Is Absolute Pacifism Dangerous

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@Curtis LeMay

Only through a hyper-literal approach and without prooftexting (ie looking into other Bible passage) that passage.

Other Bible passages are irrelevant to what Jesus said. Jesus said what he said. The things that other people said other places in the Bible do not change or inform the quotes attributed to Jesus.

I think He means in personal matters we must not react violently but when lives of others are at stake I think its a bit different.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@silenus

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Just shows that some things never change.

Heh. They were also seen as “unpatriotic” because they wouldn’t recognize or patronize the state temples. Supporting the state temples was seen more as a patriotic/nationalistic duty than a religious one and refusing to recognize them or drop a coin in the donation boxes was perceived as roughly equivalent to how modern day Americans view refusals to honor the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance. The early Christians were basically the dirty, liberal hippies of their time

Except they did not commit fornication.

[SeldomSeen]

For an instructive look at how a pacifist approach can work in the real world, one could look to the Quakers, a well-known “pacifist” sect. Years ago I was giving serious thought to joining the Quaker church, and as I had the feeling I would not make a very good pacifist, I questioned them hard on this point. (I ultimately decided against joining the church, but came away with more understanding and a great deal of respect for the Quaker faith). Here’s how the matter of pacifism was explained to me:

Quakers teach pacifism & nonviolence as a worthy ideal, but fully understand that the ideal cannot always be practiced in an imperfect world. Simply put, they think peace is preferable to war, and nonviolent problem resolution is better than fighting. Most will admit that if they, their families, or friends are under direct attack they will meet force with force if there are no other options. Many Quakers have felt led to take up arms in defense of their country, and since, in that faith personal convictions always trump church doctrine, this is generally accepted. (In fact, that church specifically does not have a stated doctrine, only articles of faith which take the form of ideals or recomendations).

Since the Quaker faith has a stated “peace testimony”, it provides members who are strongly pacifist a means to legitimate conciencious objector status, or to avoid conscription as a matter of conscience. This always struck me as a very sensible approach. Anyone in their right mind prefers peace to war, nonviolence to violence but knows that in a violent world, sometimes force is unavoidable.
SS

[Czarcasm]

@Curtis LeMay

@appleciders

And, you know, Jesus.

Only through a hyper-literal approach and without prooftexting (ie looking into other Bible passage) that passage.

So following Jesus instead of following his handlers is “hyper-literal”? You learn something new every day, I guess.

I am a pacifist.
I am also(apparently) immoral, miserable, wrong, and a silly freeloader. I allow, encourage and reinforce evil. I have been compared to Tolstoy. I am a hypocrite.
When you add in the fact that I am an atheist, its a wonder I’m allowed to walk freely. Do you spit on someone like me when we walk by, or do you just avert your eyes?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Curtis LeMay

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Other Bible passages are irrelevant to what Jesus said. Jesus said what he said. The things that other people said other places in the Bible do not change or inform the quotes attributed to Jesus.

I think He means in personal matters we must not react violently but when lives of others are at stake I think its a bit different.

He never said that. In fact, he forbid his disciples from using violence to defend him.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Heh. They were also seen as “unpatriotic” because they wouldn’t recognize or patronize the state temples. Supporting the state temples was seen more as a patriotic/nationalistic duty than a religious one and refusing to recognize them or drop a coin in the donation boxes was perceived as roughly equivalent to how modern day Americans view refusals to honor the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance. The early Christians were basically the dirty, liberal hippies of their time

Except they did not commit fornication.

I suspect they fornicated just as much then as they do now. Preaching blue-nosed, sexual puritanism has seldom made a group more popular anyway (especially since such preaching has always been so frequently hypocritical).

[MrDibble]

@silenus

Pacifists can only exist where warriors exist to save their miserable asses.

Huh. Funny, I was a pacifist even when all the force was on the other side. No “warriors” came to save us from our own police.

And no, there’s nothing immoral about pacifism. Complete passivity in the face of oppression, you could maybe make a case for, but mere nonviolent resistance? Never.

[gonzomax]

Our warriors don’t prevent wars, they cause them. If all armies were disbanded, we would all be better off. Fighting is a base instinct. I would hope we can learn to control it. But, there is too much money in it.
C.O.s are the real brave people. Those who don’t believe in a war, like Afghanistan, yet still go are the cowards. Like in Vietnam…Hell no i wont go. If enough refuse to fight wars for profits, hopefully they would end.
We hold our generals in way too much esteem. They don’t have to go on TV and say they are for a war. They always are. Until they retire, then sometimes they tell the truth. But most retired generals are working for the military providers. They pretend top give an intelligent and fair analysis while being paid big bucks by the war profiteers.

[Gustav]

Absolute anything is always dangerous and irresponsible. I mean what if terrorists threaten to blow up the entire world if you don’t compromise your ideals, what then?

[SteveG1]

@MrDibble

And no, there’s nothing immoral about pacifism. Complete passivity in the face of oppression, you could maybe make a case for, but mere nonviolent resistance? Never.

I was talking about complete and “absolute” pacifism or passivity, as in the refusal to take any action even when it is necessary and the only choice. I believe that’s what the OP was talking about and that’s what I was talking about - the total and complete passive acceptance of whatever.
You can reason and talk with many, maybe most people. There will always be those few who you either can not reason with at all, or you can only reason with some sort of implied threat.

[Oakminster]

@SteveG1

@Bryan_Ekers

Nonviolently, I’d assume. Maybe trick him into jumping into a glue vat or something. Tell him there’s a tied-up virgin in it.

Candygram for Mongo!

Mongo only pawn in game of life.

[gonzomax]

You guys would be perfectly safe from a pacifist. The pacifist, not so much. We know who would get hurt. Pacifism does not threaten you and you should welcome it.

[MrDibble]

@SteveG1

@MrDibble

And no, there’s nothing immoral about pacifism. Complete passivity in the face of oppression, you could maybe make a case for, but mere nonviolent resistance? Never.

I was talking about complete and “absolute” pacifism or passivity, as in the refusal to take any action even when it is necessary and the only choice.

So, a strawman, then.

I believe that’s what the OP was talking aboutand that’s what I was talking about - the total and complete passive acceptance of whatever.

The OP only mentions nonviolence, not inaction of any kind.

You can reason and talk with many, maybe most people. There will always be those few who you either can not reason with at all, or you can only reason with some sort of implied threat.

But there are many, many threats besides violence. There’s shame, there’s withholding of resources or labour. Pacifists aren’t passive. The two words aren’t really related at all.

[SteveG1]

OK then, define “absolute pacifism” so we are on the same playing field.

[Mapache]

No one has so far mentioned the Amish, who have managed to survive for quite a while as absolute pacifists. One of the key phrases on this website (http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/amish/amishfaq.htm#pacif): "If the result is death at the hands of the attacker, so be it; death is not threatening to us as Christians. Hopefully the attacker will have at least had a glimpse of the love of Christ in our nonviolent response. "

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@Curtis LeMay

I think He means in personal matters we must not react violently but when lives of others are at stake I think its a bit different.

He never said that. In fact, he forbid his disciples from using violence to defend him.

.

That’s because His God and at any rate resistance was futile and would just result in their punishment and deaths.

[Guinastasia]

@Curtis LeMay

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Heh. They were also seen as “unpatriotic” because they wouldn’t recognize or patronize the state temples. Supporting the state temples was seen more as a patriotic/nationalistic duty than a religious one and refusing to recognize them or drop a coin in the donation boxes was perceived as roughly equivalent to how modern day Americans view refusals to honor the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance. The early Christians were basically the dirty, liberal hippies of their time

Except they did not commit fornication.

People still use words like “fornication?” :dubious:

[Bryan_Ekers]

@gonzomax

You guys would be perfectly safe from a pacifist. The pacifist, not so much. We know who would get hurt. Pacifism does not threaten you and you should welcome it.

Why should we welcome it? Can’t we just passively ignore it?

[Dissonance]

@Curtis LeMay

Is absolute pacifism, that is not offering violence even for self-defence or even when many people are threatened immoral?

@silenus

Pacifists can only exist where warriors exist to save their miserable asses.

@Paul_in_Qatar

Pacifists are silly freeloaders.

Really? Immoral, freeloading and dependant upon warriors to save their miserable asses? I’ll assume you’re confusing pacifism with cowardice; the two have nothing to do with each other. To quote John Keegan, bolding mine

May we guess that Christ was conceding the moral position of the lawful bearer of arms, who must surrender his life at the demand of authority, and therefore bears comparison with the pacifist who will surrender his life rather than violate the authority of his own creed? It is a complicated thought, but not one which Western culture finds difficult to accommodate. Within it the professional soldier and the committed pacifist find room to co-exist – sometimes cheek-by-jowl: in 3 Commando, one of Britain’s toughest Second World War units, the stretcher-bearers were all pacifists but were held by the commanding officer in the highest regard for their bravery and readiness for self-sacrifice. Western culture would, indeed, not be what it is unless it could respect both the lawful bearer of arms and the person who holds the bearing of arms intrinsically unlawful. Our culture looks for compromises and the compromise at which it has arrived over the issue of public violence is to deprecate its manifestation but to legitimise its use. Pacifism has been elevated as an ideal; the lawful bearing of arms – under a strict code of military justice and within a corpus of humanitarian law – has been accepted as a practical necessity.

From the citation of Lance Corporal H E Harden VC RAMC for the Victoria Cross, the UK’s highest decoration for valour in the face of the enemy:

“In North-West Europe on 22 nd January 1945 the leading section of a Royal Marine Commando Troop was pinned to the ground by intense enemy machine gun fire from well concealed positions. As it was impossible to engage the enemy from the open owing to lack of cover, the section was ordered to make for some nearby houses. This move was accomplished, but one officer and three other ranks casualties were left lying in the open. The whole troop position was under continuous heavy and accurate shell and mortar fire. LCpl Harden the RAMC orderly attached to the troop, at once went forward a distance of 120 yards in the open under a hail of enemy machine-gun and rifle fire directed from four positions, all within 300 yards, and, with the greatest coolness and bravery remained in the open while he attended to the four casualties. After dressing the wounds of three of them, he carried one of them back to cover. LCpl Harden was then ordered not to go forward again and an attempt was made to bring in the other casualties with the aid of tanks, but this proved unsuccessful owing to the heavy and accurate fire of enemy anti-tank guns. A further attempt was then made to recover the casualties under a smoke screen, but this only increased enemy fire in the vicinity of the casualties. LCpl Harden then insisted on going forward with a volunteer stretcher party and succeeded in bringing back another badly wounded man. LCpl Harden went out a third time, again with a stretcher party, and after starting on the return journey with the wounded officer, under heavy enemy small-arms fire, he was killed. Throughout this long period LCpl Harden displayed superb devotion to duty and personal courage of the very highest order, and there is no doubt that it had the most steadying effect upon the other troops in the area at a most critical time. His action was directly responsible for saving the lives of the wounded brought in. His complete contempt for all personal danger, and the magnificent example he set of cool courage and determination to continue with his work, whatever the odds, was an inspiration to his comrades, and will never be forgotten by those who saw it.”

Freeloaders relying upon warriors to save their miserable asses indeed.

[MrDibble]

@SteveG1

OK then, define “absolute pacifism” so we are on the same playing field.

Pacifism (to me) is the belief that violence which causes or could cause death should never be used on other human beings. **Absolute **pacifism allows no exceptions for self defence or “just” war (as opposes to contingent pacifism).

I am an advocate of absolute pacifism. I’m also an advocate of universal pacifism (I believe it’s best for everyone) and active nonviolence(I believe that pacifists achieve more when they are organized - into an anti-army, if you will, that uses the resources currently wasted by the military to achieve social goals nonviolently)

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

@Shodan

Yes, there is - cite, cite, cite.

Regards,
Shodan

Fail, fail and fail. overturning tables is not anywhere near the same as beating someone up.

I don’t know why I bother with cites - you people don’t read.

Oh well. You can lead a horse to water…

Regards,
Shodan

[Gyrate]

@Shodan

@Czarcasm

Fail, fail and fail. overturning tables is not anywhere near the same as beating someone up.

I don’t know why I bother with cites - you people don’t read.

Oh well. You can lead a horse to water…

Regards,
Shodan

I read it and anticipated that people would cite that verse, which is why I said that there’s a difference between being pacific and being passive. Jesus overturns the tables and drives out the sheep and cattle; none of your cites say “And Jesus pummelled the moneylenders into insensible pulps and dropkicked them out of the temple” unless you meant to cite the Gospel According to Chuck Norris.

It’s even debatable whether he cursed the fig tree or merely observed that it would never bear fruit again.