Leo Tolstoy got it right

War is quite dishonarable. Allow me to prove it.

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Luke 6:35-36

Jesus says to love enemies, not kill them. He says that God is "kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. This means that God is kind to the evil, as we should also be, as the children of the highest. We are to be merciful as God is....
Ok, I get your point
 

Attachments

  • 96080.jpg
    96080.jpg
    20.8 KB · Views: 238
It is a sad world we live in where we have to have wars. But unfortunately, that is a fact of life. Even wars have been fought in the name of Christianity.

The problem comes with humanity. People get power-hungry and think they can take what they want. It is for this reason that we need to defend ourselves and if necessary, go to war. It is, as someone stated earlier, a necessary evil.

I know for a fact that the soldiers out in Afghanistan do what they can for the local people. I have several friends and relatives out there and who have been there. It is an awful war but they do their best to make friendships with the locals.

It would be far worse in my eyes to sit back and not retaliate when war is imminent. Can you imagine what the world would be like today if Britain and America had just sat back and let Hitler and his Nazi regime take over?? It doesn't even bear thinking about.
That war is the very reason why you have freedom of speech today.

So, in closing, war is evil and devastating to families, but sometimes, it is necessary to defend ourselves and protect our families.
 
So, in closing, war is evil and devastating to families, but sometimes, it is necessary to defend ourselves and protect our families.

I wish I had more time to address this, but I'm leaving for a week to attend the memorial of my mother-in-law. I know you'll all miss me, very much.

I only have a moment to link Snugglepuff to this post where I've discussed this matter before.

See you peoples in a week.
 
I wish I had more time to address this, but I'm leaving for a week to attend the memorial of my mother-in-law. I know you'll all miss me, very much.

I only have a moment to link Snugglepuff to this post where I've discussed this matter before.

See you peoples in a week.

I do see that there are alot of people pointing out that there are lots of soldiers fighting for a government that doesn't care about them. That is certainly true in some places. It is important that we respect and care for those who have been injured in any way.

It would be nice to sort things out by talking with oter countries rather than just ploughing in but I don't think that's always going to work. I would fight if my family were in danger... if everyone's families were in danger. But I think that Afghanistan, is not the case.... I think it's more about politics than a need to defend ourselves. Afghanistan is not a prime example of defensive.

I think it was originally about Bush, his need for oil and his want to retaliate against Al-Qaeda. Then Britain decided to join in like the big bully's sidekick...

Some say that the Afghanistan war is helping to stablilise the country. Some locals are glad that Britain is there because they force the Taliban out, but some are less enthusiastic.

It's a tough one because we don't know all the facts. Information is kept from the public as to the real reasons for the war. I do feel that WW2 was more about protecting our countries rather than causing war for political reasons.

It would be nice for everyone to be pacifist but sometimes, others feel the need to overstep the mark.

It's interesting that you feel that the world's war problems can be solved by pacifisim but with humanity being the way it is, do you really think it is possible for everyone to be in that state of mind?
 
Last edited:
No one has to like war, or any act of self-defense, but it may be seen as a necessary evil.

Jesus commanded to love your enemies. You say that killing them is a "necessary evil." Killing them goes against Jesus' command. Therefore you believe that it is "necessary" to break Jesus' command.

What did Jesus say about those that love Him will follow His commands?

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15

Only those who really love Jesus will follow His commands.

Therefore, if it is "necessary" to break the commands of Jesus, then it is "necessary" that the people knowingly breaking the command of Jesus do not love Jesus.

Evil is never "necessary". That is why it will be eradicated forever. That is why "God is love." There is no evil that He deems "necessary" when it comes to the actions He takes, nor in the actions He commands us to take.

So in real life Beefy, what do you do when faced with an intruder in your house (for example.)?

I would serve as a human sheild for those I loved. They would not get to them without getting through me. Pehaps my sacrifice would give them the time they needed to escape. I would hope that I would put my trust in God, and in Him only.

As far as other real-life scenarious go, I would like to expound upon what arthra said:

Well Leo Tolstoy certainly had it right I think..

His ideas influenced Mahatma Gandhi and these influenced Martin Luther King in his nonviolent strategy to end racial segregation in the US..

Here is what Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi had to say about nonviolence and the misguided efforts of some American Christians to make war upon others:

Martin Luther King

“Several things can be said about nonviolence as a method in bringing about better racial conditions. First, this is not a method of cowardice or stagnant passivity; it does resist. The non-violent resister is just as opposed to the evil he is protesting as the person who used violence.

“A second basic fact about this method is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding.

“A third fact that characterizes the methods of nonviolence is that the attack is directed toward the forces of evil, rather than the persons caught in the forces. Those of us who struggle against racial injustice must come to see that the basic tension is not between races. The tension is at bottom between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.

“A fourth point that must be brought out concerning the method of nonviolence is that this method not only avoids external physical violence, but also internal violence of the spirit. At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love. We have learned through the grim realities of life and history that hate and violence solve nothing. Violence begets violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets toughness. It is all a descending spiral, and the end is destruction — for everybody.

“A fifth basic fact about the method of non-violent resistance is that it is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. It is this deep faith in the future that causes the non-violent resister to accept suffering without retaliation.”

While many blacks considered non-violence cowardly, King’s method of social protest was anything but. Non-violent resistance took enormous emotional discipline and quite a bit of training.

-Imagine marching arm in arm with others, singing “We Shall Overcome” as the police release vicious dogs trained to maim and kill. Imagine being hosed with streams of water forceful enough to break your ribs.
-Imagine sitting at a lunch counter and having a gang spit on you, hit you, and smear food all over you.
Imagine trying to register to vote and having your home bombed, or your wife and children beaten.
-Imagine being arrested, beaten to within an inch of your life, and being thrown into a prison cell built for four with 20 other people. No toilet, just a hole in the ground, rats, and no guarantee of emerging alive.
-Imagine.

No, non-violent resistance took supreme courage and it wasn’t always successful. But it did prick the nation’s conscience and provide graphic images of America’s hypocrisy. “The land of the free” was (and still is) home to some of the most virulent racists outside of Nazi Germany and South Africa. The fact that King was able to convince thousands of Negroes — whose survival depended on allowing their personhood to be stripped from them every day of their lives — to stand up and return love for hatred, is nothing short of miraculous. Especially when the natural human inclination is to fight fire with fire.

It is becuase most Christians believe in particpation in warfare that Gandhi said, "“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”


“If all Christians acted like Christ, the whole world would be Christian.” - Mahatma Gandhi

"I consider Western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity."

MAHATMA GANDHI

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."

MAHATMA GANDHI
 
Non-Violence in changing a political climate can be effective as history has borne out. It often depends on swaying the majority and creating shame on the government causing the injustice. There are governments who simply don't care and continue regardless of world opinion. This is why Tibet isn't free.

I applaud the courage it would take to be a "human shield" to protect your loved ones Beefy, but the reality is, during a home invasion like we have here in Colorado it would take only a few seconds to dispatch you leaving your loved ones at the mercy of the BG's. But at least your ideology would be safe.

Remember what Krishna told Arjuna on the battlefield ;)
 
Well I think self-defence is something that is a natural kind of thing.. and isn't necessarily something that would contradict a program of Non-violence..

You could have for instance a campaign based on non-violent principles as the best strategy to effect an end..while using say terrorist acts or violence would not be effective.

People tend I think to bring up extreme cases .. What would happen if someone would rape your mother/daughter/wife in front of you? This kind of case doesn't really contradict the use of nonviolence as a strategy..

Here is an example of Satyagraha:

The following points were laid down by Gandhi as a code for volunteers in the 1930 movement:

1 Harbour no anger but suffer the anger of the opponent. Refuse to return the assault of the opponent.

2 Do not submit to any order given in anger, even though severe punishment is threatened for disobeying.

3 Refrain from insults and swearing.

4 Protect opponents from insult or attack, even at the risk of life.

5 Do not resist arrest nor the attachment of property, unless holding property as a trustee.

6 Refuse to surrender any property held in trust at the risk of life.

7 If taken prisoner, behave in an exemplary manner.

8 As a member of a satyagraha unit, obey the orders of satyagraha leaders, and resign from the unit in the event of serious disagreement.

9 Do not expect guarantees for maintenance of dependents.

Source:

Satyagraha Movement of M.K. Gandhi
 
This question, "What would you do if your home was invaded?" is a fallacious argument and here's why...

This scenario assumes that the homeowner is purely innocent, just minding their own business (probably sleeping peacefully in their bed) when their home is invaded by criminals bent on robbery, rape and murder.

But history shows us that nations are rarely (if ever) raided in the middle of the night by evil strangers. War is almost always a product of months, if not years, of acrimony, failed diplomacy and intentional militaristic build up. War is not taken up by strangers, but by well known opponents who've nurtured resentments and ignored opportunities to find peaceful solutions to their conflict.

Even in a home invasion there are limits to self defense. Sure you could probably get away with killing an intruder inside your house, but if you managed to chase them out and shot them as they were running away down the street, you'd probably be charged with a crime. And who would support you following them to their home and slaughtering their wives and children? Yet, we do that in war.

Why attempt to legitimize barbarism? What more do you need to realize that warfare is failure? What could possibly lead you to believe that death and destruction on a national or world-wide scale is the best way to solve the problems we face today? What will it take to get people beyond the realm of destruction and revenge to value peace and justice?
 
We've been around about this topic before. I think the consensus has been that it's impractical to do what Jesus said re: loving one's enemies. You don't have to cuz it's dangerous, evidently.

Chris
 
I'm trying to remember who said that for any real change to occur requires people to be willing to place their very bodies on the gears. Something to that effect. It would be painfully hard to do what Jesus said. One would have to be willing to sacrifice self and family. That reminds me of the mission stories that were a staple of my early years. It was impressed on us that one should be at all times ready to follow the example of the Christian martyrs throughout history. They willingly died for Christ. As a Seventh-day Adventist we were also expected to remain pacifistic to the end. I guess it's true that the most potent force of renewal is the blood of martyrs. In the end someone is going to have to die. Probably a lot of somebodies to make a difference.

Chris
 
We've been around about this topic before. I think the consensus has been that it's impractical to do what Jesus said re: loving one's enemies. You don't have to cuz it's dangerous, evidently.

Chris

Oh really?! Are we only supposed to adhere to the teachings that we deem practical or self serving?

Maybe the number of Commandments should be cut in half. Maybe Buddhists should practice the 5 or 6 fold path, because 8 is just too impractical!

And this is the consensus here? Is there anybody else who'd admit to sharing this philosophy?
 
This question, "What would you do if your home was invaded?" is a fallacious argument and here's why...

This scenario assumes that the homeowner is purely innocent, just minding their own business (probably sleeping peacefully in their bed) when their home is invaded by criminals bent on robbery, rape and murder
.


And you think this never happens? Would you like me to start posting all the blotter reports of home invasions here in Colorado Springs? And thats just a small city really.
I for one don't feel the need to blindly follow any ideology that say's I shouldn't defend my family and loved ones out on the street or at home. Since I'm not a Christian or Buddhist I think I'm in the clear :)
 
From a practical standpoint I don't think self defence in a situation where your home is invaded or you are personally endangered has much to do with a strategy of nonviolent resistance.

Jesus made a parable about the strong man being asleep when his house was invaded.. The implication was to be awake.

His teaching of not resisting "evil" was more related to how to relate to the Roman occupiers in my view.. So if asked to carry a burden one mile..offer to carry it two.. or if slapped in the face turn the other cheek and so on.. so it had more to do with a passive resistance to Roman legionaires.

Jainism is well known for Ahimsa (non-injury) but that applies more to the monastic order than to the lay Jain.. who is not as restricted on how to respond to say personal aggresssion in society.

One of the lessons in karate that is taught is how to avoid using karate.. so there's almost as much emphasis on the avoidance of situations where violence can erupt as the techniques of self-defence..

- Art
 
From a practical standpoint I don't think self defence in a situation where your home is invaded or you are personally endangered has much to do with a strategy of nonviolent resistance.

Jesus made a parable about the strong man being asleep when his house was invaded.. The implication was to be awake.

His teaching of not resisting "evil" was more related to how to relate to the Roman occupiers in my view.. So if asked to carry a burden one mile..offer to carry it two.. or if slapped in the face turn the other cheek and so on.. so it had more to do with a passive resistance to Roman legionaires.

Jainism is well known for Ahimsa (non-injury) but that applies more to the monastic order than to the lay Jain.. who is not as restricted on how to respond to say personal aggresssion in society.

One of the lessons in karate that is taught is how to avoid using karate.. so there's almost as much emphasis on the avoidance of situations where violence can erupt as the techniques of self-defence..

- Art


Very sensible reply, Art. I enjoyed reading it and I agree. :)
 
And you think this never happens? Would you like me to start posting all the blotter reports of home invasions here in Colorado Springs? And thats just a small city really.

Paladin, my point was not that home invasions do not occur. My point was that using them as an example to justify for war was fallacious.

I don't think the home invasion analogy goes quite far enough to compel someone to defend themselves. After all, as many online sources I read say, the first thing one should do is attempt to flee the house safely without confronting the intruder.

So I'd like to propose the "home delivery" scenario to those desperate to justify war...
You and your wife are in the middle of a home delivery of your baby. Just as the head of the child is beginning to crown, a stranger bursts into the room and begins to beat your wife about the head. Do you defend her?

And then when the person answers, "Yes!" you have successfully established a justification for war. After all, a baby's being born somewhere this very minute. Somebody's got to protect them.

God bless our baby defenders. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, that is a nice one Arthur.

Revelation 19:11-15 said:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
This was posted earlier in the thread but (in the interest of interfaith) needs some follow up.

The above is using imagery to oppose violent behavior, not to incite it! It is an ancient way of saying 'The pen is mightier than the sword.' Revelation describes Jesus' words as a sword to show they are more potent than war. Go to the beginning of Revelation and this meaning of 'Sword' becomes plain: Rev 2:16 "Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.... "

Right in the gospels Jesus says to Pilot (Roman official) that his kingdom is 'not of this world' or his followers would oppose Rome with violence. Instead, Jesus believes that words are much more powerful than fighting. This is reflected in many NT passages like "the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds"(2Cor10:4)
 
Back
Top