18 Jan 06
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think "violent" is the right word to describe Gandhi's tactics.
The traditional definition of pacifist I think is to mean someone who opposses the use of physical violence to resolve disputes. I say that there are other forms of violence that can be used to settle disputes. There is physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual violence. The example I gave about Ghandi is an example. He is viewed as a pacifist. H ...[text shortened]... because they thought it was the "right" thing to do. They left because they felt forced out.
The important question, though, is surely whether coercion is JUSTIFIED in a particular instance, and if so what type of coercion (physical, moral, etc.) is justified.
Imagine I see someone being attacked on the street and intervene by running over and convicing the attacker that his actions are wrong. I do not use physical force.
Would what you describe as the "pacifistic" response - not taking any action - have been better? And if not, what does it matter than no one is a true pacifist, according to your definition?
19 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellWhat I am saying is that there is no such thing as a pacifist. Refusing to act is just as powerful as acting. Look at how Hitler was treated early on in his war. He was allowed to conquer a few countries before others intervened. This was called pacifism. I think pacifism could be defined as being in agreement anothers will. It is only a matter of which side of the fight you choose to be in agreement with. In your example of running over to try and convince the attacker the errors of his ways you are opposing him. Granted this is a weak opposition and you will probably find yourself in a morgue somewhere as a result. The other option would have been to do nothing. You then would on some level be in agreement with his actions by default. You then join the ranks of the violent attacker.
I don't think "violent" is the right word to describe Gandhi's tactics.
The important question, though, is surely whether coercion is JUSTIFIED in a particular instance, and if so what type of coercion (physical, moral, etc.) is justified.
Imagine I see someone being attacked on the street and intervene by running over and convicing the attacker that if not, what does it matter than no one is a true pacifist, according to your definition?
As far as Ghandi goes, you make it sound as though he convinced the occupying government that they should hand over the government to the people of India. Nothing could be further from the truth. The were coerced out of India. It was not a matter of coming to some moral revelation about what is right and wrong. Ghandi might as well of had a gun to their head.
20 Jan 06
Originally posted by whodeyAs turning the other cheek goes, consider this:
Aother question since we have concluded that Jesus was not a pacifist. What did he mean by turning the other cheek and loving your enemies as yourself?
It is very common for somebody to react suddenly to something and lash out rashly. Either verbally or by actually striking at a person. A matter can easily stop there and this is what would be entailed by turning the other cheek. This means that a fight is not started by the first blow. It really turns into a fight only when you hit back. Thus a fight is actually started by the second blow.
Thus, turning the other cheek gives the person who may have acted in haste and on impulse a chance to reconsider. It does not however imply not defending yourself in a fight should the attacker choose to make it one.
21 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by JadeMantisI would agree. Violence is a circular event. When it begins the natural reaction is to return fire. The supernatural response is to not return fire. For that breif moment, the one who has struck you must ask the question,"Why is he offering me the other cheek." It is both somewhat comical to do so as well as forcing the other person to ask some hard questions about their motives for striking you. The person must then ask themselves why they choose to stike you and must come to terms with the justification for doing so. If you strike them back, you then give them the justification for their actions and to continue down the same road. You then break the circular pattern of violence if not for but a brief moment. Granted, the person who strikes you may continue, but they are given a chance to reevaluate their position that they would not have otherwise had. Turning the other cheek is not the magic bullet to end the violence, but it is the best chance for doing so.
As turning the other cheek goes, consider this:
It is very common for somebody to react suddenly to something and lash out rashly. Either verbally or by actually striking at a person. A matter can easily stop there and this is what would be entailed by turning the other cheek. This means that a fight is not started by the first blow. It really turns into ...[text shortened]... s not however imply not defending yourself in a fight should the attacker choose to make it one.
From the Christian perspective I have maintained that Christ was not a pacifist. His battle is spiritual, however. This can lead to physical violence as seen with the whipping of the money changers. This is because the money changers were themselves hindering God on a spiritual level that needed to be dealt with in the temple. Using physical violence was therefore an option. His focus was not the men he was chasing but rather the spiritual effects of their presence in the temple. In the example of turning the other cheek, we see Christ telling us that we must assess the spirtual warfare we are facing when we are confronted with some one who is striking us. It says in the Bible that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spirtual wickedness in high places that is influencing the person striking us. Our battle, therefore, is not directed at the person striking us. He is merely a pawn. By turning the other cheek we are showing him or her that the battle is not with me. The battle is far greater than the both of us. By turning the other cheek the battle then becomes a spiritual one. It is a oppurtunity to reach the lost soul who is striking us. It, therefore, can not be seen as a pacifistic act. The battle still rages. We must continue to show love for those who hate us. The only way to reach them is by breaking the circular pattern of hate and violence. It is important to remember that our spiritual weapons come from God which involves love. Those who do not know God derive their weapons from the other side which involves hate. If we do not give them a reason to hate, we render them powerless!!!!!!!!!
21 Jan 06
Originally posted by whodeyYou are WRONG.
I would agree. Violence is a circular event. When it begins the natural reaction is to return fire. The supernatural response is to not return fire. For that breif moment, the one who has struck you must ask the question,"Why is he offering me the other cheek." It is both somewhat comical to do so as well as forcing the other person to ask some hard ques ...[text shortened]... ich involves hate. If we do not give them a reason to hate, we render them powerless!!!!!!!!!
21 Jan 06
Originally posted by whodeyMy. my, what do they teach in schools these days? I hesitate to post on this site because it seems that there are far more trolls than true seekers. None-the-less, I will attempt to be serious. whodey, your def of pacifism was on point, it rightly attempts to put means and ends on equal footing, and thus renounces violence as a means of coercion. Your exchange with dottewell, however, clouds the issue. Ghandi, not Jesus, is the paradigm of pacifism, and as has been pointed out, Ghandi was very coercive. Pacifism argues that it is BOTH morally superior AND more effective than violent methods of coercion. In the end it is just one more method of getting what you want. Coercion btw, is simply any attempt to circumvent someone's free will, aka "force." It does not include reason, which appeals to a person's free will, but does include deception, which often parades as reason. Pacifism puts the focus on violence, calls it intrinsicly evil, and condones other methods of coercion. God says "come let us reason together. . . ." and of Jesus, "a smoking reed he will not quench."
No takers, or am I just talking to myself?
If you examine the passage under consideration in Mat. chap 4 you can see that Jesus is not discussing the subject of violence, but rather personal rights. Under Roman law, a soldier could force a conquered national to carry his baggage no more than a mile. This is one of the first examples of a law giving rights to conquered people and was quite progressive. Jesus said - deny your right. The second example addressed a jew's legal right to defend himself in court before a judge, also quite progressive. Jesus said - deny your right. In the third and most atrocious example he says to deny your most basic right to defend even your own body!
We. like the pharisees, are so prone to "Strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel." We use fancy aurguments to convince ourselves that clear, unobscure teachings of Jesus don't mean what they sound like they mean, and are over-ruled by some of the more obscure and enigmatic statements. "By this shall all men know you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." "If anyone wants to be my disciple, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." "If any wants to be great in the kingdom, let him become the servant of all." Place "turn the other cheek" next to these statements, and it doesn't sound inconsistent, does it?
I think maybe the real question you're asking is - Should I be a pacifist? And hope that a negative answer to your question lets you off the hook. More likely, you all ready have your own answer and are meerly looking for a forum to explain why you can continue to keep violence in your own repetoire of coercive behavior. Only as a last resort of course.
Grace & peace to you.
21 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by gortonThanks for your response. I will agree that the true definition of pacifism renounces violence as a means or coercion. What I was attempting to point out was that violence is just another means of coercion that Ghandi used as well. I also think that it is preferable to use pacifism over physical violence. I would submit that at times, however, this is not always an option. Jesus shows this by chasing out the money changers with a whip. They were there to make money and had no wish to reason with him. We can also see this as the children of Israel conquered the people of the Holy Land to set up the nation of Israel so as to issue in the Messiah for the world. The Caananites also were not interested in reasoning with God but only their fulfilling their personal ambitions. Both examples are examples of violent coersion. In my opinion, God takes no pleasure in such violence. To prove my point, look at 1 Chronicles 22:8. Here we see David being denied the oppurtunity to build God a temple because the hands of David has shed much blood. Did David do anything wrong? No. He was doing the will of God at the time but was deemed a necessary evil. However, in both examples of Chirst chasing the money changers and God chasing the Caananites, we see God fighting a spiritual war. He is not interested in worldly kingdoms. He is only interested in the kingdom of God. His battles are purely spirtual in nature and thus justified. This is because God's goal is for man to have the choice to be reconciled back to him. All other endevours pale in comparison. I would submit that physical violence is looked down upon and avoided if possible in the eyes of God. It is not forbidden, however. The worst possible fate is the spritiual violence of a spiritual death.
My. my, what do they teach in schools these days? I hesitate to post on this site because it seems that there are far more trolls than true seekers. None-the-less, I will attempt to be serious. whodey, your def of pacifism was on point, it rightly attempts to put means and ends on equal footing, and thus renounces violence as a means of coercion. Your exchan rcive behavior. Only as a last resort of course.
Grace & peace to you.
As far as deception not being a form of coercion I would have to disagree. You are circumventing ones free will because you are hiding the true facts which that person is making a decision on. Therefore, the decision you are making is not the one you would most likely choose had you known the true facts of the matter.
I am somewhat confused by your refereing to Matthew chapter 4. I think you have your scriptures turned around. This chapter is about Jesus being tempted in the wilderness. In any event, I do not argue the teaching about taking up the cross and following after Jesus. This means self denial. I do not challenge that and do not see how this conflicts with my other posts. It is spiritual warefare none the less. The world is to see Christians as loving. This is the opposite of our sinful nature which is selfishness. As I said before, as we show love to the world, the world has no answer for it. There only options are to ignore it, fight against it, or accept it. The more love that they are shown, however, the harder it is to fight it or ignore it. Thus, they will be more likely to accept the love shown and be converted. This is spiritual warfare, is it not?
To answer your last comment, I am not a violent person and do not wish to be. When I say violent I refer to physical violence. I am at war, however. The world is a battle of wills. You have God's kingdom and his will verses all others. By God's grace and love this is how it is. He affords his creation the right to oppose him. Take, for example, the Crusades. I would say that the Crusades were not God's will. God had no spiritual objectives in such a war. That war was simply a man made endevour. Granted, they probably thought they were doing the will of God and were decieved. Till this day christians are refered to as Crusaders in that part of the world. It has left a bad mark on Christianity and has given God a bad wrap.
One last thought in refernce to Ghandi. You may say that his tactics were noble. However, the goals were not spiritually motivated and therefore temperal. His goals were politically motivated. Which goals are more of a noble origin? One that is political or one that is spiritual and eternal as we see in the Bible even though at times physical violence is used?
21 Jan 06
Thanks for your response also,🙂 Please permit me just a few clarifications.
First off, you are absolutely right - I got turned around. I do not have my "sword" with me and was working from memory. Mat. chap 5 begins the Sermon on the mount, which contains the passage in question toward the end. The sermon continues through chap 7, and contains the core ethical teachings of Jesus.
Second, I must not have been clear, as we are in agreement that deception IS a means of coercion.
Third, I rejoice to hear that you renounce physical violence, that con be a very difficult step to take. Having been trained in the martial arts and enjoying them greatly - I know. The really important, and more difficult step however is giving up coercive behavior. It is amazzing how ingrained it is in our behavior. A properly timed slight downward turn of the lip in a discussion with my wife over where to eat can, in the right circumstances, be just as overpowering as force of arms. This btw is why witchcraft is so condemned in scripture - It is the use of words and subliminal means to gain control over anothers will. Sorcery is like unto it - the use of pharmaceuticals to do the same. btw the greek word for sorcery is pharmacukia, from which we derive pharmacy. Drugs arn't condemned, control is.
Finally, you might want to do a little more research on the temple incident cited so often in this thread. I think you will find that he did not whip anyone, but drove out the animals. He did overturn the tables. but the gospels give no indication that he directed any violence towards people. We tend to read that into the passages because we have a hard time imagining being angry - and sinning not.
Thanks for listening.