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

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?

Read the Sermon on the Mount lately? Read any of Ghandi's biographies? You can change the world for the better without harming anyone. And kindly stop calling me a coward. I'm guessing you would not want me to call you names. Edited by gravy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

A pacifist stands his or her ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And kindly stop calling me a coward. I'm guessing you would not want me to call you names.

I didn't call anyone anything, its just my opinion that there's little difference between a true pacifist and a coward, in that neither will fight for anything.

"No human being has greater love than this, that one lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15:13).

A pacifist stands his or her ground.

I guess so, but only until someone knocks them on their butt :)

Edited by Dan52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't call anyone anything, its just my opinion that there's little difference between a true pacifist and a coward, in that neither will fight for anything.

"No human being has greater love than this, that one lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15:13).

Dan notice that he "laid down his life" he gave it up without a fight....he didn't fight for his friends or his beliefs he merely gave up and laid down and let them beat him to oblivion without even a word to stop it. From your statements in this thread that would make Jesus the biggest coward of them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan notice that he "laid down his life" he gave it up without a fight....he didn't fight for his friends or his beliefs he merely gave up and laid down and let them beat him to oblivion without even a word to stop it. From your statements in this thread that would make Jesus the biggest coward of them all.

Not at all... Jesus didn't resist his crucifixion because he was fighting a spiritual war, so he willingly and bravely died for a purpose, it was the reason he came into the world. Jesus suffered and died for the sins of the world so others might live. No coward would die for someone else, a coward would have wimped-out and ran for his life when the Sanhedrin came to arrest him in Gethsemane. Sacrificing or endangering your life for the sake of others requires an unselfish act, and that is something a pacifist would never do. Remember when the crowd was about to stone the adulteress to death? Jesus stepped in and stopped it from happening, a coward wouldn't have cared or interfered, but would have been content to sit by and watched the show. Also consider that Christ drove the money changers out of the temple area with a whip, no pacifist would have done such a thing.

“There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all... Jesus didn't resist his crucifixion because he was fighting a spiritual war, so he willingly and bravely died for a purpose, it was the reason he came into the world. Jesus suffered and died for the sins of the world so others might live. No coward would die for someone else, a coward would have wimped-out and ran for his life when the Sanhedrin came to arrest him in Gethsemane. Sacrificing or endangering your life for the sake of others requires an unselfish act, and that is something a pacifist would never do. Remember when the crowd was about to stone the adulteress to death? Jesus stepped in and stopped it from happening, a coward wouldn't have cared or interfered, but would have been content to sit by and watched the show. Also consider that Christ drove the money changers out of the temple area with a whip, no pacifist would have done such a thing.

“There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3).

pacifist all fight spiritual wars, just not physical ones. Sp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pacifist all fight spiritual wars, just not physical ones.

If your daughter was being raped, even a good dog would naturally attack her rapist, but a pacifist would not physically lift a finger to intercede. Where exactly is the spiritual victory in that? If an assailant broke into your house and came at your wife with a butcher knife, a pacifist might crawl over and brown nose the attacker begging him to stop. What exactly is the spiritual war the pacifist is fighting? And where's the victory? Imo, nonresistance in the face of evil aggression is neither a physical or spiritual war, but a wimpish surrender at best. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just fail to understand how a pacifist stands or fights for anything? What spiritual victory is achieved when a pacifist stands idly by while innocent people are hurt or killed? Violence is a method of resistance, self-defense, and survival, so I doubt I'll ever respect a pacifist for refusing to protect themselves or help out a fellow citizen who's being attacked. No offense intended, jmo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you speaking of a pacifist stance to war? Violence is a method of resistance, self defense and surviva but it is hardly the only one, and most usually,it is the least effective and the most devstating one.

I am a pacifist. I am not a coward, or a wimp. I will defend my family, my friends and yes, innocent strangers and have, on more than one occasion, I've got the scars to prove it. I don't believe in letting evil run rough shod on innocents; I simply don't believe visiting more evil is the solution.

I am a pacifist because far too many have stood idly by for far too long (since time immortal?) while innocent lives are lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will defend my family, my friends and yes, innocent strangers and have, on more than one occasion, I've got the scars to prove it. I don't believe in letting evil run rough shod on innocents; I simply don't believe visiting more evil is the solution.

I thought true pacifist were 100% nonviolent and philosophically opposed to using physical violence to any degree, for any reason, but apparently most here who profess to be pacifist make exceptions. If resorting to violence under certain circumstances is the creed, then there's probably not much difference between myself and a pacifist. Hell, I might be a pacifist myself if the definition is stretched a little :). If pacifism is an attempt to minimize violence, then defending one's self is not an act of violence. That makes more sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~ Yes Dan... it seems you may have mis-understood that a 'pacifist' is someone that runs away from any type of confrontation.

Conflict happens in everyone's lives. Pacifists strive to keep such conflict peaceful, trying to find a path that does not escalate into violence.

Being a pacifist does not involve running away when acts of violence occur, nor does it mean hiding under the table... { well, unless it's my mother! ;) }

It means violence is a last resort when other means are not effective. The use of effective self-defense for one's self & others is always acceptable if necessary.

Because a person finds the concept of damaging or killing another person wrong does not necessarily make that person a coward.

Disagreeing with unnecessary violence used by anyone is what pacifists do, it's a personal & moral thang & irks some. Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your daughter was being raped, even a good dog would naturally attack her rapist, but a pacifist would not physically lift a finger to intercede. Where exactly is the spiritual victory in that? If an assailant broke into your house and came at your wife with a butcher knife, a pacifist might crawl over and brown nose the attacker begging him to stop. What exactly is the spiritual war the pacifist is fighting? And where's the victory? Imo, nonresistance in the face of evil aggression is neither a physical or spiritual war, but a wimpish surrender at best. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just fail to understand how a pacifist stands or fights for anything? What spiritual victory is achieved when a pacifist stands idly by while innocent people are hurt or killed? Violence is a method of resistance, self-defense, and survival, so I doubt I'll ever respect a pacifist for refusing to protect themselves or help out a fellow citizen who's being attacked. No offense intended, jmo.

Pacifism is not against self protection or self preservation. Ofcourse I would march into battle to fight to protect my family, my country if all options were exhausted. Your examples are self preservation, self protection--the term pacifism refers to war in my opinion.

Your temple example of Jesus was simply act of anger not an act of war--nobody was killed. Jesus absolutely was the personification of a pacifist in all his actions and words. I doubt very much he would support war.Even David got scolded by God for being war like:

But this word of the Lord came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. (1 Chronicles 22:8)

Jesus appeared to teach pacifism during his ministry when he told his disciples:

You have heard that it was said, 'An
, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
. (Matt. 5:38-39)

, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place...for all who
. (Matt. 26:52)

, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

http://en.wikipedia....istian_pacifism

peace,

S

Edited by sarkany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pacifism is not against self protection or self preservation. Ofcourse I would march into battle to fight to protect my family, my country if all options were exhausted. Your examples are self preservation, self protection--the term pacifism refers to war in my opinion.

Your temple example of Jesus was simply act of anger not an act of war--nobody was killed. Jesus absolutely was the personification of a pacifist in all his actions and words. I doubt very much he would support war.Even David got scolded by God for being war like:

But this word of the Lord came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. (1 Chronicles 22:8)

Jesus appeared to teach pacifism during his ministry when he told his disciples:

You have heard that it was said, 'An
, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
. (Matt. 5:38-39)

, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place...for all who
. (Matt. 26:52)

, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

http://en.wikipedia....istian_pacifism

peace,

S

I highly dig this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought true pacifist were 100% nonviolent and philosophically opposed to using physical violence to any degree, for any reason, but apparently most here who profess to be pacifist make exceptions. If resorting to violence under certain circumstances is the creed, then there's probably not much difference between myself and a pacifist. Hell, I might be a pacifist myself if the definition is stretched a little :). If pacifism is an attempt to minimize violence, then defending one's self is not an act of violence. That makes more sense to me.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to think that I am a nonviolent person (call me a pacifist if you like). I served in the U.S. Armed Forces, and I have been a law enforcement officer for the past 24 years. I use a side arm, and up to now I have not had a need to use it. Should there ever be a time that I have to use it, I will not hesitate.

The book that I cherish as my spiritual guide is the Srimad Bhagavad Gita. A book in which God exhorts Prince Arjuna to fight a battle, yet throughout the dialogue we find God speaking of the importance of nonviolence. It was this same book that guided Mahatma Gandhi in his nonviolente battle against the British in India.

I strongly believe that there is a way of solving problems without turning to violence. But this is not an ideal worls, and sometime we have to turn to violence when all other means fail.

My spiritual goal is to see a culture of nonviolence established in our world. I think that it is the dream of people of many religions.

Hermano Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If pacifism is an attempt to minimize violence, then defending one's self is not an act of violence. That makes more sense to me.

Having a pacifist philosophy, as I do, is one thing, not acting to protect the innocent is another. That is called cowardice, IMHO.

I may be one of the few here that has been put in that ugly, awkward, gut wrenching place, outside of the confines of war, of having to defend another through a violent act. However, as emalpaiz said, I did not hesitate. I have had to live with the consequences of that action nearly every day of my life since, but in that terrible moment there was zero hesitation. What my conscience has had to bear is terrible enough but far, far less than what it would be had I not acted, I'm sure.

I think most true pacifists follow the philosophy of "attempting to minimize violence" in the world. I have been to "Peace Rallies" that fights broke out everywhere, I have also seen hate groups scatter at the first sign of physical violence...so who's to say what will happen when.

All I know for sure is that as a species, humans are the most fickle bunch of any mammals on Earth. We have this "enormous brain" that supposedly makes us superior to all other forms of life, yet violence, death and war permeates our societies...how does one grasp that? If half the money, that our military receives each year, were put towards peaceful ends, there would presumably be no war. I am a combat veteran that sees no value in war from an inside perspective, but, knowing that even a few lives were saved and/or changed due to the actions of myself, my unit or the military as a whole is the only piece of the whole situation that settles the issues in my mind.

On the flip-side of that coin, since the "conflict" I was involved in went away, the lives of the people left in those areas of south east Asia have been far better off without anyone telling them "democracy" is the right way.

Violences, war, suffering and inhumane treatment of others is not the way gain peace. Only by example and allowing others to make that choice for themselves will be able to ♪♫give peace a chance ♫♪....thank you John.

Blessings of Peace,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your temple example of Jesus was simply act of anger not an act of war--nobody was killed. Jesus absolutely was the personification of a pacifist in all his actions and words. I doubt very much he would support war.Even David got scolded by God for being war like:

But this word of the Lord came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. (1 Chronicles 22:8)

Jesus appeared to teach pacifism during his ministry when he told his disciples:

You have heard that it was said, 'An
, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
. (Matt. 5:38-39)

, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place...for all who
. (Matt. 26:52)

, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

http://en.wikipedia....istian_pacifism

Well, judging from the over-all acts of God in the old testament, I don't get the impression that He is a pacifist or anti-war. In certain cases of aggression by evil, pacifism would expand the scope and magnify the consequences of evil. So God stopped it in Noah's day, against the Canaanite's, and will eventually put a permanent end to violence;

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords" (Revelation 19:11-16)

To me, the basic gist of Matthew 5 seems to encourage us to try and avoid trouble by walking away from it whenever possible. Jesus was contrasting the Pharisaical interpretation of the law with the law's true intent, he stressed reconciliation instead of retaliation. Jesus is not saying, “Don’t defend yourself when you are attacked” or “Don’t help a woman who is being raped” or “Don’t defend your country when it is being attacked. To be struck on the cheek was symbolic of being personally insulted, not physically attacked. To turn the other cheek meant to ignore insults and not take personal revenge. He was not negating the judicial principle of an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”.

I also interpret Jesus message as telling us not to take it upon ourselves to straighten others out, but to just try and peaceably negate problems by not escalating potential conflict. Thus, be nice to those who want to abuse you, be a peace maker and pray for your enemy.

"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Romans 12:20).

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).

" It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him" (Luke 17:2-3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, judging from the over-all acts of God in the old testament, I don't get the impression that He is a pacifist or anti-war.

True- the God of the Old Testament. However Jesus told us that God wasn`t like that! That is the major difference between the Old and New Testament. As for Revelations, those are not the words of Jesus.

peace,

S

Share this post


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