Originally posted by divegeester I'll take that as a compliment, thanks.
I'm not pro war, especially the political or religious ones. The point I'm trying to make is that some things are worth fighting for, but we should make our own minds up about which they are and not be dictated to by religion.
If my home was being invaded and my family threaded, I'd kill to defend them - tha ...[text shortened]... us has to be a bad thing - and especially not just because some preacher tells us it is.
I suspect I might also fight if my loved-ones were threatened, although whether or not that would be the right thing to do is arguable. Your default assumption that somebody who concludes differently from you or me and elects a non-violent course of action is motivated by cowardice fails to consider those arguments.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat I suspect I might also fight if my loved-ones were threatened, although whether or not that would be the right thing to do is arguable. Your default assumption that somebody who concludes differently from you or me and elects a non-violent course of action is motivated by cowardice fails to consider those arguments.
How could defending your family from being attacked not be the right thing to do?
I've not yet had it explained what those arguments you refer to may be, or why they would be robust enough to justify allowing your family to be attacked and that action not be considered cowardice.
Originally posted by divegeester How could defending your family from being attacked not be the right thing to do?
I've not yet had it explained what those arguments you refer to may be, or why they would be robust enough to justify allowing your family to be attacked and that action not be considered cowardice.
You may consider, for instance, the first of the five precepts governing buddhism - a blanket caution against killing or harming any living thing. Many people also consider that Jesus's teachings do not provide justification for violence under any circumstances.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat You may consider, for instance, the first of the five precepts governing buddhism - a blanket caution against killing or harming any living thing. Many people also consider that Jesus's teachings do not provide justification for violence under any circumstances.
The many must be the Jehovah's Witnesses. That's about all I can think
of, besides you. You have any more suggestions?
Members of the Historic Peace Churches such as Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and Church of the Brethren object to war from the conviction that Christian life is incompatible with military action, because Jesus enjoins his followers to love their enemies and to refuse violence. Since the American Civil War, Seventh-day Adventists were known as non-combatants, and had done work in hospitals or to give medical care rather than combat roles, and the church has upheld the non-combative position. Jehovah's Witnesses, while not pacifist in the strict sense, refuse to participate in the armed services on the grounds that they believe they should be neutral in worldly conflicts and often cite the latter portion of Isaiah 2:4 which states, "…neither shall they learn war anymore."
Originally posted by twhitehead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
Members of the Historic Peace Churches such as Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and Church of the Brethren object to war from the conviction that Christian life is incompatible with military action, because Jesus enjoins his followers to love their enemies and to refuse violence. Since the American ...[text shortened]... e latter portion of Isaiah 2:4 which states, "…neither shall they learn war anymore."
They confuse the time when Jesus will be here as King and the reality
of the present. Jesus said there will be wars and rumors of wars until
He returns to put a stop to it and rule as King. Those you are citing
are trying to live as if that has already happened.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat You may consider, for instance, the first of the five precepts governing buddhism - a blanket caution against killing or harming any living thing. Many people also consider that Jesus's teachings do not provide justification for violence under any circumstances.
I accept that and that everyone has free choice, however as I said in a previous post, my point is that religious organisations should not be telling people that they should not fight to defend themselves and those who assimilate that thinking (hypothetical circumstance) at the expense of the safety of their own family are idiotic at best, cowards at worst in my opinion.
I believe what Jesus taught about 'turning the other cheek' is nothing to do with defending your family.
Originally posted by divegeester I accept that and that everyone has free choice, however as I said in a previous post, my point is that religious organisations should not be telling people that they should not fight to defend themselves and those who assimilate that thinking (hypothetical circumstance) at the expense of the safety of their own family are idiotic at best, cowards at wor ...[text shortened]... what Jesus taught about 'turning the other cheek' is nothing to do with defending your family.
I agree with part of what you say. I find religious organisations which dogmatically instruct followers to behave in accordance with arbitrary or divined strictures to be repugnant generally. I would not however be so arrogant as to assume that a person behaving pacifically was necessarily doing so solely due to religious instruction. I think that it is entirely reasonable to suspect that one might choose such a course based on protracted consideration of the ethics of violent behaviour in human beings. If you consider this to speak of cowardice or idiocy, then, well, I think you're very wrong. I also think you judge rather too harshly even for somebody following teachings of leaders of a sincerely held faith, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.
As to interpreting Jesus' teachings, I guess you also get to choose what you think he means. It seems pretty clear to me that he always cautioned against violence whatever the circumstances, but then I'm not really a christian, so what do I know.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Turn the other cheek
Interesting that you choose to think that is also about warfare or indeed (to my point in this thread) about defending your family. Any man who will not defend his own family is a coward in my opinion.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat As to interpreting Jesus' teachings, I guess you also get to choose what you think he means. It seems pretty clear to me that he always cautioned against violence whatever the circumstances, but then I'm not really a christian, so what do I know.
I agree that Jesus preached love one another etc. But to ignore wider context is as always, confusing. Jesus came to do his father's will, most will agree with that precept - and yet we see his Father advocating war in the OT, we also see Jesus behaving quite violently in chasing the money changers out of the Temple area. To create a ideology of pacifism based around "turn the other cheek" to the extent you would not defend your own family is idiocy (in it's construct) and cowardice (in it's execution) in my opinion.
Originally posted by divegeester I agree that Jesus preached love one another etc. But to ignore wider context is as always, confusing. Jesus came to do his father's will, most will agree with that precept - and yet we see his Father advocating war in the OT, we also see Jesus behaving quite violently in chasing the money changers out of the Temple area. To create a ideology of pacif ...[text shortened]... r own family is idiocy (in it's construct) and cowardice (in it's execution) in my opinion.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion and I respect that even if I do find it a little naive and ignorant.
Christians and the military.
16 Jul '11 17:32
Back to Top