Sign in to follow this  
Dan52

Do You Consider Yourself To Be A Pacifist?

ARE YOU A PACIFIST?  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you consider yourself to be a pacifist?

    • I am a pacifist
    • I am not a pacifist
    • Sometime I am and sometimes I'm not a pacifist
    • Depends on the subject or situation
    • I don't know
      0


Recommended Posts

I believe in hell, I just believe it's a matter of karma rather than punishment.--YES

What I believe is just what I believe, but I try to allow my mind to be as unrestricted as possible.--YES

I think God can do anything, I just don't think God is as crude as we-YES

Nobody wins at war until it's over--YES.

The whole point of it is to stop fighting, I just dismiss the extraneous battles and victory is achieved--YES

My perspective is as Israel with the White Tārā.-- YES

I'm not a pacifist because I think violence is inherently evil,--YES

I'm a pacifist because I have seen a God that transcends it all. I merely try to align myself with that universal harmony. --YES

I'm not always successful--SADLY YES

"Call it peace or call it treason, call it love or call it reason, but I ain't marching anymore!" ~ Phil Ochs-- beautiful quote!!

God is beyond definition--ABSOLUTELY YES

Sure. I think righteous judgment was laid down at the beginning of time. Measure twice, cut once. I don't see God sitting on a throne handing out decrees for our eternal fate, our rewards and punishments are just a reflection of our own free will. With great freedom comes great responsibility. It's not personal, it's just dharma. And we're all in it together. God doesn't punish us if we jump off a cliff or threaten us with suffering if we disobey, but in love teaches us that it will hurt if we fall. If I'm going to hell, it's through my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault... ;)--YES< YES< YES

Thanks to you Kingfisher--! :cupidarrow: very well said with great spirit and soul. Your words express my heart as well, I cannot add anything more to your wisdom.

blessings and peace,

S

Edited by sarkany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been a man of active violence. When I served in the military it was as a communications specialist. Though I rant and rave about fools and their events, it is just words. At the same time, if I have any possible input to the event, I will not allow violence to be done to myself or my family and will become as violent as necessary to accomplish that end. I guess then, I am not a pacifist by my definition of what a pacifist should be. I envy Gandhi and King for the peace that must have filled them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a pacifist. I am Active Military and previously a cop two occupations that are rarely compatible with that stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a story about a Bodhisattva once, but have never been able to find it again. It goes something like this.

The Bodhisattva (or Buddha) was traveling through the forest where he was attacked by a bandit. The bandit asked him for all his money. The Buddha said he did not have any money, all he had was his robe and his begging bowl. The bandit demands his begging bowl. The Buddha replies that he needs his begging bowl to live and hands the bandit his robe. The bandit takes the robe but demands what else do you have. The Buddha replies that all he has is his begging bowl. The bandit demands his begging bowl again and moves to take it, at which point the Buddha takes pity on him and quickly swings the begging bowl in his hand, striking the bandits head with such force that he is instantly enlightened and sent to Nirvana.

My take on this is that negative reinforcement is enlightening, and should not be withheld because of misguided squeamishness. In other words tough love is sometimes the better love. Sometimes violence is the better path to peace and happiness, while passivity only prolongs suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your dilemma, but I highly doubt that murderers, rapists, and pedophiles will be basking in heavenly glory while righteous people roast in hell. While there is mercy for the truly repentant, its important to remember that Jesus also said that those who loved him would also keep his commandments. So our good deeds and actions aren't meaningless, but a demonstration of our faith. I think God will rightly judge the hypocrites who profess Christ with their lips, but who's hearts are far from him.

I just come from an orthpraxic viewpoint rather than an orthodoxic one. Thank you for understanding my dilemma. I admire your faith even if I do not share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, Dan, you need to define your concept of pacifism. To me, it means non-participation in war or conflict but not non-involvement. A person who refuses to bear arms in war can/will serve by being a medic, truck driver or supply person. Being a pacifist, to me, does not mean you dont care, it is more that you prefer peaceful means above violence and, I am sure, there are active as well as passive pacifists. A person who uses violence or supports war as a means to an end is the more uncaring, for they have little regard for human life, IMO.

Yes, the basic definition of pacifism really just pertains to war, but aspects of pacifism seem to carry-over into other area's of a persons life where nonviolence is prevalent throughout, such as personal conduct, religious persuasion, crime & punishment, etc. Imo, a conscientious objector is a pacifist, most were drafted and are non-interventionist, non-resistant, or anti-militarist. While there are degrees of pacifism, I personally think that a person who claims to care but refuses to act, is the walking definition of a pacifist. I'd disagree that a person who resorts to violence would have little regard for human life. In fact, they often use violence because they are trying to prevent abuse and seek to preserve life. The Founding Fathers did 'care' about human life, they didn't engage in the Revolutionary War for the joy of violence. But of course, I guess there are examples of the opposite too.

Thank you for understanding my dilemma.

Dilemma was a bad choice of word on my part, I should have said, "I understand your point of view" :)

Edited by Dan52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a murderer is eradicated, he doesn't murder anymore. Self-defense does not make you another murderous ape, it protects the innocent.

Evil isn't a condition of the soul, it's an action of the soul. You expect me to take a life to save another. I tell you I am not God, I don't judge who is worthy. My goal is to eradicate the sins without eradicating the sinners. Evil can only flourish if we hold it in our hearts. I still have claws, I'll react to save my life if you push me hard enough, but I hate losing that control and I'll be scrambling for alternatives until the last moment. It's not self-defense if I have to hunt them down. 9/11 wasn't self-defense either. I'm not ashamed of my nature, I just believe it's a temporary condition and know I can do better than operating on raw instinct. Violence is the refuge of those who cannot find a better solution. Refraining doesn't mean I just stand back and watch people die. Killing Osama wasn't the greater good, it was just another evil. He used to be our friend. I would have treated him with the same compassion I gave my dog after surgery. She was hurt and scared and biting, but I didn't have to put a bullet in her head. Primum non nocere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evil isn't a condition of the soul, it's an action of the soul. You expect me to take a life to save another. I tell you I am not God, I don't judge who is worthy. My goal is to eradicate the sins without eradicating the sinners. Evil can only flourish if we hold it in our hearts. I still have claws, I'll react to save my life if you push me hard enough, but I hate losing that control and I'll be scrambling for alternatives until the last moment. It's not self-defense if I have to hunt them down. 9/11 wasn't self-defense either. I'm not ashamed of my nature, I just believe it's a temporary condition and know I can do better than operating on raw instinct. Violence is the refuge of those who cannot find a better solution. Refraining doesn't mean I just stand back and watch people die. Killing Osama wasn't the greater good, it was just another evil. He used to be our friend. I would have treated him with the same compassion I gave my dog after surgery. She was hurt and scared and biting, but I didn't have to put a bullet in her head. Primum non nocere.

Would that all our enemies be dogs, easily calmed by a gentle hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I believe that hell is the symbolic fire where souls are purified until they have paid the price for their sins and are welcomed into god's banquet hall

Edited by Rev'd Rattlesnake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have claws, I'll react to save my life if you push me hard enough

Then I don't think your a pacifist? Unfortunately, we live in a world where violence is often the only recourse in resolving certain situations. Some folks would rather die than fight, but I think when push comes to shove, most of us would man-up and do what's necessary to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once commented that most members of ULC were pacifist. This was just my impression derived from most of the post I've read. My opinion was based on a general opposition to war or violence as a means of addressing problems that can't be arbitrarily resolved any other way. I also noticed that pacifism permeates into a persons religious persuasion, as most members are swayed into beliefs that reject the idea of punishment or hell.. While the idea of a nonviolent God may seem appealing, do you restrict your belief (if any) to a deity that does not resort to violence or punishment as a means of settling anything? Is God a pacifist? Is it possible for a pacifistic God to render righteous judgment?

Peace has never existed anywhere in human history, nor anywhere in nature. To be a pacifist, one must also be an idealist and utopianist and distance themselves from narture....they must embrace fabrications distant from nature. While I applaud the intentions of the pacifist, I must also caution their naivete of the realities of the world. Our enemies in the world, here and abroad, LOVE the fact that American's are increasingly and dangerously emotionally tied to this weak, unnatural, self-destructive pacifist notion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evil isn't a condition of the soul, it's an action of the soul. You expect me to take a life to save another. I tell you I am not God, I don't judge who is worthy. My goal is to eradicate the sins without eradicating the sinners. Evil can only flourish if we hold it in our hearts. I still have claws, I'll react to save my life if you push me hard enough, but I hate losing that control and I'll be scrambling for alternatives until the last moment. It's not self-defense if I have to hunt them down. 9/11 wasn't self-defense either. I'm not ashamed of my nature, I just believe it's a temporary condition and know I can do better than operating on raw instinct. Violence is the refuge of those who cannot find a better solution. Refraining doesn't mean I just stand back and watch people die. Killing Osama wasn't the greater good, it was just another evil. He used to be our friend. I would have treated him with the same compassion I gave my dog after surgery. She was hurt and scared and biting, but I didn't have to put a bullet in her head. Primum non nocere.

Yes! :thumbu:

Being a pacifist to me dosn`t mean I would allow my family to be slaughtered, but I would try every possible way to come to an other solution--to me it seems we do not try at all, especially when we think we have the upper hand. I suppose it sounds very naive to be wanting peace, but life is far too short for anything else!

Is it worth for any one`s child to lose their life in Iraq. What is the reason? It is easy to send someone else`s child--but I do wonder those that do the sending , out of those--how many of their children have seen battle or have died. It is easy when it is not your child--pain is pain whether you are an American mother, Iraqi or an Afghan. It is all senseless especially when one is not defending anything but attacking often simply for political reason.

I know many here don`t agree with me, but is any life worth losing??

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. Mahatma Gandhi

peace,

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace has never existed anywhere in human history, nor anywhere in nature. To be a pacifist, one must also be an idealist and utopianist and distance themselves from narture....they must embrace fabrications distant from nature. While I applaud the intentions of the pacifist, I must also caution their naivete of the realities of the world. Our enemies in the world, here and abroad, LOVE the fact that American's are increasingly and dangerously emotionally tied to this weak, unnatural, self-destructive pacifist notion.

Exactly correct.... Pacifism is a trait that your enemies pray that you possess. I think pacifism encourages violence, bullies are more aggressive when they know you'll head for the hills at the first sign of trouble. Enemies always attack weakness.

I know many here don`t agree with me, but is any life worth losing??

For the right cause, yes.... I personally did not agree with the Iraqi war either, but that doesn't make me a pacifist. Everyone should selectively choose what battles are worth fighting and which aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we accept there may be just causes for war, it does not mean there is any just cause for starting a war. It also does not mean that all ways of waging war may be justified.

I am not a total pacifist, as I would defend myself, and others too, against direct physical attack if I was able - but not by all and any means.

If my country was invaded and occupied I would resist.

I oppose the wars of aggression which my country has been involved in, but blame the politicians who made the decisions, not the serving men and women who fought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a pacifist. I know in my heart that violence is always wrong, and I have made a commitment to do what is right. There is simply no way around that. While I can admit as a matter of intellectual honesty that I may be wrong, I believe what I believe. I understand the desire to be pragmatic. I understand the desire to see two wrongs equal a right. I even understand the desire to do something when you don't know of a right way to solve a difficult problem. But I know in my heart that violence is wrong, and I have made a commitment to do what is right. So I am a pacifist.

Edited by gravy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think pacifism encourages violence, bullies are more aggressive when they know you'll head for the hills at the first sign of trouble. Enemies always attack weakness.
It takes more strength to take a punch than to deliver one. You confuse pacifism with cowardice. They are not the same thing. Many a coward has been violent and many a pacifist has placed his life on the line for what he believes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You confuse pacifism with cowardice.

The same thing in my book... Most pacifist will stand for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I don't think your a pacifist? Unfortunately, we live in a world where violence is often the only recourse in resolving certain situations. Some folks would rather die than fight, but I think when push comes to shove, most of us would man-up and do what's necessary to survive.

I don't consider things of this world to be part of me. I live in a higher realm... I'm only visiting here. I don't think violence is evil. How we use it defines the morality, and that's entirely subjective. I don't condemn those who killed bin Laden, nor do I condemn him. For me there is only sadness that this has come to pass, and I'm glad I wasn't a part of it. The issue at hand is that I don't see only two options. Both of those you provide result in suffering. I would love, rather than fight or die. I don't follow the RCC anymore, but that's still my greatest commandment. Telling you I will fight is not a statement of identification, it's a confession. Forgive me, brother. Sometimes I know not what I do.

If the fighting is ever to stop someone has to have the courage to lay down their arms. This is not foolish idealism, I have practiced this in the reality of "the 'hood" for decades. I have carried the light into jungles across America, and I am still here. La vida loca is not the only way. The outcome isn't up to me alone, yet I take those risks because death has no power to sway me. A claim of cowardice is just a manipulative appeal to ego that attempts to subordinate the threat of violence to the threat of social discrimination and even greater violence. At first the accusation is "coward" (crime against self)... then it becomes "traitor" (crime against society) and "heretic" (crime against God) as they build into a lethal fury. I'm not afraid, I'm just smarter and kinder than that. I will not surrender to that position. I will not torture my friends in order to encourage them to kill my enemies. Even if I am crucified for it.

There's no escaping the fact that I'm an ape-man, but that's only a temporary condition. We can argue semantics and philosophize about nature and spirit and what I am, all I can say is that while I am bound by the flesh my job is to minimize the 'ape' and maximize the 'man'. I can't tell you or anyone else where to draw that line, all I can do is show you the path I have taken. The part of me that lives forever is more important to me than the part that will die. I have made my choice... may God grant me the strength to see it through.

שָׁלוֹם

السلام عليكم

Peace be with you.

"Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it." ~ Luke 17:33 [KJV]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that some who would die for their ideals could be considered cowards....

What's the difference? A coward runs, hides, and refuses to fight against injustice, and so does a pacifist. Who profits from ideas like that?

I don't consider things of this world to be part of me. I live in a higher realm... I'm only visiting here. I don't think violence is evil. How we use it defines the morality, and that's entirely subjective. I don't condemn those who killed bin Laden, nor do I condemn him. For me there is only sadness that this has come to pass, and I'm glad I wasn't a part of it. The issue at hand is that I don't see only two options. Both of those you provide result in suffering. I would love, rather than fight or die. I don't follow the RCC anymore, but that's still my greatest commandment. Telling you I will fight is not a statement of identification, it's a confession. Forgive me, brother. Sometimes I know not what I do.

If the fighting is ever to stop someone has to have the courage to lay down their arms. This is not foolish idealism, I have practiced this in the reality of "the 'hood" for decades. I have carried the light into jungles across America, and I am still here. La vida loca is not the only way. The outcome isn't up to me alone, yet I take those risks because death has no power to sway me. A claim of cowardice is just a manipulative appeal to ego that attempts to subordinate the threat of violence to the threat of social discrimination and even greater violence. At first the accusation is "coward" (crime against self)... then it becomes "traitor" (crime against society) and "heretic" (crime against God) as they build into a lethal fury. I'm not afraid, I'm just smarter and kinder than that. I will not surrender to that position. I will not torture my friends in order to encourage them to kill my enemies. Even if I am crucified for it.

There's no escaping the fact that I'm an ape-man, but that's only a temporary condition. We can argue semantics and philosophize about nature and spirit and what I am, all I can say is that while I am bound by the flesh my job is to minimize the 'ape' and maximize the 'man'. I can't tell you or anyone else where to draw that line, all I can do is show you the path I have taken. The part of me that lives forever is more important to me than the part that will die. I have made my choice... may God grant me the strength to see it through.

Doesn't surrendering to evil perpetuate evil? Doesn't allowing evil to reign define our morality? To me, when we refuse to confront violence and wickedness, we are enabling evil. That's why I think that surrendering to evil is not so much an ideology, but a justification for cowardice. Pacifist also force people with courage to defend their delusional sense of moral superiority. Pacifism doesn't work in an imperfect world. As I wrote before; "Standing by and refusing to act while harm befalls a neighbor is not a virtue; it is a vice". I guess I just don't understand how a person can profess to be against violence while simultaneously refusing to stop it. Your philosophy doesn't distinguish between good and evil, in fact it embraces evil because it eliminates any and all repercussions against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this