NationStates Jolt Archive

This is mainly for Christians.

In your opinion, is there ever a right time for violence? How is it biblically supported?

Personally, I believe violence is justifiable as a means of defence. Many times in the Old Testament, God commands the Hebrews to fight. As God is unchanging, how, then, could violence be immoral nowadays?

However, I do believe pacifism is a respectable and supportable position.

This is mainly for Christians.

In your opinion, is there ever a right time for violence? How is it biblically supported?

Personally, I believe violence is justifiable as a means of defence. Many times in the Old Testament, God commands the Hebrews to fight. As God is unchanging, how, then, could violence be immoral nowadays?

However, I do believe pacifism is a respectable and supportable position.

If you are taking the OT as evidence god kills himself kills more then just in defense.

Yes, but this is ultimately for the survival of the Hebrew people. Also, when God commands the killing of children, it is actually an act of mercy, since killing them before the age of accountability saves from judgement (they would have no chance of repentence in evil societies).

Yes, but this is ultimately for the survival of the Hebrew people. Also, when God commands the killing of children, it is actually an act of mercy, since killing them before the age of accountability saves from judgement (they would have no chance of repentence in evil societies).
Then whats all this BS about freedom of choice? Apparently talking to us and giving each of us the information we need for an informed decision violates our freedom of choice but slaughtering men women and children just because it is not as likely that they will worship him is ok?

As well as having to kill them to save them from judgment? he could not just be a little bit more understanding in their case? I mean he is fucking god, was slaughtering them really the only option?

Also, when God commands the killing of children, it is actually an act of mercy, since killing them before the age of accountability saves from judgement (they would have no chance of repentence in evil societies).

Wow… Just fucking… wow.

pacifism is the only remotely supportable position in the face of Christ's teachings. everything else is a cheap cop-out.

Like Alex the Large, I enjoy this bits with the old yahoodies tolchocking each other.

Ever a right time for it?

Well, Jesus taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" when offered insults. I'm not 100% sure if that applies to getting punched in the face. And I would take a crowbar to the face of anyone intending to rape my wife, for example.

In other cases, I think it's hard to justify unless it's somehow preventing MORE violence.

Wow… Just fucking… wow.

Yeah I thought he was all about letting people choose ... I guess it is better to just kill off those who have a higher chance of not doing what he wants ...

What a dick

Ever a right time for it?

Well, Jesus taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" when offered insults. I'm not 100% sure if that applies to getting punched in the face. And I would take a crowbar to the face of anyone intending to rape my wife, for example.

In other cases, I think it's hard to justify unless it's somehow preventing MORE violence.

throughout the new testament christ and paul both CONSTANTLY repeat "do not return evil for evil" "vengence belongs to god alone" "do not resist evil" "do not worry about your own life" - there is absolutely no justification for violence within christian teaching. to condone it is to blatently ignore the plain-spoken and direct commands of christ.

If you are taking the OT as evidence god kills himself kills more then just in defense.

Sure, but it's probably implied that God has greater rights to tinker with His creation than the average guy. The bible gives the impression that God is kinda "bigger" than you or me, giving Him a bit more say.

Vengeance implies that the violence has already been done, though. If someone is intent on assaulting me or my family, I will remove myself/them from the situation if possible, but if removal is not possible...

"Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves the church" seems to be telling me that if I just shrug my shoulders and let the assaulter have his way, I'm not doing the right thing.

Sure, but it's probably implied that God has greater rights to tinker with His creation than the average guy. The bible gives the impression that God is kinda "bigger" than you or me, giving Him a bit more say.

... He is also supposed to be a moral authority ...

A do as I say not as I do attitude does not strike me as an ultimate source of morality to me ...

... He is also supposed to be a moral authority ...

A do as I say not as I do attitude does not strike me as an ultimate source of morality to me ...

Given that God created the universe, human beings, etc., it doesn't seem too much of a leap to say that God can set rules without being completely subject to them. God can decide what's best for human beings and let it be known, but God is not a human being. I'm not too familiar with the OT, but it doesn't seem like a contradiction that an omnipotent being could swing that.

Given that God created the universe, human beings, etc., it doesn't seem too much of a leap to say that God can set rules without being completely subject to them. God can decide what's best for human beings, and let it be known, but God is not a human being. I'm not too familiar with the OT, but it doesn't seem like a contradiction that an omnipotent being could swing that.

Technically could but then it comes into the realm of just being a jackass ... if the representation is accurate

I am not putting limits on what he COULD do but I refuse to think of someone who slaughters children for any reason as good ... So either he is not good (from my pov) or it is an incorrect description of him and/or his actions, either is possible.

Yes, but this is ultimately for the survival of the Hebrew people. Also, when God commands the killing of children, it is actually an act of mercy, since killing them before the age of accountability saves from judgement (they would have no chance of repentence in evil societies).

Wow... you're a really srewed up kid, aren't you?
If you actually belive that, then what sort of issue do you have with abortions? It would be the same act of mercy ,wouldn't it?

Vengeance implies that the violence has already been done, though. If someone is intent on assaulting me or my family, I will remove myself/them from the situation if possible, but if removal is not possible...

"Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves the church" seems to be telling me that if I just shrug my shoulders and let the assaulter have his way, I'm not doing the right thing.

"Mt 5:39 But I say to you, Do not make use of force against an evil man"

"Isa 31:1 Alas for those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD!"

"Eph 6.12 For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh"

"2 Co 10:4 The weapons with which we fight are not human weapons"

"Rom 8.37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

using your family as an excuse to ignore commands like these is not appropriate. if they are christ's, they have nothing to fear. that is the only refuge that exists, and no violence on earth can take that away.

The waves are many and the surging sea dangerous. But we are not afraid we may be drowned. For we are standing on the rock. Let the sea rage as it will, it cannot split the rock asunder. Though the waves tower on high, they cannot overwhelm the boat of Jesus. What, pray, are we afraid of? Death? ‘For me life is Christ, and death gain.’


"I Cor. 13.4 f. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; ... bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails."

"John 18.36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight"

"Jas. 4. 12. One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who are you that judge your neighbor?"

---

again, as to defense of your wife and family taking precidence over christ's commands to resist no evil:

Luke 14:26 - "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Mark 10:29-30 - "So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life."

your first duty is not to your family, but to christ. the worst suffering and death is nothing to fear for those who are in christ - the endurance of persecution for the sake of the gospel, which is Love, is no hardship! to love your enemy is not to abandon your duty as a husband and a father!

"2 Cor. 4. 8 10. We are pressed on every side, yet not straitened; perplexed, yet not unto despair; pursued, yet not forsaken; smitten down, yet not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body."

"2 Tim. 2. 3. Take your part in suffering hardship, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus."

---

the gospels say explicitly that we must not hold our families before following Christ's gospel of love and forgiveness. using your family as an excuse to return evil for evil is exactly that. there has never been a circumstance in which a christian could strike another man "for we are all one man in christ" - "even as you do unto the least of these, you do unto me". if it was Christ's wish that his children would never suffer persecution or martyrdom, it would not happen, but everyone agrees that those were the days of the church's greatest glory! the martyr participates in the sufferings of christ, "bearing in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested" - the crusader perverts his gospel for the illusion of political and personal gain.

I urge you, though I very much hope you and yours will never suffer or be called upon to live out the teachings of christ in the face of such horror...but if you are, consider it a priveledge! remember, the kingdom of Our Lord is not of this world.

Yeah, I've never understood how people can beleive every word of the new testament and not become a pacifist. Not that really has anything to do with me, but still.

Well, Jesus taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" when offered insults. I'm not 100% sure if that applies to getting punched in the face. And I would take a crowbar to the face of anyone intending to rape my wife, for example.

Jesus, in my mind, seemed like a very compassionate man, but I don't know much about his ability to be pragmatic. My guess however, is that he expected there were going to be some "exceptions".

"Turn the other cheek...but should someone try to attack your wife, kicketh him in the nads, for yea, he is a douchebag."

Or something to that effect.

Individually? In defense of myself and defense of others, or when called upon by my nation to serve in war.

using your family as an excuse to ignore commands like these is not appropriate. if they are christ's, they have nothing to fear. that is the only refuge that exists, and no violence on earth can take that away.

Not a Christian, but in my opinion, a God who commands me to talk quietly and reasonably to someone as they kill my parents, torture my ciblings, and abuse my kids is no more "loving" than a God who orders me to murder my wife and children personally. I could be wrong, but isn't "The inaction of the good is all that evil needs to triumph" at least partially Christian dogma?

This is not a critiscism of Christianity. I know lots of very good people who are Christians. One is both a minister and my own aunt. It's a critiscism of this kind of Christian fundamentalism, which is, by allowing all this harm to come to innocent people, nearly as bad as suicide bombing.

I'm almost tempted to tell those who believe in allowing their friends relatives, and indeed anyone to be raped for no other reason that "If they are truly righteous [read: share my beliefs], Christ will protect them" to start suicide bombing. Then they can be shot, like Muslim fundies.

(I would like to asure everyone that they need not worry. I'm only a raving baby-eating libservanazi)

Yeah I thought he was all about letting people choose ... I guess it is better to just kill off those who have a higher chance of not doing what he wants ...

What a dick

Power corrupts, unlimited power over time and space turns you into a bat-shit insane sadist.

I could be wrong, but isn't "The inaction of the good is all that evil needs to triumph" at least partially Christian dogma?

no. and love and forgiveness are not inaction. they are the most powerful and significant actions in the world. "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" "a kind word turns away wrath". compassion has never bred emnity.

this kind of Christian fundamentalism, which is, by allowing all this harm to come to innocent people, nearly as bad as suicide bombing.

"all this harm?" first of all, I have never heard of this happening. to anyone. the theoretical scenarios in which you either murder or allow someone else to be murdered are rediculously unlikely to ever happen. secondly, no, they are not even remotely as bad as suicide bombinb. thirdly, I am a pantheist, I do not consider scripture divinely inspired unless it makes sense (I believe what I quoted here does). I am not a christian, let alone a christian fundamentalist. and if love and forgiveness are fundamentalism, then there needs to be a hell of alot more of it.

comparing pacifism with the deliberate wholesale slaughter of innocents is as illogical as it is insulting. christian pacifism has exactly nothing in common with the ideology of terrorism. lately anything that's not a part of mainstream western culture gets an absurd label like that, and that's pretty idiotic.

I'm almost tempted to tell those who believe in allowing their friends relatives, and indeed anyone to be raped for no other reason that "If they are truly righteous [read: share my beliefs], Christ will protect them" to start suicide bombing. Then they can be shot, like Muslim fundies.

I'm not saying that christ will protect anyone from bodily harm. I'm saying that it is more harmful to arbitrarily kill another human being than to die yourself. I'm not saying that righteousness will buy protection, and I'm *certainly* not equating righteousness with sharing my beliefs, (which, again, are not christian - please wait next time before flinging around accusations of fundamentalism) if you read the quote by chrysostom above, he was saying that death was not something to be afraid of - not because it wouldn't happen, but because it wouldn't matter. as far as the christian view of it - being a christian is said to make it MORE likely that you will suffer and be killed. you're putting words in my mouth and ideas in my head that were never there. the avoidance of harming others is about making OTHERS the most important part of your life. it has absolutely nothing to do with some insane belief that your own dogma makes you somehow invincible. or that only the unrighteous suffer and die. several of the quotes I have up there, and many, many more references in the new testament, are about suffering and death being more likely, and indeed downright desirable for christians. I never said a word about the righteous coming to no harm, or it having anything to do with one belief system. I said "if they are Christ's, they have nothing to fear" - I believe there are muslims, pagans, jews, and atheists who serve Christ - I see him as an avatar of an elemental force behind *all* gods and *all* forms of truth. I could've expanded my assertation and said that NO ONE has anything to fear from death, but I was talking to a christian who wanted a biblical context, and so I gave him one. please, please do not equate *mentioning* Christ with some sort of rabid dogmatism. outside of my post on pacifism, which you apperently did not read very closely, you know absolutely nothing about what I believe, and I really don't appriciate being accused of fundamentalism in a religion I don't even belong to.

this ideology has had a large impact on the world. the quakers and historic peace churches are its main proponents. in the americas they were the strongest advocates for native american rights, and the impetus for the abolition of slavery. tolstoy was heavily influenced by their beliefs, and Ghandi claims to have been inspired by Tolstoy's writings. needless to say, Ghandi was as near a saint and a hero as any person who ever lived, and also went on to inspire other heroes like Martin Luther King...again, to compare the ideology that is *directly* responsible for the actions of men like Ghandi and Martin Luther King to suicide bombing is ignorant and insulting. I'm not as familiar with buddhist scriptures, but the same idea in that tradition is calld "ahimsa" - it extends down even to animals - and again, its most vocal practitioner in this era is Ghandi.

I was not citing the bible as a universal logical proof in support of these practices - if I were talking to a non christian I would use whatever they accepted as an authority to appeal to their conscience. as I was talking to a christian, I used the teachings of christ (which I believe are logical and need no claims of divine inspiration to be valid - which isnt' to say I necessarily *disbelieve* in their divinity)

but again, this ideology is directly responsible for the actions of the greatest men and women of our time. comparing it to suicide bombing is repulsive. no life is more significant than any other. I have no right to take a life because I arbitrarily judge my own family to be of more worth than a complete stranger. violence only begets more violence, or death. our lives are impermanent anyway, there's no use desperately clinging to them. every soldier and every terrorist has an innocent life he's trying to save, better, avenge, or protect. there has never been a slaughter whose perpetrators did not claim necessity or self defense for. there is no moral high ground in killing one brother in another brother's name.

no. and love and forgiveness are not inaction. they are the most powerful and significant actions in the world. "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" "a kind word turns away wrath". compassion has never bred emnity.

When did I equate love and forgiveness with inaction? I merely said that I was under the (seemingly incorrect, at least in your case) impression that Christianity considers sitting by and letting evil that you could prevent happen to be morally wrong. Oh, and important point: compassion has bred lots of emnity. Among the people who think they deserve compassion and aren't getting any. That's just advice: you should be more specific. My critiscism is: "If it's a mentally ill person or someone who just hates me and will never stop trying to physically and mentally harm me, compassion is still doing no good, even if it does nor wrong.

"all this harm?" first of all, I have never heard of this happening. to anyone. the theoretical scenarios in which you either murder or allow someone else to be murdered are rediculously unlikely to ever happen. secondly, no, they are not even remotely as bad as suicide bombinb. thirdly, I am a pantheist, I do not consider scripture divinely inspired unless it makes sense (I believe what I quoted here does). I am not a christian, let alone a christian fundamentalist. and if love and forgiveness are fundamentalism, then there needs to be a hell of alot more of it.

You've never heard of anyones children being abused? Anyones realtives being killed as revenge or similar? Anyone's relations being threatened with harm to extract information of compliance? And I never called you a Christian. I merely stated that such rigid adherance to Scripture no matter the avoidable harm that it causes (which is a kind of fundamentalism) as you seemed to be advocating is fundamentalism, and that the Scriptures in the question where Christian.

As to suicide bombing, say a suicide bomber detonates, knowing that only three people are in the blast radius. He knows nothing about them. One bad person and three people as good as your average human have been killed.

Now suppose I have a gun. A guy has my ciblings lined up and is going to shoot them, becuase he wants to cause me anguish and is too far deep into insanity to care about consequinces. If I let him shoot my four ciblings, including my murdering, drug-dealing brother, one bad person and three people as good as your average human have died.

If I shoot him (in the shoulder, since you objected to the easily non-lethal use of a crowbar to protect the rape victim), one bad person has died, at most. Possibly no-one has. I know I'm being unrealistically clinical, but the point still stands. Statistacilly, it's the same.

comparing pacifism with the deliberate wholesale slaughter of innocents is as illogical as it is insulting. christian pacifism has exactly nothing in common with the ideology of terrorism. lately anything that's not a part of mainstream western culture gets an absurd label like that, and that's pretty idiotic.

As seen above, I can give logical reasons why abstaining from any form of violence can be statistically the same. As to Christain Pacifism, or any form of pacifism that forbids violence altogether (if CP doesn't, sorry, but that's how you made it sound), in the given scenario, it has results in common. In situations where life is at stake, results are as important as intent.

I'm not saying that christ will protect anyone from bodily harm. I'm saying that it is more harmful to arbitrarily kill another human being than to die yourself. I'm not saying that righteousness will buy protection, and I'm *certainly* not equating righteousness with sharing my beliefs, (which, again, are not christian - please wait next time before flinging around accusations of fundamentalism) if you read the quote by chrysostom above, he was saying that death was not something to be afraid of - not because it wouldn't happen, but because it wouldn't matter.

You objected against Mac Suibhne's comment that to "let the assaulter have his way" would be wrong under Christian morals. You said that if the women (I can only assume that's what you're reffering to) is "Christ's", she has "nothing to fear".

Logical conclusion: you're saying "If you're a true Christian, being raped is harmless." That, or: you're saying "Assaulter means murderer."

Who needs the bible when a dictionary would do?

as far as the christian view of it - being a christian is said to make it MORE likely that you will suffer and be killed. you're putting words in my mouth and ideas in my head that were never there. the avoidance of harming others is about making OTHERS the most important part of your life. it has absolutely nothing to do with some insane belief that your own dogma makes you somehow invincible. or that only the unrighteous suffer and die. several of the quotes I have up there, and many, many more references in the new testament, are about suffering and death being more likely, and indeed downright desirable for christians. I never said a word about the righteous coming to no harm, or it having anything to do with one belief system. I said "if they are Christ's, they have nothing to fear" - I believe there are muslims, pagans, jews, and atheists who serve Christ - I see him as an avatar of an elemental force behind *all* gods and *all* forms of truth. I could've expanded my assertation and said that NO ONE has anything to fear from death, but I was talking to a christian who wanted a biblical context, and so I gave him one. please, please do not equate *mentioning* Christ with some sort of rabid dogmatism. outside of my post on pacifism, which you apperently did not read very closely, you know absolutely nothing about what I believe, and I really don't appriciate being accused of fundamentalism in a religion I don't even belong to.

That changes nothing. "To a true Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or righteous Atheist, rape is harmless." Also, note that I never said you were a Christian in direct terms. Admittadly, I was assuming that in a rather ignorant way, but all I said was the Christian fundamentalism (absolute adherance to Christian Scripture) you advocated disgusts me as much as Muslim fundamentalism becuase it can easily cause as much suffering. (Yes, it generally doesn't. Yes, I said result is as important as intent. But I never said intent wasn't important)

this ideology has had a large impact on the world. the quakers and historic peace churches are its main proponents. in the americas they were the strongest advocates for native american rights, and the impetus for the abolition of slavery. tolstoy was heavily influenced by their beliefs, and Ghandi claims to have been inspired by Tolstoy's writings. needless to say, Ghandi was as near a saint and a hero as any person who ever lived, and also went on to inspire other heroes like Martin Luther King...again, to compare the ideology that is *directly* responsible for the actions of men like Ghandi and Martin Luther King to suicide bombing is ignorant and insulting.I'm not as familiar with buddhist scriptures, but the same idea in that tradition is calld "ahimsa" - it extends down even to animals - and again, its most vocal practitioner in this era is Ghandi.

So Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Tolstoy believed in standing idly by as a gut raped your wife. Becuase, as far as I can tell, that's what you were advocating, and it's certainly what i was objecting too.

I was not citing the bible as a universal logical proof in support of these practices - if I were talking to a non christian I would use whatever they accepted as an authority to appeal to their conscience. as I was talking to a christian, I used the teachings of christ (which I believe are logical and need no claims of divine inspiration to be valid - which isnt' to say I necessarily *disbelieve* in their divinity)

I don't care what book you believe in or don't believe in. You seemd to me to be advocating sitting idly by as a guy raped your wife. That's what I'm objecting too.

but again, this ideology is directly responsible for the actions of the greatest men and women of our time. comparing it to suicide bombing is repulsive. no life is more significant than any other. I have no right to take a life because I arbitrarily judge my own family to be of more worth than a complete stranger. violence only begets more violence, or death. our lives are impermanent anyway, there's no use desperately clinging to them. every soldier and every terrorist has an innocent life he's trying to save, better, avenge, or protect. there has never been a slaughter whose perpetrators did not claim necessity or self defense for. there is no moral high ground in killing one brother in another brother's name.

The ideology of sitting idly by while a guy rapes your wife? If this post had been any longer, I would have started copy-pasting that phrase. It should be noted that I never said you had to kill anyone. It just seemed to me that you were advocating no violent response, so I objected to that.

Oh, and and I'm kind of making the huge assumption that I'm not going to marry a rapist or any other sort of criminal. So I'm saying the life of my wife or any other innocent women is more important that that of a rapist.

I'm a Christian, and pacifist.

... He is also supposed to be a moral authority ...

A do as I say not as I do attitude does not strike me as an ultimate source of morality to me ...
For a human to say such, yes that would be obvious hypocrisy. But God is different. His motives may often be beyond our understanding, and since He is God, He works in mysterious ways and can do no wrong.

When the voice in my head tells me to, who am I to argue?

When the voice in my head tells me to, who am I to argue?

Well said!

no. and love and forgiveness are not inaction. they are the most powerful and significant actions in the world. "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" "a kind word turns away wrath". compassion has never bred emnity.

To the contrary: compassion always breeds enmity. Having compassion for others allows them to exploit you, destroy you, and make you suffer. Compassion is the most stupid fucking thing it is possible for a human being to feel, except for possibly hatred (I have difficulties with that, I know), anger, and love.

The compassionate will always be destroyed. It is only either the psychopaths, or the rational, who will remain.

I'm a Christian, and pacifist.


For a human to say such, yes that would be obvious hypocrisy. But God is different. His motives may often be beyond our understanding, and since He is God, He works in mysterious ways and can do no wrong.

Or the description of him could be wrong ...

Thats what I don't get a multy thousand year old book written by humans describes a being they call god that massively innocent children, and do some Christians explain it in the obvious and reasonable way? that it is simply an incorrect description (due to whatever reason)

No it is simply apparently beyond our reasoning (or so I am told)...

I'm sorry some things he does could be beyond my reasoning, there is no reason to slaughter innocents, a fact he apparently caught on to after the fact and promised not to do again ... at least in that manner.

I can see having faith in god but not in a books description of him ... and (assuming I had faith) when there is something that evil attributed to god my faith in his being good outweighs any faith in a document

when God commands the killing of children, it is actually an act of mercy, since killing them before the age of accountability saves from judgement (they would have no chance of repentence in evil societies).

Yes, its much better to kill people than to let them make their own decisions.

I am a christian

In principle A) There is no excuse for VIOLENCE
B) If you stood by and did nothing whilst another was hurt are you not wronging them?

from these I would draw the conclusion that you should help the person being atacked ect. but do so in as non-violent a way as possible:

Not with the intention of revenge
NOT to protect yourself but to help another
Help the person in the right staite of mind: fealing sory for the atacker but NOT hate.

In relation to war I would say absolutely NO

The war in Iraq just as an example because it is happening NOW.
In most wars people believe they are right, but if you detach yourself from the conflict and look at what is happening then you would be HORIFIED to see people killing people that they could easily have been freinds with.

EVEN if the church was threatened then there would be no justifiable reason for christians to go to war.

In conclusion NO VIOLENCE for yourself but we have an obligation as christians to do whatever we can for others in as non violent a way as humainly possible.

This was in principle and not actualy what I would probably do, we are all humans but that does not meen that we should not strive for goodness

To the contrary: compassion always breeds enmity. Having compassion for others allows them to exploit you, destroy you, and make you suffer. Compassion is the most stupid fucking thing it is possible for a human being to feel, except for possibly hatred (I have difficulties with that, I know), anger, and love.

The compassionate will always be destroyed. It is only either the psychopaths, or the rational, who will remain.

I think I just remembered why I left this forum years ago. *sigh*.

Having compassion for others allows them to exploit you, destroy you, and make you suffer. Compassion is the most stupid fucking thing it is possible for a human being to feel, except for possibly hatred (I have difficulties with that, I know), anger, and love.

The compassionate will always be destroyed. It is only either the psychopaths, or the rational, who will remain.

QFT. Compassion and anger cause you to drop your guard, and it interferes with making proper decisions. However this can also be said for almost all emotions.

I am a christian

In principle A) There is no excuse for VIOLENCE
B) If you stood by and did nothing whilst another was hurt are you not wronging them?

from these I would draw the conclusion that you should help the person being atacked ect. but do so in as non-violent a way as possible:

Not with the intention of revenge
NOT to protect yourself but to help another
Help the person in the right staite of mind: fealing sory for the atacker but NOT hate.

In relation to war I would say absolutely NO

The war in Iraq just as an example because it is happening NOW.
In most wars people believe they are right, but if you detach yourself from the conflict and look at what is happening then you would be HORIFIED to see people killing people that they could easily have been freinds with.

EVEN if the church was threatened then there would be no justifiable reason for christians to go to war.

In conclusion NO VIOLENCE for yourself but we have an obligation as christians to do whatever we can for others in as non violent a way as humainly possible.

This was in principle and not actualy what I would probably do, we are all humans but that does not meen that we should not strive for goodness

I hate to be picky (actually I lie, I love it) but if it's righteous to defend another individual against attack how is it wrong to defend another country or to defend your own country against attack? (war this is)

I think there's a bit in the NT that says something along the lines of:
"So far as it depends on you, live at love and in peace with all."

Assuming I've remembered that (or at least the sentiment) correctly, we should not start wars, but we should not stand by while people are hurt (mentally or physically).

Well I don't like war myself but I'm afraid that while there exists one group of people in the world who are willing and able to attack another group of people with the aim of gaining control over them in some way or another, then war is inevitable and soldiers are necessary.

So what do you think is worse in the eyes of God ( if you are someone who believes in God) 1. Having conscentual gay sex with someone over 21 OR
2. Breaking someone's leg with (what in your opinion is) insufficient provocation

So what do you think is worse in the eyes of God ( if you are someone who believes in God) 1. Having conscentual gay sex with someone over 21 OR
2. Breaking someone's leg with (what in your opinion is) insufficient provocation

How is this on topic in any way, shape, or form?

How is this on topic in any way, shape, or form?

Becuz all religus peeple r teh homobophobes LOL!!!!111

Ever a right time for it?

Well, Jesus taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" when offered insults. I'm not 100% sure if that applies to getting punched in the face. And I would take a crowbar to the face of anyone intending to rape my wife, for example.

In other cases, I think it's hard to justify unless it's somehow preventing MORE violence.

No, it's not when offered insults. It's when hit in the face. "If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn him the other."

So what do you think is worse in the eyes of God ( if you are someone who believes in God) 1. Having conscentual gay sex with someone over 21 OR
2. Breaking someone's leg with (what in your opinion is) insufficient provocation

2, easily, because 1 is never wrong.

How is this on topic in any way, shape, or form?

because there was an accusation of christian fundamentalism, and therefore those whose it were leveled at must hate gay people. despite the fact I am gay.

I hate to be picky (actually I lie, I love it) but if it's righteous to defend another individual against attack how is it wrong to defend another country or to defend your own country against attack? (war this is)

I agree, you can't take one stance and have an opposite stance on the other. one might put foreward, however, that countries and governments are abstractions, while human beings are not.

When did I equate love and forgiveness with inaction?

when you equated pacifism with twiddling your thumbs while someone right next to you is raped or murdered.

I merely said that I was under the (seemingly incorrect, at least in your case) impression that Christianity considers sitting by and letting evil that you could prevent happen to be morally wrong.

the only wrongdoing you have any business worrying about is your own. this is a central teaching in christianity. to paraphrase, "don't try to remove the speck from your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own". "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Oh, and important point: compassion has bred lots of emnity. Among the people who think they deserve compassion and aren't getting any. That's just advice: you should be more specific. My critiscism is: "If it's a mentally ill person or someone who just hates me and will never stop trying to physically and mentally harm me, compassion is still doing no good, even if it does nor wrong.

...what? a perceived lack of deserved compassion is self-centeredness. post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You've never heard of anyones children being abused? Anyones realtives being killed as revenge or similar? Anyone's relations being threatened with harm to extract information of compliance? And I never called you a Christian. I merely stated that such rigid adherance to Scripture no matter the avoidable harm that it causes (which is a kind of fundamentalism) as you seemed to be advocating is fundamentalism, and that the Scriptures in the question where Christian.

I've seen abuse first hand on several occasions. many systems like social services were *invented* by pacifists. there is pretty much always more than one solution to any given problem, and the best one is never to act out in violence. if you'd like to start pointing out documented events in which a pacifist ignored abuse, rape, or murder and did nothing to try to prevent it, then please, go ahead. in response I'll find you documented events in which pacifists risked their own lives to help others, ended conflicts, and bettered lives. we can then tally up the percentages...which would be something in the range of 99% incidences of charity and service, and 1% incidences of...doing nothing. even generously if you managed to find 1 incidence of pacifist-caused rape for every 19 incidents of pacifist charity or heroism, a 95% success rate is something most organisations would die for. if you want to talk about analyzing the value of strict pacifism statistically, (as you go on to do below) then I can absolutely garentee that, statistically, it has been directly responsible for vastly more good than it has been indirectly responsible for permitting others to do harm.

as far as relatives being killed in "revenge", my high school was featured in a documentary on gang violence a few years back. not suprisingly, when people told the kids involved how to stop the cycles of violence, it was not with MORE VIOLENCE. a fairly basic, common sense solution to problems like this, which is suggested by plenty of non-pacifists, is to forgive and forget. people who are not involved in violence to begin with do not get vengence wrecked upopn them.

"Anyone's relations being threatened with harm to extract information of compliance?"

...what? having not had extensive dealings with the mafia, no, I've never seen this happen before in real life. and by definition you cannot force someone to comply who is already compliant.

As to suicide bombing, say a suicide bomber detonates, knowing that only three people are in the blast radius. He knows nothing about them. One bad person and three people as good as your average human have been killed.

Now suppose I have a gun. A guy has my ciblings lined up and is going to shoot them, becuase he wants to cause me anguish and is too far deep into insanity to care about consequinces. If I let him shoot my four ciblings, including my murdering, drug-dealing brother, one bad person and three people as good as your average human have died.

If I shoot him (in the shoulder, since you objected to the easily non-lethal use of a crowbar to protect the rape victim), one bad person has died, at most. Possibly no-one has. I know I'm being unrealistically clinical, but the point still stands. Statistacilly, it's the same.

statistically? people are not numbers. you cannot multiply or divide infinity, nor weigh a life which has infinate worth against another. the value of human life is qualitative, not quantitative. the US legal system actually has put a cash value on human life...this is a revolting way of thinking. to define someone as having a measurable worth is ultimately to define their worth as their utility, to objectify them, and to strip them of their humanity...and again, if you want to bring statistics into this, make it *real* statistical analysis. instead of you inventing scenarios in which pacifism is inferior to violence, lets look at actual historical occurances, and *statistically* lets compare violence pacifists could have tried to stop with positive actions pacifists have gone out of their way to do.

As seen above, I can give logical reasons why abstaining from any form of violence can be statistically the same. As to Christain Pacifism, or any form of pacifism that forbids violence altogether (if CP doesn't, sorry, but that's how you made it sound), in the given scenario, it has results in common. In situations where life is at stake, results are as important as intent.

again, this is a question of ethics, not statistics. this is not about defending a percentage of "human resources". thinking of two people as twice as valuable as one is the same sort of understanding that slavers had of them. people are not objects of measurable worth. ethical questions cannot be solved with statistical analysis.

You objected against Mac Suibhne's comment that to "let the assaulter have his way" would be wrong under Christian morals. You said that if the women (I can only assume that's what you're reffering to) is "Christ's", she has "nothing to fear".

Logical conclusion: you're saying "If you're a true Christian, being raped is harmless." That, or: you're saying "Assaulter means murderer."

I objected to the implication that to fight off the assaulter was the only option. furthermore, assuming all other possible solutions had been exhausted, I'm saying that external circumstances cannot harm *anyone* who does not allow them to do so.


the Christian fundamentalism (absolute adherance to Christian Scripture) you advocated

I was not advocating absolute adherance to christian scripture. I was not even advocating ANY adherance to christian scripture. I was speaking to someone who acknowledged it as an authority - and responding to the OP which asks for scriptural support of whichever position you are putting foreward. I was citing christians scripture as support for a position which I reached entirely independant thereof. I could as easily have quoted thoreau or tolstoy, and I have in the past in support of the same point. I do not promote absolute adherence to the writings of tolstoy either, incidentally.


it can easily cause as much suffering. (Yes, it generally doesn't. Yes, I said result is as important as intent. But I never said intent wasn't important)

generally doesn't? please cite me a single documented incidence in which it has, from all of history. no theoretical ones, please.

you remember when that lunatic bombed that amish school? the amish are adherents of pacifism. I heard the mothers and syblings of the murdered children on the news forgiving their attackers, and praying for his family. to claim that that reaction caused anywhere near as much suffering as bombing them back (I'll be politically incorrect and assume that's what the muslim fundamentalist response would be) is completely unfounded. the parents of those children were already moving through the stages of grief and reconciling themselves with what had happened, and going out of their way to heal the wound for the family of the insane man.

So Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Tolstoy believed in standing idly by as a gut raped your wife. Becuase, as far as I can tell, that's what you were advocating, and it's certainly what i was objecting too.

no, that's not what I was advocating in the least. ghandi's nation had been raped, and rather than acting out violently, he resisted passively. he accomplished through non-violent resistance easily as much as the entire american revolution did. martin luther king's people (african americans) had been opressed and abused (many of them were raped) and between the abolitionists of the last century (the majority of whom were christian pacifists) and the non-violent resistance of martin luther king's civil rights movement, they accomplished a level of integration that no level of violent revolt ever could have.

the only thing I objected to was the implication that the only two options were to act out violently or to passively participate in the rape. there are always more than two options.

I don't care what book you believe in or don't believe in. You seemd to me to be advocating sitting idly by as a guy raped your wife. That's what I'm objecting too.

I'm advocating recognising that first of all, there is almost always another way of avoiding harm than fighting back. and that secondly, there is nothing that can be preserved by force which will not be lost anyway. I believe in the immortality of the soul. in that context, you gain more by suffering in the body and forgiving, than by defending the body and objectifying another soul. for the record, I do not have blind faith in the soul, I have studied the occult and seen ghosts, posessions, poltergeists, and myriad associated phenominon myself. again let me impress upon you that I have reached these conclusions by my own experiences and my own reason, not by anything I read in a book.

The ideology of sitting idly by while a guy rapes your wife? If this post had been any longer, I would have started copy-pasting that phrase. It should be noted that I never said you had to kill anyone. It just seemed to me that you were advocating no violent response, so I objected to that.

again, in the context of two immortal souls in two perishable bodies, the end result is always two dead bodies. intent is vastly more important than result, when the ultimate result is always death.

Oh, and and I'm kind of making the huge assumption that I'm not going to marry a rapist or any other sort of criminal. So I'm saying the life of my wife or any other innocent women is more important that that of a rapist.

since this thread is about Christian views on violence, it seems relevent to point out that in this tradition, no life is more or less valuable than any other.

my logic on this goes as follows: a criminal is defined as less valuable than another person as they have less utility (or negative utility) towards either yourself, or your society. in order for utility to have value, or destruction to have negative value, it must affect the results of your own efforts or society either positively or negatively. as the results of your efforts and of your society are always going to end in death and disintegration, positive utility and negative destruction both have zero effect, and using utility to define the value of a person is illogical.