Uncompromising pacifism a path to peril

London Free Press (London Ontario) ^ | October 23, 2001 | Rory Leishman

[Tacis]

The headline hides the real distinction. There are Christian pacifists and they've been around for years. There are very few of them and, in general, their position is pretty well known. Then, there are the pacifists. These folks are the America-hating, flaming ultra-leftist, extreme left wing liberals who preach socialism at every turn, oppose America's strenghts and purposes, and cleverly argue evry issue to weaken our country who have no basis for their position since 9/11. OBL's crimes have the unintended consequence of silencing these nasty people and all they can whine about is pacifism.

Look at the things that divide that we haven't heard about recently. They range for racial profiling, the wealthy, poison from Tommie the commie, to weak George, UN treaties, cutting defense budgets and so on. Yeah, the true Christian pacifist have been around a long time and will continue to be tolerated. The pacists that hide their true intent are the ones that we should **ss on.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Luke 22:36

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

[Stefan Stackhouse]

The basic problem is that they fail to understand the difference between "turning the other cheek" when it is their own cheek being struck, and "turning the other cheek" when it is some other, innocent person's cheek being struck. To turn the other cheek in this second case actually means to look the other way. I am not aware of any passage in either testament of the Bible that commends indifference toward the plight of innocent victims as something holy, noble, or virtuous. Rather, such behavior should be judged to be contemptable.

Jesus taught us to love our neighbor. He taught us to especially care for and come to the aid of the most unfortunate people in society, even if it requires risk and sacrifice on our part. That is why we are told to turn the other cheek when we ourselves are being harmed, and to forgive those who have harmed us. But faithfulness to Christ and consistent Christian living also requires us to not turn away, but rather become actively involved in the defense of those who are the innocent victims of violence and aggression.

"Christian Pacifists" claim to hold the high moral ground and to be faithful to Christ's teaching. OK, here is a simple test: If this is the case, then they should be the ones who are first to respond to anyone under attack, and they should always seek to interpose themselves bodilly between attacker and victim to shield and protect the innocent, even though this may put them in great peril.

I would respect anyone who claimed to be a "Christian Pacifist" if they did this, but I have very rarely heard of it ever happening. The COs from the Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker churches who volunteered for medic duty come closest, as they at least put their own lives at risk to try to save the lives of combatants.

But try this little experiment next time you encounter a "pacifist": If they oppose our military action in Afghanistan, ask WHY they have not already traveled over there to talk to the Taliban and Al Qaida people in an effort to persuade them to stop harming innocent people? There is only one TRUE answer, of course: They don't want to risk their own precious rear end. They would rather "turn the other cheek" by turning the other way, ignoring the plight of the future thousands or millions of innocent people who will become victims of the terrorists if not stopped. They would rather protest and criticize in personal safety those who are putting their own personal safety on the line.

And they are cowards, hypocrites, and contemptable scum.

[sendtoscott]

Would he remind the desperate woman of Jesus's admonition in the Sermon on the Mount, "Do not resist one who is evil"?

Why not? Freepers love to remind us that Paul said to obey the government (w/o any exceptions in the case where the govt isn't a warm and fuzzy democracy).

[Moby Grape]

Scott, I do not recall any Christians/Freepers reminding us that Paul said to obey the government regardles...

[maestro]

bump

[sendtoscott]

Scott, I do not recall any Christians/Freepers reminding us that Paul said to obey the government regardles...

Paul said to obey the govt regardless (I have yet to see an exception), and Christians/Freepers point to those verses to try to get us to obey the govt when it is doing what they want.

[A2J]

"Scott, I do not recall any Christians/Freepers reminding us that Paul said to obey the government regardles..."

He's just mad that Jesus and Paul were not libertarians. This fact prevents them from using Jesus, Paul, et al, as icons of their religion.

[A2J]

"Paul said to obey the govt regardless (I have yet to see an exception), and Christians/Freepers point to those verses to try to get us to obey the govt when it is doing what they want."

Not what we want, sendtoscott, but what we believe God wants.

That's the difference between libertarians and Christians: one group believes that God is in control of their lives and submit to Him and His appointed instruments of guidance. The other rejects a higher Moral Authority and His instruments, instead following the crooked and slippery path of a subjective morality that changes from moment to moment and depends upon the selfish definition of what they deem as "rights" and "freedom."

[John O]

Paul said to obey the govt regardless (I have yet to see an exception), and Christians/Freepers point to those verses to try to get us to obey the govt when it is doing what they want.

I disagree. Paul does tell us to obey rightful authority but also that we are to obey God. If a government is disobeying God then we are not to obey that government.

God Save America (Please)

[sendtoscott]

If a government is disobeying God then we are not to obey that government.

Paul did not say to obey govts that obey God (the only govt he dealt with, the Roman Empire, certainly did not). He said only evil doers needed to fear the govt, a bald-faced assertion, not that govts that only evil doers need to fear have to be obeyed. Paul made no exceptions, and the govt he lived under, and was killed by, certainly did not imply one for "bad" govts.

[sendtoscott]

That's the difference between libertarians and Christians: one group believes that God is in control of their lives and submit to Him and His appointed instruments of guidance. The other rejects a higher Moral Authority and His instruments, instead following the crooked and slippery path of a subjective morality that changes from moment to moment and depends upon the selfish definition of what they deem as "rights" and "freedom."

Govt morality is as subjective as any other. Govt agents are as immoral and self-serving as any other humans. I don't buy "oral sex isn't sex" just because God's Appointed Moral Authority said so during the impeachment mess.

[sendtoscott]

He's just mad that Jesus and Paul were not libertarians. This fact prevents them from using Jesus, Paul, et al, as icons of their religion.

When dealing with taxes, Jesus either said "if they want it that bad, go ahead and give it to them" and had Peter go get a fish to get the tax payments out of its mouth (a mocking response that I believe is the only miracle Jesus ever did that benefited Himself).

The term "tax collectors" hardly ever appears in the NT without "and sinners" nearby (anyone ever see a Biblical reference to "rug murchants and sinners" or "tent makers and sinners"?

Jesus refused to even speak to Pilate, the hightest ranking govt official He ever dealt with (although I'm doing this one from memory) except to say "If you say so" when Pilate demanded answers or some sort of defense from Him.

The pivotal act in the Gospels is the govt murder of an innocent man.

[sendtoscott]

ping

[sendtoscott]

And Jesus made it a point to deliberately break the law in His first trial ("you will see the Son of Man..."). I don't know if He said anything else at all during that trial, either.

[John O]

If a government is disobeying God then we are not to obey that government.

This is what I said above. In response to your post (which I mostly agree with) Let me rephrase it.

If a government makes a law that would cause us to not obey God then we must not obey that law.

We are to obey God first and then the government. If obeying the gov causes us to disobey God then we cannot obey the gov.

GSA(P)