Why even pacifists should practice self defense

[Caleb]

Humans disagree.  Take any religion, and you find disagreement.  Leave religion and go to the realm of science.  Or philosophy.  Humans don't have universal agreement on anything.

I asked a gentleman the other day, "Would you agree with me that torturing babies for fun is evil?"  His answer was "No.  It's not my preference, but I can't say it's evil."  So ... even on something that obvious there is not universal agreement.

That's another reason why pacifism is so important.  Humans don't agree on what evil is, let alone finding a justification for using violence against what we deem to be evil.  There is always the possibility that we might be wrong.

[Pat K]

"Would you agree with me that torturing babies for fun is evil?"  His answer was "No.  It's not my preference, but I can't say it's evil."  So ... even on something that obvious there is not universal agreement.


Well I would stay around with him.

[MaineShark]

I fail to see why this issue is so important to so many of you...

I wish I could say that I fail to see why it is so important to you that this issue be ignored.  But I can't fail to see the obvious...

...and I also fail to see what it has to do with pacifism and the Christian tradition, which is the topic of this thread.

Partially because so many Christians have done so much violence on those grounds.

And partially because your justifications for pacifism revolve around your notion of a loving God, while this is so utterly in opposition to that notion of a loving God.  "I'll build some of my people to desire the love of another consenting adult of the same sex, but then I'll order them not to obey the desire that I gave them?"  What sort of sick creature would create a world like that, and then impose rules like that?

Joe

[KBCraig]

Humans disagree.  Take any religion, and you find disagreement.

A colleague and I were discussing churches the other day, and he mentioned a third fellow who, like him, belongs to a holiness church. To anyone on the outside, these two fellow would seem identical: Pentecostal, holiness, conservative, and traditional. They agree on almost everything, except one thing: one church baptises in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the other baptises in the name of Jesus only.

And of course, that "one thing" is a huge one for them.

Paul warned us to "avoid debatable matters", and everyone agrees on that. But the biggest theological fistfights you'll ever see are over which matters are debatable: "What do you mean, 'debatable'? That's a central article of faith!"



Kevin

[Caleb]

I wish I could say that I fail to see why it is so important to you that this issue be ignored.  But I can't fail to see the obvious...

There is no resolution to the issue, so it doesn't matter and nothing can be profited by discussing it.  The only thing the issue can do is distract from the point of this thread -- as evidenced by the fact that the thread was so distracted, moving from the topic of pacifism to the topic of homosexuality. And really, to be frank, it appears to me that the topic moved that way, not so much because you want to discuss homosexuality per se but because you want to find fault with Christianity, and you find this issue easier to attack than pacifism.  If I'm wrong ... I'm wrong.  But something tells me I'm not. Not all people of faith are your enemy, but when you walk around with a chip on your shoulder towards a particular faith, you end up alienating those who otherwise might be your allies.  Think about that for awhile, Joe.

If you'd like to start another thread talking about the issue of homosexuality within a religious context ... feel free.  But this thread is about pacifism, and my concern is that by going off on tangents we distract from the point of this thread, which happens to, (in my opinion at least) coincide with the essence of my faith.

Partially because so many Christians have done so much violence on those grounds.

Which is precisely what I'm trying to move away from.  I do not have the ability to change the past, but hopefully as Christianity moves forward it will be my version and not Pat Robertson's version that carries the day.

And partially because your justifications for pacifism revolve around your notion of a loving God, while this is so utterly in opposition to that notion of a loving God.  "I'll build some of my people to desire the love of another consenting adult of the same sex, but then I'll order them not to obey the desire that I gave them?"  What sort of sick creature would create a world like that, and then impose rules like that?

Your entire scenario is presented with assumptions that I do not hold.  1) I do not hold that God "built" people, as if people are something that he micromanages according to his whim.  This would be a deterministic model that I eschew  2) I do not believe that God gives people any desires, as this would conflict with the hard version of free will that I embrace  3) I do not believe that God is a "creature"  4) I do not believe that God created such a world that is devoid of free will  5) I do not believe that God imposes rules.  To the contrary, our experience is that God does not interfere with our decisions, regardless of how ill-advised they may be. Ironically, some people hate him for that, "God should have prevented so-and-so from doing that ... "

As you can see, the very premise assumes a foundation that is foreign to me. It's like asking someone if they still beat their wife.

[Caleb]

I'm not familiar with "holiness", but I wonder if it is anything like "full gospel"... I visited a "full gospel" church once, figuring that "full" meant that other churches were missing something. (At that point in my life) I certainly did not want to miss out on any of the gospel! The "speaking in tongues" turned out to be just about (but not quite) the creepiest thing I've ever experienced in a Christian church! From that point forward, a fractional gospel was just fine with me!

No, the so-called "Holiness Churches" such as the Wesleyan Church, Church of the Nazarene, etc. are branches of Methodism, whereas full gospel churches are Pentecostal.  The tongues thing freaks me out too.

The Methodist Branch traces its origins back to Wesley, who taught a strong Arminian doctrine along with a concept of sanctification that asks Christians to strive for perfection.  Holiness Churches take this concept to its extreme by defining perfection according to a rather rigid code - hence the aversion to drinking etc.  I've never encountered any "gifts of the spirit" among Holiness Churches.

[aworldnervelink]

I visited a "full gospel" church once, figuring that "full" meant that other churches were missing something.

Our Gospel goes up to 11.

[MaineShark]

I wish I could say that I fail to see why it is so important to you that this issue be ignored.  But I can't fail to see the obvious...

There is no resolution to the issue, so it doesn't matter and nothing can be profited by discussing it.  The only thing the issue can do is distract from the point of this thread -- as evidenced by the fact that the thread was so distracted, moving from the topic of pacifism to the topic of homosexuality. And really, to be frank, it appears to me that the topic moved that way, not so much because you want to discuss homosexuality per se but because you want to find fault with Christianity, and you find this issue easier to attack than pacifism.  If I'm wrong ... I'm wrong.  But something tells me I'm not.

You should find out who it is that whispers in your ear that you aren?t wrong, because he?s not telling you the truth, by a long shot.

The issue of homosexuality is one of the most popular reasons that Christians give for engaging in aggressive violence.  This thread is about violence in a Christian context.

Not all people of faith are your enemy, but when you walk around with a chip on your shoulder towards a particular faith, you end up alienating those who otherwise might be your allies.  Think about that for awhile, Joe.

I don?t think all people of faith are my enemy.  I think all people of faith are irrational, but I know many spiritual people who have grounded reasons for their beliefs, not simply ?take it on faith.?

And I have no chip on my shoulder with regards to any belief system.  I do, however, have a significant problem with bigots of any stripe.  And I do not seek allies from among those who would damn to eternal torment some of my closest friends, as well as my wife.

Partially because so many Christians have done so much violence on those grounds.

Which is precisely what I'm trying to move away from.  I do not have the ability to change the past, but hopefully as Christianity moves forward it will be my version and not Pat Robertson's version that carries the day.

Ah, but ignoring the issue won?t make it go away, will it?

Your entire scenario is presented with assumptions that I do not hold.  1) I do not hold that God "built" people, as if people are something that he micromanages according to his whim.  This would be a deterministic model that I eschew  2) I do not believe that God gives people any desires, as this would conflict with the hard version of free will that I embrace  3) I do not believe that God is a "creature"  4) I do not believe that God created such a world that is devoid of free will  5) I do not believe that God imposes rules.  To the contrary, our experience is that God does not interfere with our decisions, regardless of how ill-advised they may be. Ironically, some people hate him for that, "God should have prevented so-and-so from doing that ... "

As you can see, the very premise assumes a foundation that is foreign to me. It's like asking someone if they still beat their wife.

So, you?re a Christian who doesn?t believe that God created the universe?

If an omnipotent, omniscient being acts in any manner, whatsoever, that being is fully responsible for the results of its acts.  Even if ?creation? looked more like someone setting up dominoes and tipping the first one, the fall of the last domino is directly a result of the original act.

If your God didn?t want homosexuals to exist, why not simply stack the deck to ensure they would never be produced?

This doesn?t enter into the realm of free will.  It?s biological.  It?s instinctive.  Yes, there is free will, but your God is demanding that many people use that free will to act in direct opposition to their desire to love others.  ?Love others, but only this way, even if that way is utterly wrong to you and the way that feels right to you would harm no one.?  What sense does that make?

Joe

[Caleb]

Joe, I'm not "ignoring" the issue, merely acknowledging my limitations.  I do not have the ability to resolve the issue. As long as people exist, there will be disagreements on what is moral and what is not moral.  And there isn't anything that you, I, or Jesus Christ himself can do about that.  The only thing we can do is agree never to use violence, even if we consider what we are fighting to be "evil".  That is the only solution.  Period.  I don't have another one to offer you.

As for the rest of your post, it gets into complex theological considerations that probably would only serve to distract from this thread.  I consider free will to be inviolable as part of the nature of things.  Only violence can hinder it, but it is not possible for anyone, including the Creator, to control a mind.  Minds are always free.  Could God have created a universe with a different set of variables?  Sure. But would it really be "life" if we could not but do what we do? What would be the point?  There is risk, but there is also reward.  Is God then responsible for the outcome?  No more than you are responsible for what your descendants do.

I do, however, have a significant problem with bigots of any stripe.  And I do not seek allies from among those who would damn to eternal torment some of my closest friends, as well as my wife.

Who said anything about damning anyone to eternal torment?  I just want Christians to renounce violence.  Where on earth did you get the idea that I wanted to damn people to eternal torment? Like I said, these issues are way too complex to speak about in this thread without hijacking it. But for the record, I don't believe that "hell" is a place of torment. I also believe that the only "law" (for lack of a better word) that is binding on non-Christians is the golden rule.

[Michael Fisher]

A lack of free will is not logically implied merely because God knows everything that will ever happen.

Nor is the perfect God in any way responsible for the imperfect choices of his creations to which he granted free will.

[Dreepa]

Found a good one:

Numbers
35:16. If any man strike with iron, and he die that was struck: he shall be guilty of murder, and he himself shall die.

[MaineShark]

Joe, I'm not "ignoring" the issue, merely acknowledging my limitations.  I do not have the ability to resolve the issue. As long as people exist, there will be disagreements on what is moral and what is not moral.

No, people have a good idea of what is and isn?t moral.  Psychotic apes with delusions of grandeur are another story.  To really become a person, one must be a rational being.  Else, one is acting on a conglomeration of instinct, irrational emotions, and all manner of psychoses.  There are rational moral rules that govern people.  Heck, even the psychotic apes are tolerable if they obey the same rules, regardless of whether they have the maturity to understand why those rules exist.

And there isn't anything that you, I, or Jesus Christ himself can do about that.

I can imagine a very easy solution for the third person to offer... simply come for a visit and say, ?hey, this is what I mean, and I?ll conveniently write it down myself, in every modern language, so there can be no doubts.?  And then repeat periodically, as languages change.

If this god of yours who has the audacity to assume the name ?God? as if it were more than a title really wants certain rules followed, why not deliver them personally, rather than asking people to trust silly translations based on second- or third-person recollections of what another person said the rules were, while often speaking in unclear ways?

The only thing we can do is agree never to use violence, even if we consider what we are fighting to be "evil".  That is the only solution.  Period.  I don't have another one to offer you.

As I?ve mentioned before, why not simply agree not to initiate violence?  If I agree to that, and you agree to that, and a whole planet inhabited by psychotic apes agrees to that, what does it matter if any among them disagree over what is and isn?t moral?  A communist would be free to argue that making a fair profit is evil, and I would be free to think him despicable.  But so long as he didn?t go around waving a gun in the face of a shopkeeper, and I didn?t lynch him from the nearest lightpole just for fun, what does it matter?

Repudiating initiated force is sufficient to prevent the harm that we both agree should be prevented.  Why, oh why would it be necessary to go further than that and repudiate all force?  Your argument is sufficient to support the former, but I don?t see that you?ve supported the leap to the latter...

As for the rest of your post, it gets into complex theological considerations that probably would only serve to distract from this thread.  I consider free will to be inviolable as part of the nature of things.  Only violence can hinder it, but it is not possible for anyone, including the Creator, to control a mind.  Minds are always free.  Could God have created a universe with a different set of variables?  Sure. But would it really be "life" if we could not but do what we do? What would be the point?  There is risk, but there is also reward.  Is God then responsible for the outcome?  No more than you are responsible for what your descendants do.

We aren?t ?free? to, for example, cause mass or energy to exceed the velocity c in space-time.  Why are we limited thusly?  Isn?t that a restriction on free will?

We?re not talking about a decision in a neutral framework.  This isn?t a matter of ?do I steal the loaf of bread or don?t I??  This is a loaded situation in which your all-loving creator causes certain people to specifically desire certain things, and then says, ?no, don?t do the thing that I caused you to desire.?

Why torment some members of the population?  The speed-of-light limitation is universal to all of us.  It ?just is.?  It sets a framework in which we can exercise free will, limited only by the physical realities of space-time.  Homosexuality is not universal.  It applies only to certain members of the population, and not others.  But, according to Christianity, all are expected to obey the same rule.

I do, however, have a significant problem with bigots of any stripe.  And I do not seek allies from among those who would damn to eternal torment some of my closest friends, as well as my wife.

Who said anything about damning anyone to eternal torment?  I just want Christians to renounce violence.  Where on earth did you get the idea that I wanted to damn people to eternal torment? Like I said, these issues are way too complex to speak about in this thread without hijacking it. But for the record, I don't believe that "hell" is a place of torment. I also believe that the only "law" (for lack of a better word) that is binding on non-Christians is the golden rule.

Oh, I don?t think the issue is unrelated, as I?ve said.

Let me put it to you another way: is it logical for a pacifist to be anything other than an anarchist?  No, of course not.  If someone believes in never using force, then he cannot believe that it is okay to delegate its use to the government.  Follow where I?m going...?

Joe

[Transition Force]

One could potentially practice self-defense while being a devout pacifist, if one limited his or her self-defense to forms of martial arts which center on deflecting attacks rather than inflicting harm.