Question for Steve (non-resistence)
Mohammed Ali claims to have invented the roper doper, however this is not so. I lay claim to that. I was never a violent person in that I started fights, but I have been involved in fights and usually came out on top. Now, this was very early in my teen years and as I became more and more convicted not to brawl I still found myself challenged by individuals who wanted to take me on. At the first sign of a blow to my body I would raise my arms so that my fists were against my forehead and slightly crouched and the blows had no hurtful impact.
The only point I am making here is that even though I changed my foes had not. I never struck back and soon found that no one was interested in making their name on a person who would not fight.
I believe one can protect themself without doing harm to another. Steve removed his glasses in order for them not to be broken. In circles I was in if you took your glasses off you were ready to fight. I always left mine on.
Jesus does not impose unreasonable commands upon us but His commands were for the intent of the heart to be changed to follow after Him. Would you go so far as to pluck an eye out when it offends you? I wouldn't, but I would change my heart so that the flesh no longer has dominion over me. Its the same with turning the other cheek.
The only point I am making here is that even though I changed my foes had not. I never struck back and soon found that no one was interested in making their name on a person who would not fight.
I believe one can protect themself without doing harm to another. Steve removed his glasses in order for them not to be broken. In circles I was in if you took your glasses off you were ready to fight. I always left mine on.
Jesus does not impose unreasonable commands upon us but His commands were for the intent of the heart to be changed to follow after Him. Would you go so far as to pluck an eye out when it offends you? I wouldn't, but I would change my heart so that the flesh no longer has dominion over me. Its the same with turning the other cheek.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Five years ago I was working on a film set and the young camera assistant yelled at me in front of the entire crew, basically challenging me because he made a mistake and was embarrassed. What angered me was that if the situation were to turn violent, I'd end up making this guy look very foolish. Knowing that made me want to react physically to show this guy he has no idea who he's yelling at. But I swallowed my pride and didn't say anything, even though it still bothered my ego a great deal. Later he apologized to me and that's when it clicked. If I had beaten this guy to a pulp to appease my ego, he certainly would not have felt convicted. He may have sensed that I restrained myself and was glad that I let him off the hook. What could've been a disasterous situation turned out pretty well.
The male ego has poisoned many good testimonies. I still struggle with this but there's evidence I'm moving in the right direction. Steve's example is definitely encouraging!
The male ego has poisoned many good testimonies. I still struggle with this but there's evidence I'm moving in the right direction. Steve's example is definitely encouraging!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve, your expression of your thinking concerning Jesus' instruction to turn the other cheek pretty much coincided with the conclusions to which I have come.
Now, can we reasonably employ this stance to matters of war between nations? Should a nation refuse to defend itself when attacked? Is so, would it be morally acceptable for a nation to go to war to defend another nation which is being unjustifiably attacked?
One may consider the position of a nation in a different way from the position of an individual since there is no such thing as a "Christian" nation, in spite of the uttered words "one nation under God". But then the question arises, if a nation has a moral responsibility to go to war to defend itself or another nation, does the disciple of Christ have a responsibility to fight in such a "just" war if he is called upon to do so? Does Jesus' requirement not to resist evil apply to the individual Christian who is called to participate in war?
Now, can we reasonably employ this stance to matters of war between nations? Should a nation refuse to defend itself when attacked? Is so, would it be morally acceptable for a nation to go to war to defend another nation which is being unjustifiably attacked?
One may consider the position of a nation in a different way from the position of an individual since there is no such thing as a "Christian" nation, in spite of the uttered words "one nation under God". But then the question arises, if a nation has a moral responsibility to go to war to defend itself or another nation, does the disciple of Christ have a responsibility to fight in such a "just" war if he is called upon to do so? Does Jesus' requirement not to resist evil apply to the individual Christian who is called to participate in war?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Paidion, how does a regular citizen know if a war is just or unjust? If we are under a rule of law isn't it our obligation to trust the authority of the government? Sure, we may find out later or it might be proven we were right that it was an unjust war but unless you are privy to the secret information all governments have to base their decisions on, no one can say that a war is unjust and be perfect in that understanding.
To me its like paying taxes that go for everything under the sun. If I stop paying my taxes because I do not like small amounts of it going to abortion clinics or other imoral institutions then I better be prepared to go to jail for my tax evasion. Likewise if I do not choose to go to war when I am called upon to do so then I better be ready to go to jail or take any punishment appropriate to the crime for my refusal.
To me its like paying taxes that go for everything under the sun. If I stop paying my taxes because I do not like small amounts of it going to abortion clinics or other imoral institutions then I better be prepared to go to jail for my tax evasion. Likewise if I do not choose to go to war when I am called upon to do so then I better be ready to go to jail or take any punishment appropriate to the crime for my refusal.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Everything you say, Allyn, is true, but it doesn't address the problem I raised.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hi Paidion,
You will find my somewhat extensive treatment of the "war dilemma" at the end of my afore-mentioned article, "On the Believer's use of Forcible Resistance."
You will find my somewhat extensive treatment of the "war dilemma" at the end of my afore-mentioned article, "On the Believer's use of Forcible Resistance."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Ok Paidion, sorry for not addressing your question. What you first need to do is identify the just from the unjust war. You also need to say who is in authority to make the decision concerning war and then you need to identify the present status of the nation as to whether its people are free or under a dictator.Paidion wrote:Everything you say, Allyn, is true, but it doesn't address the problem I raised.
One cannot just answer a question as yours without understanding the conditions I have pointed out. If, on the other hand it boils down to individual judgement on just or unjust then I answered your question.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve:
I agree with what you say about individual behavior in regards to violence , an excellent analysis. I do , however take exception to several statements you make in regards to war. At least as conducted by the U.S. All military personnel are instructed in the following , as a part of their initial training.
"A soldier must pledge complete and unconditional obedience to his superiors, who may be men of low morals or poor ethical judgment."
All obedience is conditional upon the orders being legal.A soldier is required to question and disobey any order that is in violation of legal conduct. Following orders is no excuse from punishment. This was established at the Nurmberg trials As is the following:
"The vocational soldier is often obliged to do things that would be regarded as sinful in civilian life (e.g. lying, stealing, blowing-up other people’s homes and factories, wiping-out civilian populations). What makes these actions right for the soldier at war, but wrong for ordinary men at other times? "
Under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Conduct) , acts such as murder , rape , looting , theft , wanton destruction of property etc. are all criminal offenses even during time of war.
In addition all U.S personnel are subject to the 4th Convention (1949 Geneva Convention)
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. This states:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
At present there are many people who have been , and are being courts marshalled for committing these offenses. Such behavior as you describe is against the professional military ethic.
"Any war effort that is conducted in a way that cannot guarantee the immunity of innocent noncombatants cannot be the ethical equivalent of an individual’s resistance of a violent criminal assault, nor of the state’s justified execution of capital criminals."
In truth war is too brutal to " guarantee the immunity of innocent noncombatants " , that will never happen. The rules of war are there to prevent the intentional targeting of civilians and their property. There is a significant ethical difference between intentional and unintentional. As such the Christian ethic is not incompatible with military service , in my opinion.
This deals only with the conduct of war. The broader subject dealing with war itself brings in many other complications. I did a piece about Just War under "Is it permissable for a believer to be a soldier in war." dealing with that question.
I am also in agreement with your final summation.
"In the final analysis, every Christian must decide within himself, before God, how best to fulfill the constant duty to "do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God" in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves. I have no personal criticism of those who reach different conclusions after prayerful searching of the Scriptures. "
Thomas
You will find my somewhat extensive treatment of the "war dilemma" at the end of my afore-mentioned article, "On the Believer's use of Forcible Resistance."
I agree with what you say about individual behavior in regards to violence , an excellent analysis. I do , however take exception to several statements you make in regards to war. At least as conducted by the U.S. All military personnel are instructed in the following , as a part of their initial training.
"A soldier must pledge complete and unconditional obedience to his superiors, who may be men of low morals or poor ethical judgment."
All obedience is conditional upon the orders being legal.A soldier is required to question and disobey any order that is in violation of legal conduct. Following orders is no excuse from punishment. This was established at the Nurmberg trials As is the following:
"The vocational soldier is often obliged to do things that would be regarded as sinful in civilian life (e.g. lying, stealing, blowing-up other people’s homes and factories, wiping-out civilian populations). What makes these actions right for the soldier at war, but wrong for ordinary men at other times? "
Under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Conduct) , acts such as murder , rape , looting , theft , wanton destruction of property etc. are all criminal offenses even during time of war.
In addition all U.S personnel are subject to the 4th Convention (1949 Geneva Convention)
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. This states:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
At present there are many people who have been , and are being courts marshalled for committing these offenses. Such behavior as you describe is against the professional military ethic.
"Any war effort that is conducted in a way that cannot guarantee the immunity of innocent noncombatants cannot be the ethical equivalent of an individual’s resistance of a violent criminal assault, nor of the state’s justified execution of capital criminals."
In truth war is too brutal to " guarantee the immunity of innocent noncombatants " , that will never happen. The rules of war are there to prevent the intentional targeting of civilians and their property. There is a significant ethical difference between intentional and unintentional. As such the Christian ethic is not incompatible with military service , in my opinion.
This deals only with the conduct of war. The broader subject dealing with war itself brings in many other complications. I did a piece about Just War under "Is it permissable for a believer to be a soldier in war." dealing with that question.
I am also in agreement with your final summation.
"In the final analysis, every Christian must decide within himself, before God, how best to fulfill the constant duty to "do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God" in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves. I have no personal criticism of those who reach different conclusions after prayerful searching of the Scriptures. "
Thomas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_anothersteve
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Paidion wrote
He had an encounter years ago that is similar to the scenario that you’ve described. Rather than describe what happened I’ll give you a link so you can listen.
Go to the 36th minute.
http://www.themeetinghouse.ca/bank/mh/s ... 3-3-23.mp3
Paidion, there’s a very influential pastor in the Toronto area named Bruxy Cavey. You may have seen him interviewed on Canadian Television (secular and Christian)… he looks like a hippie (he seems to be everywhere these days!). He’s also a pacifist.Suppose a person is walking down a street, knifing people as he goes by. Should we permit him to kill the others, or should we take steps to prevent him?
He had an encounter years ago that is similar to the scenario that you’ve described. Rather than describe what happened I’ll give you a link so you can listen.
Go to the 36th minute.
http://www.themeetinghouse.ca/bank/mh/s ... 3-3-23.mp3
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Avatar...My daughter and I standing on a glass floor. well over 1000 feet above ground at the CN Tower in Toronto...the tiny green dots beside my left foot are trees.