What would violence committed by God look like? How would that even be possible when the one-god is not a tangible, immanent entity in our world?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would violence committed by God look like?

The flood, for instance? Or the plagues of Egypt?

How would that even be possible when the one-god is not a tangible, immanent entity in our world?

I don't expect that these particular theists take this belief of yours as a given.

 

[LuisDantas]

Inspired by another thread, but I didn't want to take that thread off track:

There are some religious denominations where the members are personally non-violent because they believe that only God can legitimately use violence. IOW, they're against violence in human society, but they would be fine with any violence committed by God.

Are these denominations pacifist? I would say they aren't. Thoughts?

It is essentially meaningless to justify anything whatsoever with allegations of divine origin, so yes, I do agree with you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What would violence committed by God look like?

I imagine there are global floods, people turned to salt, bears sent to maul people, entire cities destroyed, and commandments for war, genocide, butchery, abortion, and enslavement.

 

[dybmh]

but they would be fine with any violence committed by God.

That's an assumption. You don't know how they feel, or if they would be "fine" with any violence committed by God.

Right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's an assumption. You don't know how they feel, or if they would be "fine" with any violence committed by God.

Right?

If you know of a Mennonite who would feel justified in judging God, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Thief]

I imagine there are global floods, people turned to salt, bears sent to maul people, entire cities destroyed, and commandments for war, genocide, butchery, abortion, and enslavement.

you missed .....plague

 

[Thief]

Or the plagues of Egypt?

ooops.....it got mentioned

 

[dybmh]

If you know of a Mennonite who would feel justified in judging God, I'd love to hear about it.

Do you have a quote? You made the claim how someone would feel about it. I think the onus is on you to bring a source.

My claim is that you have made an assumption.

So far, I think I am correct.

 

[Quintessence]

The flood, for instance? Or the plagues of Egypt?

I don't expect that these particular theists take this belief of yours as a given.

As far as I'm aware, the Abrahamic monotheists are pretty insistent that their god is not the universe or nature itself, but separate from it (aka, transcendent). This means it would have to be supernatural, or beyond nature, which by extension means intangible or non-physical. That's standard classical monotheism, isn't it? A transcendent, supernatural, non-physical one-god? What kind of Abrahamic god are you thinking these people worship if not this usual standard?

In any case, I ask the question because the standard monotheist model introduces the problem of interaction which in turn makes determining what is and isn't an "act of God" inconsistent. If their god is beyond and transcending nature, how does it impact it at all? What does an "act of God" look like? How do folks know or decide something was caused by their god when their god is not that thing itself, but some "behind the scenes" invisible hand? I've noticed some followers of the one-god say "this event is an act of God" but others say it is not. How do followers of the one-god decide this when their god is not the phenomena itself?

Following this a bit further, would the way in which a worshiper of the one-god ascribes events to their behind-the-scenes deity impact whether or not we might consider them pacifistic? When we ask "would they be fine with any violence committed by God" what do we really mean by that? Do we mean "fine with" as in basically condoning and cheering it on? Or do we mean "fine with" as in "this is something that happens, and it is what it is?" Would that change how we view it? How strict are we being with our understanding of "pacifist" when thinking about this?

I don't really have an answer, only answers or speculations. Pacifism has never struck me as a logically tenable position unless it is only applied to certain situations and not all situations. It'd be interesting to see what followers of the pacifistic one-god traditions have to say on the matter. What does pacifism mean to them? How to they determine if an act is created by their supernatural one-god?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are these denominations pacifist? I would say they aren't. Thoughts?

In action they could be pacifist if they take the approach of surrender.

(Though the Quakers are tricky, since they're non-doctrinal, so there's quite a bit of variation in belief from individual to individual)

As you point out they are non-doctrinal. There are Buddhists and atheists who are Quakers.

because they believe that only God can legitimately use violence.

That's not what Quakers believe. I don't know about Mennonites.

 

[dybmh]

It'd be interesting to see what followers of the pacifistic one-god traditions have to say on the matter. What does pacifism mean to them?

To me, it means ending the cycle of violence by not fueling it with more violence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Inspired by another thread, but I didn't want to take that thread off track:

There are some religious denominations where the members are personally non-violent because they believe that only God can legitimately use violence. IOW, they're against violence in human society, but they would be fine with any violence committed by God.

Are these denominations pacifist? I would say they aren't. Thoughts?

Depends on how one would view a paper tiger.

 

[metis]

Mennonite are actually "doctrinal" and Amish and JW's also believe in not using deadly force or violence in the form of fighting.
To use "non-violence" without qualifying what one means by that can be misleading as the Amish, for example, will use corporal punishment as well as the Mennonite and JW's. I don't know about Quakers, however.

BTW, the most interesting religious service I've ever gone to was a Mennonite service down in northern Indiana while I was there studying the Amish.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Depends on you definitions. Most pacifist philosophies caution against conflating pacifism with passivism. Being a pacifist doesn't necessarily mean nothing violent can ever be done with moral justification. But that justification will change subjectively from philosophy to philosophy. See differences in pacifist opinion on self defense, [Jain v Buddhist] war against greater evils, [MLK on WW2 and violence being necessary when your enemy has no conscience] pacts of non-violence against a particular group, [ethical exclusion of animal products, viewing the animal product industry as violent].

JW, the example I'm most familiar with, view human wars with human justificatin as flawed, disposed to error, and requiring loyalty to human authority over gods. They believe human war as immoral. But not what they believe to be war against sin, for which only Jehovah, no human, is adequate judge.