Pacifism

[KnightofChrist]

I don't think without Christ it would last long. It would only be temporary peace. War has its physical casualties. But what of the spiritual casualties of Pacifism? Without war man would not have a huge reminder that he is mortal. Thus likely have less fear of dieing, thus less fear of seeing God and being judge by Him. Evil would be all the more subtle, because war is a very clear undeniable sign that evil exist.

I do not think it would be 50 years into a world of pacifism, that man would turn to wicked immorality. Which would at some point lead to war.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856175' date='May 3 2009, 12:27 AM']No, war doesn't. Good soldiers engage the enemy--sometimes innocents die accidentally. (modern means aside) and engaging in combat takes a certain willingness to die.
Sacrificing someone else's life would entail using them as cover--you're mixing result with intent. You're leaving out the lives soldiers are actively trying to preserve. Which they do.[/quote]
Innocent people die in war, even if we don't intend it. In pacifism, the intent is not to see your family killed. That is just as much an unintended consequence as are civilian deaths in a war. The difference is that in pacifism, we would be putting our own lives on the line, rather than putting other innocent people's lives on the line.

[quote]Would you refuse to cooperate to the point of watching your own children executed? This is one of the tactics used by tyrants. Would you be willing to watch that? After you're gone, would your neighbor? And so on.[/quote]
I did not create the world. God created it. He put me here, and he permits people to kill the innocent. Why does God permit that to happen? I don't know, but I don't believe we die in vain when we die standing up for what is right.

When we go to war, we have to watch other people's children die. Why are we willing to sacrifice other people's children, but not our own children's lives? We do not "intend" that other people's children die, but we know it will happen. If it is not wrong to unintentionally cause other people's family's deaths in war, then why is it wrong to unintentionally cause our own family's death?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856181' date='May 3 2009, 12:30 AM']You think soldiers don't risk their lives? Really? You're in a rapid descent into insanity--the face masks have dropped from the ceiling.[/quote]
Of course soldiers risk their lives. And war also risks the lives of the innocent, even if unintentionally. We accept war precisely because we're not the ones risking our lives. We are willing to let other people do that.

[quote]We have armies because we are afraid to die. They fight wars for us for their own motivations, but fear of death isn't why soldiers fight (unwillingness to be slaughtered, perhaps, but there are better ways to avoid death than joining the military).[/quote]
See above.

[quote]Yes, early Christians were perfectly right being martyrs. No argument. Killing evil people is also morally acceptable. Protecting the innocent is also morally acceptable. I ain't the type to let them kill. Thought this was about the workability of it. I argue it won't really work the way you think it will. Not now.[/quote]
Before we get off track, I'm not trying to address the "morality" of war and killing. I'm trying to address whether moral power is more effective than violent power.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856189' date='May 3 2009, 12:35 AM']Innocent people die in war, regardless of intent. In pacifism, the intent is not to see your family killed. That is just as much an unintended consequence as are civilian deaths in a war. The difference is that in pacifism, we would be putting our own lives on the line, rather than putting other people's lives on the line.[/quote]

Really? Non violent resistance to Nazi German isin't putting other peoples lives on the line?

I wouldn't want to fight in the Iraq war. I still wouldn't want to fight in WWII but I would hope to be brave enough too. I think the only morally responsible thing to do when facing Nazi Germany is to fight them. Sitting around signing "give peace a chance" isin't going to get those Jewish kids out of the oven.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856189' date='May 3 2009, 12:35 AM']Innocent people die in war, regardless of intent. In pacifism, the intent is not to see your family killed. That is just as much an unintended consequence as are civilian deaths in a war. The difference is that in pacifism, we would be putting our own lives on the line, rather than putting other people's lives on the line.[/quote]
Again. Soldiers don't put their lives on the line?

[quote]I did not create the world. God created it. He put me here, and he permits people to kill the innocent. Why does God permit that to happen? I don't know, but I don't believe we die in vain when we die standing up for what is right.[/quote]
Nor do I. I thought we weren't discussing that, but the feasibility. I pointed out the weakness in practicality. It requires a strength that most people don't have. The tactics the evil will use will secure cooperation. Killing them is easier, I admit.

[quote]When we go to war, we have to watch other people's children die. Why are we willing to sacrifice other people's children, but not our own? We do not "intend" that other people's children die, but we know it will happen. If it is not wrong to unintentionally cause other people's family's deaths in war, then why is it wrong to unintentionally cause our own family's death?[/quote]
I didn't say it was wrong. I asked if you could deal with it. Then if your neighbors could deal with it. You were talking about functionality. I have not condemned pacifism as immoral or wrong--just unworkable on a large scale.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856193' date='May 2 2009, 11:39 PM']Before we get off track, I'm not addressing the "morality" of war and killing. I'm addressing whether moral power is more effective than violent power.[/quote]

War can not be a moral power? If war in your opinion can not be a moral power, is that not addressing or questioning the morality of war?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856193' date='May 3 2009, 12:39 AM']I'm trying to address whether moral power is more effective than violent power.[/quote]
The two aren't necessarily separate.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856195' date='May 3 2009, 12:41 AM']I didn't say it was wrong. I asked if you could deal with it. Then if your neighbors could deal with it. You were talking about functionality. I have not condemned pacifism as immoral or wrong--just unworkable on a large scale.[/quote]
I hope I could deal with it, with God's grace.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856199' date='May 3 2009, 12:44 AM']I hope I could deal with it, with God's grace.[/quote]


Well how would you deal with Nazism?

Ghandi said Jews should have allowed thmselves to be killed, are you willing to bite that bullet?

You could work to get Jews out of Europe, but you're only going to be able to save a small percentage that way.

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1856196' date='May 3 2009, 12:41 AM']War can not be a moral power? If war in your opinion can not be a moral power, is that not addressing or questioning the morality of war?[/quote]
By moral power, I am referring to standing up for what is right. Military power is its own kind of power. Whether one can can or should mix military and moral power, is not a question I am addressing in this thread.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856193' date='May 3 2009, 12:39 AM']Of course soldiers risk their lives. And war also risks the lives of the innocent, even if unintentionally. We accept war precisely because we're not the ones risking our lives. We are willing to let other people do that.[/quote]
You're only applying this to nonmilitary, then? I didn't join the military, but I do work in a job that requires me to risk my life if I'm going to do it properly. Further, it puts me in a position to risk my life in order to preserve others. I understand the soldier's perspective to that end. I am also willing to put myself between aggressors and their intended victims--aggressor armed or not. I'd prefer not to be killed by some foreign enemy, but personal fear of death not an issue. My kid not being killed, yes. With our current enemy, pacifism on our side is unworkable.

You could make the same allegation with regards to cops. We do have cops because we are afraid to die (on varying levels). Getting rid of them not feasible for similar reasons.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1856201' date='May 3 2009, 12:47 AM']Well how would you deal with Nazism?[/quote]
I would live a moral life, preach the Gospel, and organize non-violent resistance where I could.

[quote]Ghandi said Jews should have allowed thmselves to be killed, are you willing to bite that bullet?[/quote]
Non-violent resistance does not have to be passive. One can resist being killed, without killing. Ghandi's non-violent resistance, for example, was not passive.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856210' date='May 3 2009, 12:54 AM']Non-violent resistance does not have to be passive. One can resist being killed, without killing. Ghandi's non-violent resistance, for example, was not passive.[/quote]
I don't want to be that skinny.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856210' date='May 2 2009, 11:54 PM']I would live a moral life, preach the Gospel, and organize non-violent resistance where I could.[/quote]

How? How many large scal non violent movements were operating under the Nazis?


[quote]Non-violent resistance does not have to be passive. One can resist being killed, without killing. Ghandi's non-violent resistance, for example, was not passive.[/quote]


Ghandi's movement did, however, kind of depend on the British not rounding up him and his followers and slaughtering them wholesale.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856203' date='May 2 2009, 11:48 PM']By moral power, I am referring to standing up for what is right. Military power is its own kind of power. Whether one can can or should mix military and moral power, is not a question I am addressing in this thread.[/quote]

Again the terms you are using do seem to say that war is not a moral power, and war is not standing up for what is right. This would seem to be your premise, which locks the debate. Of course if war is not a moral power, or standing up for what is right then pacifism is the way to go.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856212' date='May 3 2009, 12:55 AM']I don't want to be that skinny.[/quote]


And that's why the boys don't call

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1856214' date='May 3 2009, 12:56 AM']How? How many large scal non violent movements were operating under the Nazis?[/quote]
How many people were willing to organize them?

[quote]Ghandi's movement did, however, kind of depend on the British not rounding up him and his followers and slaughtering them wholesale.[/quote]
As I said before, what would have happened when the Nazis had killed every German?

[Winchester]

You're going to have to restate, then.

I got that you viewed pacifism's weakness as not having enough adherents. I sort of reformulated it by explaining the obvious and there was some roughhousing that veered into moral talks.

Yes, ef everyone had the ability, pacifism would win. But bad guys would kill lots of people before finally giving up. The movement would crumble before the bad guys ran into trouble killing people. And then the bad guys would only be good enough to ensure cooperation and the people, being pacifists, would have to pick their threshhold.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856227' date='May 3 2009, 01:05 AM']Yes, ef everyone had the ability, pacifism would win. But bad guys would kill lots of people before finally giving up. The movement would crumble before the bad guys ran into trouble killing people. And then the bad guys would only be good enough to ensure cooperation and the people, being pacifists, would have to pick their threshhold.[/quote]
That's why non-violent resistance has to be ingrained in a culture of peace. If non-violent resistance is just a "movement" adopted during a time of crisis, then you are right, all that has to happen is for the leaders of the movement to be crushed. But if non-violent resistance is a central part of our society, then it is something greater than just a one group movement.

[Winchester]

If you kill all the non-pacifists first, it should work.