I would like to know how everybody out there views pasifism. Me myself, I'm a pasifist and I have come across much opposition from people. Now I base my pasifism on Biblical standards. Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers for they shall recieve the kingdom of heaven. Also everybody talks of unity, unbias, and peace but they don't mind armies and going to war. Let me hear you opinions on this please.
The idea of pasifism is not so cut and dry as to say whether or not you believe in it. To say that all people should be pasifists is illogical, as is saying that noone should be. As sad as it may be we live in a world which is constantly under the influence of ill intentioned souls, and sometimes the only way to overturn these ills is through the utilization of war (see the rise and eventual fall of Hitlar). Therefor we can view war as an act which sometimes becomes a neccisary evil. On the other hand, if there were no pasifists the arguement could be made that nothing would ever get accomplished. So in the end all that can be done is to strive for peace and use war only as a way to accomplish that(as twisted as it may seem).
Posts: 32 | Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA | Registered: 07-26-01
I believe that philosocial03 is correct. Pacifism is probably the best interpretation of Jesus' social and political ethic.
The view that war is sometimes a necessary evil is no part of the Christian world view (although secularists must hold to it). For Christians, the problem is simple. Which god is stronger: Jesus or Mars? Which way should we hold to when people disagree: Might makes right or redemptive dialoge and peacemaking?
As to the secularists, it would seem that they have no choice but to accept war as a necessary phenomenon. From a secular point of view, opposing Hitler with a turned cheek won't work (witness Chamberlain's "peace in our time" negotiations with Hitler over the Sudetenland). Unfortunately, says this point of view, we just have to oil up the guns and march off to war, as much as it sickens us.
In short, it makes no sense from a biblical perspective to kill other human beings when we have the sovereign God of heaven and earth backing us. Things like prayer, dialogue, courageous mercy and love are the way to be human. But from a secular perspective, killing other humans is a rational response when faced with someone with whom you cannot negotiate. After all, there is no god to rely upon (or at least, the gods of this world are stronger than any 'otherworldly' god). So whether you agree or disagree with pacifism (by the way, we've yet to see a definition of this, being content with our own notions) will depend on your operational assumptions. Is there a god? If there is, has he/she/it spoken? If so, what did he/she/it say? And What does that have to do with me?
Interesting point. I gather from your response (I apologize in advance if I am wrong) that you favor the god of Jesus and the pacifist view, over secular considerations. I applaud that stance, and grant you every right to hold that view.
Question, though - with regard to the very real consideration of secularists when faced with an evil that cannot be negotiated with. If you were to find your immediate family in a situation where their lives were threatened were you to remain true to your pacifists beliefs, would you? In other words, would you turn the other cheek, secure in the knowledge that your wife/children/parents would end up "in a better place" (so to speak), because your pacifism and inaction led to their deaths, but their faith in your god will hold their place in heaven.
Or does the pacifist view end when self-preservation comes into play? (Would you fight and possibly kill to save your loved ones?) And if so, wouldn't it be proper to continue that self-preservation ideal (to the detriment of a pacifist/turn-the-other cheek mentality), into military situations when one's country is in danger?
Please understand I am NOT trying to negate or demean your views. Just throwing a monkey-wrench into the mix, and raising another question.
I agree with philosocial03, pacifism is what is stated in many parts of the Bible. I'm Quaker and pacifism is never something I have questioned because Ive become accustomed to it. One thing I would like to point out however is that pacifist groups have throughout history found other ways to stand up for themselves (ex-instead of fighting in the civil war many were part of the underground railroad and active abolitionists) Pacifism in my mind states that there are better ways to settle disagreements then through war.
~daydream
"There wouldnt be a sky filled with stars if we were all meant to wish upon the same one"
Posts: 281 | Location: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: 05-01-01
The possibility of serious violence to close family members and my nation certainly do make pacifism hard to maintain. But for the life of me I cannot imagine a scenario where I am literally forced to take another human life. Surely there are other options, even if I cannot come up with one sitting here in my ivory tower.
I want to tell you about my motivation for being a pacifist, but I run the risk of sounding preachy because my motivation is scriptural. I will therefore do my best to point out to you those passages which form the basis for my conviction without getting all preachy 'n stuff...
In order to rationalize being a pacifist, you need to know you have options. As a Christian, I can lay claim to this promise:
"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." 1 Corinthians 10:13
The bottom line is that there is always a way to avoid sinning.
But I know the retort. Of course I can avoid sinning (i.e., hurting or killing the aggressor). But that may mean that the aggressor manages to kill or hurt or violate your family. Is that not too high a price to pay?
That would be a heavy price. That is why I am a pacifist in fear and trembling. My only hope is that God will furnish me a way out (as above). And if that way out entails damage to me, my family, or property, I can only hope that God will compensate both my family and me for the pain this has caused. God has promised to "wipe away all your tears". He says that there will "be no more suffering and no more pain". This means both that life will generate tears and that God will compensate for them in such a way that they appear small in comparison to the rewards the faithful receive.
And lest I be tempted to think that such a perspective is unrealistic or untried, I have two examples to draw from. The first is the apostle Paul (who wrote about 2/3 of the New Testament). He had been frequently imprisoned, flogged five times with 39 lashes each time, he was beated with sticks three times, he had been stoned (trapped against a wall and people hurled large rocks at him until he expired) and left for dead, he was shipwrecked and spent a night and a day in the open sea. In the course of his work, he had been in mortal danger from Jews, from pagans, in cities, in the country, from false Christians, and the authorities. He worked long and hard, often without sleep, food, drink, shelter, and/or clothing. And all this while being responsible for the affairs of several fledgling churches! At no time did Paul lash out at the several people responsible for these things. Instead he remarked that "our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all."
And of course there is for me the example of Jesus who did not have to endure the cross. But he is our example, for it is he who "for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (Hebrews 12:2-3)
Lastly, I will not marry a person who does not share this conviction. My wife must hold to this ethic with all her heart. She must not kill to save me nor expect me to kill to save her. She must share my hope that God (1) will provide a way of escape; and (2) if that way means that people close to us get hurt, that God will richly compensate us for the hurts we endure. Thus, should my immediate family be put in such dire circumstances, we would all share the same convictions and expectations of one another.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: pacifism makes sense only in the context of a community of persons who are faithful to God and his vision of what it is to be human. Such a community demonstrates the power of God over the local "gods" and ways of life.
David, I totally agree upon everything that you speak of. I believe that is the true nature of what pacifism is and it is by those standards of which you speak of do I call myself a pacifist. Keep the posts coming.
and hope you are never in a situation of "kill or be killed (or lose a family member)" If you do find yourself there, and are able to remain true to your pacifism, I pray (truly, without any sarcasm intended) that your faith will keep you from any suffering or guilt.
Good luck.
As a mother, even more than a wife, I can see myself willing to hurt, maim or kill, if necessary, anyone who threatens my children. It is a feeling so innate and integral to my being (and animalistic - but I've been accused of that in other threads), that to remain peaceful in the face of such a danger is as impossible to me as fighting appears to be to you.
I guess it's for the very reason that you cannot be a pacifist that I am a pacifist. You say that you 'animal' nature makes it 'impossible' for you to avoid violence in the face of aggression against you or your children. I find it impossible, too. And it is (at least partly) for that reason that I try to be a pacifist. I am trying to live a life that is truly human, and I think that my very human tendancy toward violence (which comes out in much less dire circumstances than we're talking about so far in this discussion) is something that I must resist tooth and nail (if I may borrow a violent metaphor ). Academically, it may sound like a restrictive, perhaps overly monkish way of life. But really, inasmuch as I have been successful at it, it has freed me to love people in a unique way. And it is at those times when I love people that I feel most human.
I know weeful never suggested as much, but in rereading the thread, I just wanted to let everyone know that I do not go around beating people up for real and/or perceived slights. (at least, not usually )
Most people who know me would consider me calm, even in the face of adversity, and would say I'm one of the last people they'd expect to come to blows. Then again, (luckily), I've never yet been in a situation where my children were truly in danger.
Again, I applaud, respect and even understand your position. I also wanted to thank you for the thoughtful manner in which you've responded to my comments - you have set an example for many people on this site as to HOW to properly discuss differences of opinion.
I personally feel that pacifism though a very good thing in concept, can cause even more violence than non-pacifism. In most of our everyday problems, pacifism is the way to go. However, on a global standard, we have a certain obligation to stand up to those who are using violence as a way of life. If everyone had stepped down to Hitler b/c violece is wrong, it would be a completely differnt world that we live in. But as the quote says, "all that is neccisary for evil to prevail, is that enough good men do nothing" Although we don't morally feel that violence is the way, in some cases it is needed. Its not always a question of your personal morals, but your sence of duty to fellow humans who need your help.
Thank you for your candor. Yes, it is at moments such as the holocaust that pacifism may appear to some as not just illogical but immoral. After all, should we just stand by and let Hitler roll over millions of Jews, Roman Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals and political subversives (such as noncombatant protestants)? To do that would be worse than what the Nazis were doing!
Exactly right, which is why we might want to make one more clarification (or perhaps repeat it). Pacifism is not the way of letting tyrants do as they will. Resistance is always an option in the face of evil. But again, the options run out at killing.
Avowed pacifists (e.g., Mennonites and many Lutherans) did many things to resist hitler. They ran the underground railway, hiding and smuggling Jews and other Nazi targets including homosexuals (Yes, this may surprise you, but Christians, YES, CHRISTIANS, helped save the lives of many homosexuals by ferreting them away in various places, smuggling them out of Germany, and providing for their needs). They ran counter propaganda campaigns; they provided means of escape for those who wanted to leave the Nazi party. They did many other things besides.
Bottom line for the pacifist is that human life (including Hitler's) is in some sense sacred. It is not open to us to take the life of a person, regardless of the heinous things he or she has done.
But I feel the tension you express, Easygirrl. I don't recommend pacifism because it is easy. I recommend it to you because in my experience it is the most human way to live. Not to get all preachy, but there is a passage in the Old Testament which speaks to my heart whenever I read it:
He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
Pacifism is the attempt to embody this. The tension between justice, mercy, and humility before God is not easy. It takes serious faith and pleasure in God to make it work.
). Academically, it may sound like a restrictive, perhaps overly monkish way of life. But really, inasmuch as I have been successful at it, it has freed me to love people in a unique way. And it is at those times when I love people that I feel most human.
)