Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[Michelle]

I said I would bow out — and I will — but I really must have been clumsy in my last reply.

I also wish pacifists could see the difference quicker, 'that' would save a lot of time. I cannot believe a person would ‘have’ to define the difference between stopping violence and perpetrating violence (?!).

I thought we were defining violence. I see violence as: any act involving physical force that causes damage, injury, or death. That's it — no world
views, no mental states, or no internal dialogue needs to be discerned.

It is the pacifist who asks, "Can't you see the difference between stopping violence and perpetrating violence?"

The 'intent' of the bombers was evil, and violence.
I am sure there are crimes committed by such depraved maniacs that even smile, or have no emotion at all. The only reason the perpetrator was able to ‘appear’ calm was because he ‘thought’ he got away with it. The only reason detonating a bomb ‘appeared’ unaggressive is because it had a timer on it. The bombers were also 'inspired by violent ideology'.

So we've added intention to mental state. It's really not necessary to do all this analyzing. The action involved deadly, physical force. It was violent.

Are pacifists equating defense with intent to do violence?

Yes, if the defense is violent.

Does the pacifist definition of violence equate stopping someone who’s intent is to do harm, with someone trying to protect an innocent victim?

...stopping someone whose intent is to do harm vs. someone trying to protect an innocent victim........ what is the difference you see?

You're asking me if I equate the people. I don't know. What measurement am I supposed to be using?

If you meant to ask if I equate the actions of someone whose intent is to do harm with the actions of someone who is trying to protect the innocent, my answer is: Yes, if the protection is violent.

I 'have' asked the simple question 'enough' already; How do you suggest a person stop a violent attacker? (This is a serious question, and a serious situation, and the best answer I got was; be creative)

Is "be creative" a bad answer?

I'll play "Let's Pretend." Imagine if right this moment a madman kicked in the door. (Pacifists are not idiots; we lock our doors and windows, and we wisely use discernment.) Now he's reached the family room where I'm sitting with my laptop, and he's pointing a gun right at me. How would I stop him? Honestly, I would probably die in the attempt, but I would throw things at him and run. What would you do? Are you armed and ready for a defense at all times?

But let's further pretend. Let's say my attacker is quite stupid. In one instant I see that I can distract him and grab his gun. Now I have the upper hand. Do I shoot him? Would you? I would not.

Oh no, now things have taken a turn for the worse! My niece, who lives in my spare bedroom, bounds down the stairs to see what the commotion is. The attacker, regaining what wit he has, grabs her roughly (dare I say violently?) and starts to strangle her before my very eyes. What do I do? I've got his gun, and so I'll tell you quite honestly, I'm going to shoot him. I don't know if I could aim well, so I might kill him (and I might very well kill my niece instead), but I'm pretty sure that's what I would do. Is that violent on my part? You bet. I used physical force (well, the force of a fire arm) and I caused injury and maybe death.

My niece is fine, the perpetrator is dead, and I am heart-broken. This was the best I could do, these are the limits to my creativity. I honestly wish I could have traded my life in order to free my niece and spare the perpetrator's life. I'm assured of a resurrection to life, he is not yet.

And I used violence. I was violent. That I could even imagine that whole scene proves I have an ability to be violent, no matter how hard I try to suppress it.

The violent person is the one instigating violence. The bombers had violent intent. A person who is non violent, should not be defined as violent because they are forced to defend an innocent person, out of love for the victim.

You don't, but I do. See above

“Your definition does not satisfy me, but now I see more clearly why you bristled at my comment about you and violence”

You assumed I was violent, I responded because you were wrong.
Does being a pacifist mean you can assume untruthful things about someone and then blame them for explaining and setting the record straight? Does ‘my’ definition of violence, mean you were correct in your evaluation of 'me'?

Wow, JR, take a deep breath.

Above I explained how I see myself as a violent person. In truth, I have never struck, nor slashed with a knife, nor pointed/discharged a gun at any living thing. I have not behaved violently, but I think I could. The difference between us, I think, is that I would probably have more regret than you.

JR, I have not blamed you for anything. By your definition of violent, I was wrong about you, which is what I meant (but apparently was unclear in expressing) when I said "...but now I see more clearly why you bristled at my comment about you and violence." So, let me try again: You do not fit your definition of a violent man.

Didn’t Jesus continually refer to the heart as being the thing controlling our actions?

Could you show me where?

(Don’t respond again by saying you don’t ‘understand’. Someone could easily write off everybody’s post as illogical just because they do not agree)

Oh good gravy!

Yes, a person could easily write off everybody's post as illogical just because they do not agree, but that would be dishonest. Do you think I'm dishonest?

[steve]

JR,

I do not think I am the only one here that thinks your posts have become very unedifying, irrational and defensive. Give it a rest. You are not making your case attractive nor persuasive.

[Paidion]

"Unedifying, irrational and defensive." Yes, I think there are a significant number of us who regard his posts that way.
However, most of us have chosen not to dignify his defensiveness and lack of edification and rationality, with a response.

[Singalphile]

I wasn't going to say anything publically, but since the previous two good and admirable posters both claim to speak for more than just themselves, I am compelled to say publically that they do not speak for me, jr. (Actually, I rather disagree with their characterization, but that's just me.) 104 posts in this thread, and 21 of them are yours, including the first one (as it's your thread). Myself, I haven't noticed anything worth publically calling you out over.

I am responding this way also, jr, so that you don't have to (unless you want to), since I know it might only be classified as defensiveness on your part.

I apologize if I'm speaking up when I shouldn't. Perhaps you all know each other better. I don't really know any of you.

[jeremiah]

Please don't apologize Singalphile, I think you're entirely right to speak up.

John and I definitely disagree on many things, but I think such blanket statements of irrationality and in-edification are uncalled for. It appeared to me that both Michelle and John equally shared in being overly defensive at times, as well being irrational at other times. It also looked as if they were doing just fine working out their misunderstandings of each other, even if they hadn't yet got there entirely.

It's really easy to just wave the hand and say something such as Steve did, for all that's needed is agitation and a momentary disregard for love of the brethren. It's much more difficult to love our siblings and put in the necessary work of explaining our disagreement striving for edification and equity to drive our words. I think we've all experienced at one time or another how much more easy and difficult these two can be when only text is involved.

Let grace and peace be...

[steve7150]

Speaking only for myself i'm glad folks are here that have other points of view then myself and each of us can decide whether a post is edifying and worth reading and responding to. JRs posts are on average to lengthy and this style i think is counterproductive to persuading the reader to either agree with him or at least consider what he says, but it is his style and up to him to critique himself. Even Peter said that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand but they made it into the bible.

[Paidion]

Steve 7150, irrational statements are not hard to understand. It's just that they ought not to be understood.

[Paidion]

It's really easy to just wave the hand and say something such as Steve did...

Jeremiah, that is not what Steve did. Steve wrote many carefully thought out, Biblically based responses to JR, and JR didn't address them but just rattled on with his usual stuff. As Steve correctly put it, Steve's own words were like "water off a duck's back." I have found the same. So what was left for Steve to do since JR perservered in the same negativity, irrationality, etc.? He simply told it like it is, perhaps hoping that JR would tone things down a bit.

[jeremiah]

Jeremiah, that is not what Steve did. Steve wrote many carefully thought out, Biblically based responses to JR, and JR didn't address them but just rattled on with his usual stuff. As Steve correctly put it, his own words were like "water off a duck's back." I have found the same. So what was left for Steve to do since JR perservered in the same negativity, irrationality, etc.? He simply told it like it is, perhaps hoping that JR would tone things down a bit.

Hello Paidion,

I think you may mistaking this thread with another less recent one. I don't remember the name. If final judgement wasn't the start, I remember it quickly became a debate between universal reconciliation and conditional immortality**, and there was much back and forth between Steve G and John R. I didn't find "many" carefully thought out responses to John in this thread, which of Steve's are you referring to? (Steve G, not that I think your responses in this thread were mostly without careful thought, only that the ones I think Paidion referenced are from another thread.)
** edit: Sorry, it was a thread titled: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism. Though I don't think conditional immortality was actually discussed, my mistake.

I fully appreciate how both of you believe you "told it like it is." But is telling it like you believe it to be the only option? Is your brother's wealth and edification worth less than your own? I realize John is a grown man, and it is probable he and the others involved will not be offended to the point of stumbling by all this. So I don't intend to blow a small thing out of proportion, nor charge Steve or yourself with some great sin. I just believe if we wish things to be toned down at all or with hopeful lasting fruit to be cultivated then we must work towards that end. There is no labor in simply asserting the way we think it is. But there is much work getting on our knees, cultivating the ground to bring forth the peaceable fruit, instead of thorns and thistles.

Grace and peace...

[Homer]

Michelle,

You wrote:

My niece is fine, the perpetrator is dead, and I am heart-broken. This was the best I could do, these are the limits to my creativity. I honestly wish I could have traded my life in order to free my niece and spare the perpetrator's life. I'm assured of a resurrection to life, he is not yet.

Sad to say I am not as good as you are. But, hey, no reason to be heart-broken over the death of the wicked, he will go to hell and become a sheep in no time.

Seriously, while reading the back and forth I was struck by the thought that if we discussed things in the same words the scriptures use, as nearly as we are able, there would be less misunderstanding.