16 Jul 11
Originally posted by divegeesterI 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.
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.
17 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatHow could defending your family from being attacked not be the right thing to do?
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.
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.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by divegeesterYou 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.
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.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe many must be the Jehovah's Witnesses. That's about all I can think
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.
of, besides you. You have any more suggestions?
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
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."
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThey confuse the time when Jesus will be here as King and the reality
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."
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.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI 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.
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 believe what Jesus taught about 'turning the other cheek' is nothing to do with defending your family.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by divegeesterI 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.
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.
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.
30 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI 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.
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.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by divegeesterOf course you're entitled to an opinion and I respect that even if I do find it a little naive and ignorant.
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.