A popular unquestionable assumption?

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

1. For a country, say the USA, what would have been a more “loving” action: dropping the atom/hydrogen bombs which killed many, but effectively ended the war – OR – not dropping those bombs, sparing those thousands, but in effect dooming the war to an eventual end the conventional way with the loss of millions. It’s a horrible calculus, but even inaction has predictable consequences; consequences which the one choosing inaction simply must own.

You’re presuming in this instance, that America had full and reliable knowledge about the scenario and how it would inevitably unfold. If a military planner makes a strategy from hypothetical circumstances (informed or not), he makes untested and unverifiable assumptions about the enemy’s psychology and power. We might not see this in our Hollywood understanding of war, but that’s just how it is (Yoder, 1992). War is not so predictably mechanical. I grant that a military think-tank does have some (or much) intel, but I don’t think this makes war justifiable. As it were, the Nazi Germany war-economy, by this time, had become largely impoverished and morale was certainly weak, even at the top of the power pyramid. Was it foreseeably guaranteed to stop the war? Was it right to stop one holocaust, with another? And to shed that blood personally and directly?

We just cannot forget that Nazi Germany’s ability to go to war, was largely dependent on her people, just as much as America or anyone else. Grossly manipulated or not, it is the people (generally the uneducated and impoverished classes), who have to actually fight them. Everyone complies because there is a peculiar consensus that it is morally noble to shed blood for something greater. As for myself, I don’t want a part of that ungodly war machine and I choose to serve as priest and prophet for the Kingdom of God.

2. If an intruder enters my home with intent to harm my family…

There are a few thing to say about this, but I’m waiting on an invitation by stuartd to participate in his similar dilemma. I’m not sure whether it’s the same engineered question he spoke of previously. (Stuartd? Would you like me to respond to this?) Many of your concerns would probably be addressed there. If I’m not invited, I will respond to your scenario here.

3. Christ’s refusal to save Himself on the Cross with violence is rightly admired. But don’t we find it unimaginable that Christ would have stood by and watched a similar thing be done to, say, a child? Doesn’t it seem obvious that love demands protection of the innocent – even if with violence? To refuse to employ violence to save the innocent is to allow and enable the very thing I say I abhor!

The beauty of this example is that it largely answers your own question. You and I, as children of wrath, were going to be on that cross. Christ didn’t just stand by and watch. He actively offered up his life for us. But it also gets a lot richer than that: He did this while we (these children) actually participated in the violence. So I agree that not saving those you can save is abhorrent. But I prefer to follow Christ’s example in doing so by offering up my life.

…of course I should first seek to exhaust every creative alternative I am capable of imagining.

Then after every natural, creative alternative, both reactive and proactive, has been exhausted, we rely on supernatural providence. (I don’t think this is generally done by those who remain adamant that violence is justified as the option). Finally, we freely give up our life. There is nothing else God can expect us to do.

[size=110]The point of nonviolence is to build a floor, a strong new floor, beneath which we can no longer sink. A platform which stands a few feet above napalm, torture, exploitation, poison gas, A and H bombs, the works. Give man a decent place to stand. He’s been wallowing around in human blood and vomit and burnt flesh, screaming how it’s going to bring peace to the world. He sticks his head out of the hole for a minute and sees an odd bunch of people gathering material and attempting to build a structure above ground in the fresh air. ‘Nice idea but not very practical’, he shouts and slides back into the hole.[/size]

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

…I’ve had both non -u.rers and universalists throw scathing levels of anger towards me . one universalist recently told me [in effect] that [wait for it ‘‘I’m going to hell for daring to oppose pacifism’’…

Well, I find this rather inconsistent with the tenets of pacifism (or Christianity generally). But that said, pacifists are sinners. We have emotions too, we only intend to keep them subordinate to a radically universal love.

‘‘brother you can call it whatever you like…’’ the fact is pacifists point blank refuse to use the word that fit’s the picture with far more clarity than [in my words’s] the emotive deliberately used word ‘‘violence’’ , might I suggest that the police force and armed forces are called that for a very good reason !

I think the terms “the Police Violence” or “the Armed Violence” might just rock our political sensibilities a little too much… I’ll pick up the terminology problem below.

… pacifism contradicts u.r. I believe my simplistic example is wholly valid, those destined for the lake of fire won’t be eager to leap in they with have to be forced. and said punishment is forced ergo if you are to be consistent regarding pacifism you must reject u.r …

I politely disagree. As I said earlier, force in its broadest sense is not rejected by pacifists. Pacifists only reject force that is destructive, a force that is (destructively) coerced, a force that is violent. We accept force that is creative, a force that is compelling, a force that is redemptive. So if God does employ force for redemptive purposes, (as UR argues) and not for destructive purposes (as ECT and Annihilationism argues), than this certainly does not disprove pacifism – it argues in favour of it. If God does want to engulf men in consuming love, there would be no real objection by pacifists.

… without going into to much detail [as I’m low on time] your response on the issue of force and your argument of force is either good or evil, I find to be faulty as force itself isn’t of necessity either good or evil-it’s just a thing [force]

That’s precisely what I was said. The term force is ambiguous. I did not say it is either good or evil. I said it is neither good nor evil. It is just an exertion and can be used for destruction or for creation. As I have written twice before:

… force is simply exerted energy, and says nothing of its goodness … The force … used is neither good nor bad by virtue of its very essence. Force can then be bad, or it can be good.

It then follows that this term cannot be used interchangeably with the term violence, because violence is:

… [never] intrinsically good, because it is always

destructive by every definition. It is always a bad force. If it ceases to be destructive, it ceases to be violence.
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

… as for informing you of the said scholars … forgive me I’m still contemplating this

No worries. In the meantime I’ll retain my view that the early church was clearly pacifist as evidenced by their written testimonies.
[/quote]

[stuartd]

forgive me for the complete lack of time I sometimes have where I can devote to jumping on the Internet and posting and responding [there are other post’s here I would like to respond to also but I simply don’t have the time right now]
as for my reluctance [forgive me for this also] but as I intimated , it is based on a long history of sad interaction with ‘‘Christianity’’ , you see my questioning of yourself [being open] stems from not only that history but the self apparent notion that Christians largely don’t want to listen they just want to argue ! the evidence I get from you is your launching into an almost point by point ‘‘refutation’’ against me, this naturally leads me to the conclusion that you aren’t to dissimilar in that regard
you can continue to believe the early Christians were pacifists but as I stated one of the scholars who has written on this very issue who is a pacifist from a pacifist tradition has stated emphatically ‘‘the evidence is mixed’’ a damningly honest comment if ever there was one ! [mixed for a very good reason I believe]
might I suggest that you do as the bible suggests ‘‘seek the truth’’ and by that I take it to mean reading pretty much ‘‘everything’’ on the given topic. most Christians read one maybe two or three books on an issue [they also tend to either just read their fav. authors or those authors who seem to be saying what they already believe thus re-enforcing said beliefs] I prefer to read everything I can get my hands on both for and against a position , this would mean that you would have to read books addressing the just war theory [from a pro position] where more than one of them address this issue [early Christianity] but something tells me that you are not as ‘‘open’’ as you say you are !

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

…you see my questioning of yourself [being open] stems from not only that history but the self apparent notion that Christians largely don’t want to listen they just want to argue ! the evidence I get from you is your launching into an almost point by point ‘‘refutation’’ against me, this naturally leads me to the conclusion that you aren’t to dissimilar in that regard … you can continue to believe the early Christians were pacifists but as I stated one of the scholars who has written on this very issue who is a pacifist from a pacifist tradition has stated emphatically ‘‘the evidence is mixed’’ a damningly honest comment if ever there was one ! [mixed for a very good reason I believe]

My point by point refutation was not against you. I only wanted to clarify our terminology before we got to scriptural exegesis or history or anything else. But as I said, I am open to new scholarship and good reason on this stuff, but I just can’t take your word for it. If you’re saying that I shouldn’t adopt what are for me, the clear teachings of Yeshua as I understand the early church to have believed, then you should have a good reason to present. I’m open to this, but it has to actually be presented. You keep saying this, but I need to see it for myself. If a pacifist tradition in the early church is questionable then you need to help me. If I am shown to be thoroughly wrong, I will, with the grace of God, repent. I’ll do the hard work of reading. I just want to know what to read. So what pacifist scholar said “the evidence is mixed”? In what context? And what extent did he mean by this? There were rogue Christians who believed all sorts of interesting things (as they do now), I am concerned about the general consensus of the church and its prominent leaders and theologians, before Constantine.

… might I suggest that you do as the bible suggests ‘‘seek the truth’’ and by that I take it to mean reading pretty much ‘‘everything’’ on the given topic. most Christians read one maybe two or three books on an issue [they also tend to either just read their fav. authors or those authors who seem to be saying what they already believe thus re-enforcing said beliefs] I prefer to read everything I can get my hands on both for and against a position , this would mean that you would have to read books addressing the just war theory [from a pro position] where more than one of them address this issue [early Christianity] but something tells me that you are not as ‘‘open’’ as you say you are !

Yeah, I agree. And indeed I haven’t read everything on this subject – I’m young and am interested in more subjects than pacifism. However, I have read countless works against my position (admittedly, few in book-form) and so far they haven’t adequately addressed what I’ve found in pro-pacifist works.

Anyway brother, God bless. If you don’t want to continue, that’s okay, I wish you the best. May the God of Peace show you all Truth.

[stuartd]

my contention still stands , I detect lip service openness

try - J Daryl Charles - ma , phd Westminster theological seminary, he is associate professor of religion and ethics at union university and is director and senior fellow of the bryan institute for critical thought and practise. he served as 07/08 William E.Simon visiting fellow in religion and public life in the James Maddison program in American ideals and institutions ,Department of politics , Princeton university in his book ‘‘between pacifism and jihad’’ or the co-authored work with
Timothy J Demy [thm,thd,ma phd ] associate professor of mlitary ethics at the us naval war collage Rhode Island in
‘‘war peace and christianity’’

these are just two of the authors who survey the authors who specifically address the early Christians and pacifism you will find the answer to your question there [they aren’t the only authors who dispel this popular myth]

as for jumping in on my other post you are free to do what you want [it appears you are just inching to] in-spite of one of your earlier comments on being rather busy it seems you have plenty of time to devote to opposing me !

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

my contention still stands , I detect lip service openness

shrugs

try - J Daryl Charles - ma , phd Westminster theological seminary, he is associate professor of religion and ethics at union university and is director and senior fellow of the bryan institute for critical thought and practise. he served as 07/08 William E.Simon visiting fellow in religion and public life in the James Maddison program in American ideals and institutions ,Department of politics , Princeton university in his book ‘‘between pacifism and jihad’’ or the co-authored work with Timothy J Demy [thm,thd,ma phd ] associate professor of mlitary ethics at the us naval war collage Rhode Island in
‘‘war peace and christianity’’

I’ve been meaning to read the former book for a while. It’s on the list I think I’m familiar with the arguments used though. But thanks, I will read this – perhaps not this month, this year, but I do intend to read it!

as for jumping in on my other post you are free to do what you want [it appears you are just inching to] in-spite of one of your earlier comments on being rather busy it seems you have plenty of time to devote to opposing me !

No, I am ridiculously busy, but I make the time. Thanks, I might skip that topic though. Quite frankly you’re a tad hostile towards pacifists, so you’re probably not going to listen to anything I do present, and I think NealF has probably said most of what I would say anyway.

Godbless,
Andrew

[stuartd]

‘‘a tad hostile’’ ?

have I been rude in any way ? insulting ? , perhaps my steel has put a few dents in your iron !

as for not listening , while one of my replies may have been a tad hasty, I have none the less been listening so that charge isn’t
applicable to myself , as for being hostile perhaps I am ‘‘hostile’’ towards an idiol-olgy that puts itself first and the safety of my fellow man whom I am called to love second ! but I find that those who hold to it even if they are busy feel the need to defend it
even before other matters that should be [logically speaking] more pressing ! but now that you are backing away for whatever reason [and I suspect you have come to realise I’m no novice] leaves you with little credibility !

[Alex_Smith]

I think it would be best to leave this conversation here, as I don’t think it’s edifying.

God bless you both!
Cheers,
Alex