The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: franksolich on May 14, 2008, 10:51:06 AM
-
Now, this is going to be a real mess, but it's been a real mess in my mind for a long time.
The mike_c primitive on Skins's island, the professor dealing with zoology of insects, always makes a big deal about having "rejected," utterly rejected, the "fundie influence" of his childhood and youthhood. The mike_c primitive, circa 60 years old, was born and raised in Kansas, among one of the pacifist denominations, the Mennonites or somesuch (there are many variations of Mennonites in Kansas).
Sigmund Freud says one could never, really, reject those things that have influenced one throughout life, because it would be the same as rejecting oneself. And the only way one can utterly reject oneself is, of course, by putting the barrel of a pistol in the mouth and pulling the trigger.
However, Freud says one can distort or deform such things that have influenced one, and this generally happens in angry bitter sour mean nasty spiteful individuals.
The mike_c primitive alleges his pacifism, his "anti-war" resentments, arise from his adopted liberal values, but it's obvious such sentiments are rooted, really, in the pacifist notions of the church of which he was a part when a little lad on the prairies.
And then of course because of his Hate, he distorted and deformed those things he had been taught.
Now, the real mess; I'm trying to understand the nature of (authentic) Christian pacifism.
Myself being a life-long Roman Catholic, I've always understood that war is a terrible thing, a horrible thing, a wasteful thing, but there are times when waging war is necessary, such as a war for survival, or a war to liberate people from oppression and death. War is a last resort, but in any "last resort," it's probably a justifiable war in the Eyes of God.
There seems to be this notion in Christian pacifism that war is NEVER necessary; that ALL war is bad.
I'm trying to understand this, and I'm not getting it.
Take, for example, the centuries-old Mennonites, with their centuries-old pacifism.
Well, that was all well and good, but at the same time, the Mennonites and like sects were practicing their pacifism with the armed might of the German emperor, the Russian tsar, and the American Republic shielding them from war. As long as these armies guarded them, they could be as pacific as they wished.
They were, for all practical purposes, beneficiaries of military might.
In the absence of such protection, one really doubts they would have been free to practice their pacifism; and surely not in any of the socialist paradises of the workers and peasants.
So how is this pacifism reconciled with the realities of the world?
I'm not putting down authentic well-established long-established denominations of Christian pacifists--no way--but I'm trying to figure out how one reconciles pacifism while under the protection of military might; it seems a case of having one's cake and eating it too, and that's impossible.
-
I'm not putting down authentic well-established long-established denominations of Christian pacifists--no way--but I'm trying to figure out how one reconciles pacifism while under the protection of military might; it seems a case of having one's cake and eating it too, and that's impossible.
One can't reconcile pacifism with living under the protection of military might. To be a pacifist in the United States is to be a hypocrite of the worst kind.
-
One can't reconcile pacifism with living under the protection of military might. To be a pacifist in the United States is to be a hypocrite of the worst kind.
Could you expand on what you said here? Thanks.
-
I'm not putting down authentic well-established long-established denominations of Christian pacifists--no way--but I'm trying to figure out how one reconciles pacifism while under the protection of military might; it seems a case of having one's cake and eating it too, and that's impossible.
One can't reconcile pacifism with living under the protection of military might. To be a pacifist in the United States is to be a hypocrite of the worst kind.
Well, that's sort of what I'm thinking too, but I'd hesitate to say "hypocrite."
Perhaps there is actually a way religious practitioners of pacifism reconcile this mess, and if anyone knows how, I'd like to be illuminated.
-
Well, that's sort of what I'm thinking too, but I'd hesitate to say "hypocrite."
Perhaps there is actually a way religious practitioners of pacifism reconcile this mess, and if anyone knows how, I'd like to be illuminated.
People who subscribe to religious pacifism do so because it lets them replace faulty arguments they can't defend with dogmatic arguments which they feel no need to defend.
-
I'm not putting down authentic well-established long-established denominations of Christian pacifists--no way--but I'm trying to figure out how one reconciles pacifism while under the protection of military might; it seems a case of having one's cake and eating it too, and that's impossible.
One can't reconcile pacifism with living under the protection of military might. To be a pacifist in the United States is to be a hypocrite of the worst kind.
Well, that's sort of what I'm thinking too, but I'd hesitate to say "hypocrite."
Perhaps there is actually a way religious practitioners of pacifism reconcile this mess, and if anyone knows how, I'd like to be illuminated.
Yes I would agree with not using the word "hypocrite" A good Christian knows that he or she is not a perfect person and must always strive to live up to the example of Christ that I believe is what God wants from us. He knows we will fail on occasion because he created us with flaws. Not to say that some Christians aren't hypocrites,some are.But so are some humans whether they be christians,jews,muslims,buddists or atheists. Its the human conditon not the christian one.
-
Yes I would agree with not using the word "hypocrite" A good Christian knows that he or she is not a perfect person and must always strive to live up to the example of Christ that I believe is what God wants from us. He knows we will fail on occasion because he created us with flaws. Not to say that some Christians aren't hypocrites,some are.But so are some humans whether they be christians,jews,muslims,buddists or atheists. Its the human conditon not the christian one.
The point I'm making is that being be a pacifist while living under the protection of military might is hypocritical regardless of the rationale behind the pacifism. I understand that Frank might be trying to draw a distinction between secular pacifism and religious pacifism, but I don't think there is one... at least not an important one. The only difference I see between secular pacifism and religious pacifism is the rationale behind it.
-
Yes I would agree with not using the word "hypocrite" A good Christian knows that he or she is not a perfect person and must always strive to live up to the example of Christ that I believe is what God wants from us. He knows we will fail on occasion because he created us with flaws. Not to say that some Christians aren't hypocrites,some are.But so are some humans whether they be christians,jews,muslims,buddists or atheists. Its the human conditon not the christian one.
The point I'm making is that being be a pacifist while living under the protection of military might is hypocritical regardless of the rationale behind the pacifism. I understand that Frank might be trying to draw a distinction between secular pacifism and religious pacifism, but I don't think there is one... at least not an important one. The only difference I see between secular pacifism and religious pacifism is the rationale behind it.
Unfortunately TNO. Pacifism no matter what the rationale is unrealistic IMO. The world in which we live is far too violent and dangerous. One must protect the weak from the "wolves" whether they be family or fellow countrymen. This is something I have always struggled with with my faith{the turn the other cheek thing} Doesn't mean one should not strive to be better however. Btw What country could one move to in order to live up to your standard of not being a hypocrite? I would really like to know which country one could go to and not be protected by someone or something! I really hope u are being intellectually honest and not just trying to tweak the people who have a faith here.
-
The point I'm making is that being be a pacifist while living under the protection of military might is hypocritical regardless of the rationale behind the pacifism. I understand that Frank might be trying to draw a distinction between secular pacifism and religious pacifism, but I don't think there is one... at least not an important one. The only difference I see between secular pacifism and religious pacifism is the rationale behind it.
No, I'm sorry; I may not have made myself clear.
I'm not trying to distinguish between religious pacifism and secular pacifism.
In order to understand the mike_c primitive, I have to first understand Christian pacifism, which quite obviously I don't, for the same reasons you also find contradictory.
The mike_c primitive is a secular pacifist only in label, not in reality.
An authentic secular pacifist would not be angry and judgemental and hostile, which the mike_c primitive is.
Ditto for the malicious cartoon character primitive ("Kelvin Mace") who has alleged in the past to be a pacifist of the secular sort, but it's just a label he attaches to himself. As we all know, the malicious cartoon character is of a hot angry impatient intolerant temperament, extremely hostile to certain people and things.
There are undoubtedly authentic secular pacifists--after all, there's all sorts of people in the world--but that doesn't enter into here.
The mike_c primitive has simply taken his authentic Christian pacifism of circa 40-50 years ago and deformed it into something else, something ugly and grotesque. I'm trying to figure out what it looked like, before he malformed it into a parody.
-
Unfortunately TNO. Pacifism no matter what the rationale is unrealistic IMO. The world in which we live is far too violent and dangerous. One must protect the weak from the "wolves" whether they be family or fellow countrymen. This is something I have always struggled with with my faith{the turn the other cheek thing} Doesn't mean one should not strive to be better however. Btw What country could one move to in order to live up to your standard of not being a hypocrite? I would really like to know which country one could go to and not be protected by someone or something! I really hope u are being intellectually honest and not just trying to tweak the people who have a faith here.
I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm not making a case in favor of any kind of pacifism. I'm making a case against all forms of it. I would like nothing more than to excise the pacificist element within my side of the political spectrum.
-
The point I'm making is that being be a pacifist while living under the protection of military might is hypocritical regardless of the rationale behind the pacifism. I understand that Frank might be trying to draw a distinction between secular pacifism and religious pacifism, but I don't think there is one... at least not an important one. The only difference I see between secular pacifism and religious pacifism is the rationale behind it.
No, I'm sorry; I may not have made myself clear.
I'm not trying to distinguish between religious pacifism and secular pacifism.
In order to understand the mike_c primitive, I have to first understand Christian pacifism, which quite obviously I don't, for the same reasons you also find contradictory.
The mike_c primitive is a secular pacifist only in label, not in reality.
An authentic secular pacifist would not be angry and judgemental and hostile, which the mike_c primitive is.
Ditto for the malicious cartoon character primitive ("Kelvin Mace") who has alleged in the past to be a pacifist of the secular sort, but it's just a label he attaches to himself. As we all know, the malicious cartoon character is of a hot angry impatient intolerant temperament, extremely hostile to certain people and things.
There are undoubtedly authentic secular pacifists--after all, there's all sorts of people in the world--but that doesn't enter into here.
The mike_c primitive has simply taken his authentic Christian pacifism of circa 40-50 years ago and deformed it into something else, something ugly and grotesque. I'm trying to figure out what it looked like, before he malformed it into a parody.
Frank,Dr Freud had something to say about people like Mike C. Have you gotten to the 5 stages of psychosexual development yet? I fear mike may be stuck in the Phallic or Oedipal stage! Hate the father,Love the mother? :-)
-
Unfortunately TNO. Pacifism no matter what the rationale is unrealistic IMO. The world in which we live is far too violent and dangerous. One must protect the weak from the "wolves" whether they be family or fellow countrymen. This is something I have always struggled with with my faith{the turn the other cheek thing} Doesn't mean one should not strive to be better however. Btw What country could one move to in order to live up to your standard of not being a hypocrite? I would really like to know which country one could go to and not be protected by someone or something! I really hope u are being intellectually honest and not just trying to tweak the people who have a faith here.
I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm not making a case in favor of any kind of pacifism. I'm making a case against all forms of it. I would like nothing more than to excise the pacificist element within my side of the political spectrum.
Ok Good then you are being intellectually honest. Not sure about excising it,but I do think that it is highly unattainable and unrealistic.
-
Frank,Dr Freud had something to say about people like Mike C. Have you gotten to the 5 stages of psychosexual development yet? I fear mike may be stuck in the Phallic or Oedipal stage! Hate the father,Love the mother?
Oh God no.
Sigmund Freud was a more prolific--but awesomely less tedious--writer than the Bostonian Drunkard.
I only about three weeks ago got done with his interpretation of dreams stuff, which I didn't absorb yet--it's one of those things one reads and doesn't understand at the time, but then later boom! it all comes to him (like with college calculus).
And right now I'm working on what Sigmund Freud wrote about poor bowel management being the root cause of most psychological, social, and psychiatric problems, and he wrote mountains of stuff on that, damned near turning me scatological.
I'm nowhere near the stuff Sigmund Freud wrote about the phallus or Oedipus's mother.
-
Frank,Dr Freud had something to say about people like Mike C. Have you gotten to the 5 stages of psychosexual development yet? I fear mike may be stuck in the Phallic or Oedipal stage! Hate the father,Love the mother?
Oh God no.
Sigmund Freud was a more prolific--but awesomely less tedious--writer than the Bostonian Drunkard.
I only about three weeks ago got done with his interpretation of dreams stuff, which I didn't absorb yet--it's one of those things one reads and doesn't understand at the time, but then later boom! it all comes to him (like with college calculus).
And right now I'm working on what Sigmund Freud wrote about poor bowel management being the root cause of most psychological, social, and psychiatric problems, and he wrote mountains of stuff on that, damned near turning me scatological.
I'm nowhere near the stuff Sigmund Freud wrote about the phallus or Oedipus's mother.
I think you will find that part of his school of thought most interesting when analizing primitives.
-
I think you will find that part of his school of thought most interesting when analizing primitives.
Well, I already know the primitives have significant father problems.
Like when the Bostonian Drunkard issues forth with a violent screed against George Bush; actually, the Bostonian Drunkard at the time he does that, is having a problem with dad.
It's really obvious.
But I knew that before I started using Freud to figure out the primitives.
-
I'm not putting down authentic well-established long-established denominations of Christian pacifists--no way--but I'm trying to figure out how one reconciles pacifism while under the protection of military might; it seems a case of having one's cake and eating it too, and that's impossible.
One can't reconcile pacifism with living under the protection of military might. To be a pacifist in the United States is to be a hypocrite of the worst kind.
Pacifism, and many other ideals, are just that IDEALS. It is not hypocritical to have a belief in what one pictures as a utopian existence while living in the current reality of the human condition. I don't doubt some in that crowd would die for their beliefs rather then actually be a hypocrite and use violence to protect themselves or others. I don't agree with their view(pacifism), but I do think someone can have it and actually believe in it and live in this society and not be inconsistent UNLESS they back up violence when it is to protect their own behinds. We are all forced to some extent to live in the circumstances we are born into so I can't beat them over the head for having been born into a place that does not practice their beliefs.
-
Yes I would agree with not using the word "hypocrite" A good Christian knows that he or she is not a perfect person and must always strive to live up to the example of Christ that I believe is what God wants from us. He knows we will fail on occasion because he created us with flaws. Not to say that some Christians aren't hypocrites,some are.But so are some humans whether they be christians,jews,muslims,buddists or atheists. Its the human conditon not the christian one.
The point I'm making is that being be a pacifist while living under the protection of military might is hypocritical regardless of the rationale behind the pacifism. I understand that Frank might be trying to draw a distinction between secular pacifism and religious pacifism, but I don't think there is one... at least not an important one. The only difference I see between secular pacifism and religious pacifism is the rationale behind it.
Unfortunately TNO. Pacifism no matter what the rationale is unrealistic IMO. The world in which we live is far too violent and dangerous. One must protect the weak from the "wolves" whether they be family or fellow countrymen. This is something I have always struggled with with my faith{the turn the other cheek thing} Doesn't mean one should not strive to be better however. Btw What country could one move to in order to live up to your standard of not being a hypocrite? I would really like to know which country one could go to and not be protected by someone or something! I really hope u are being intellectually honest and not just trying to tweak the people who have a faith here.
I agree with Toast that it is not a realistic world view. There is where I see the distinction between secular and religious pacifism, btw: Secular pacifism relies on the notion that basic human nature is not mired in sin and people are basically 'good'. Religious(Christian) pacifism I don't get except that I suppose Christian pacifists will probably say they, like Christ, love their brothers enough to die rather then hurt them. What I think they miss is Jesus had a purpose to his death and Jesus, unlike us, DID love everyone. Christian pacifism is inconsistent with human nature also. Pacifism is akin to a lack of humility. It is people thinking they can be totally selfless--that's just not a possibility for any flesh and blood person to be totally selfless. Of course I struggle though with the fact that they too are trying to live up to the perfection Christ lived so its hard to come down on them either. :banghead: :-) I guess it depends on the humility and view they have of themselves as to whether they are practicing what they preach....so to write. :uhsure:
-
I'm not putting down authentic well-established long-established denominations of Christian pacifists--no way--but I'm trying to figure out how one reconciles pacifism while under the protection of military might; it seems a case of having one's cake and eating it too, and that's impossible.
One can't reconcile pacifism with living under the protection of military might. To be a pacifist in the United States is to be a hypocrite of the worst kind.
Well, that's sort of what I'm thinking too, but I'd hesitate to say "hypocrite."
Perhaps there is actually a way religious practitioners of pacifism reconcile this mess, and if anyone knows how, I'd like to be illuminated.
C. S. Lewis has an interesting look at supposed pacifism inherent in Christianity. In his book the "The Weight of Glory" (shout out to Mr. Snuggle Bunny for bringing this book to my attention) in the chapter, Why I am Not a Pacifist, he speaks directly to your question as it concerns his views on war. In a nutshell he argues that if one is on the side of right and other lives hang in the balance then he or she is morally obligated to defend what is good from evil even at the cost of his pacifistic views. When it comes to defending ones individual ideas of right and wrong, however, then one should act the pacifist and suffer the consequences of his actions. For example, when a Christian goes to war and is captured by the enemy and he is confronted with a situation where he must renounce his Christianity or his allegiance to those he fights for to spare his own life then he must go to his death with no resistance as did Christ go to the cross. In short he should martyr himself for his beliefs.
There is a lot more to it than I just wrote but I hope that it will clear some things up for you or give you some direction when meditating on the issue.
-
C. S. Lewis has an interesting look at supposed pacifism inherent in Christianity. In his book the "The Weight of Glory" (shout out to Mr. Snuggle Bunny for bringing this book to my attention) in the chapter, Why I am Not a Pacifist, he speaks directly to your question as it concerns his views on war. In a nutshell he argues that if one is on the side of right and other lives hang in the balance then he or she is morally obligated to defend what is good from evil even at the cost of his pacifistic views. When it comes to defending ones individual ideas of right and wrong, however, then one should act the pacifist and suffer the consequences of his actions. For example, when a Christian goes to war and is captured by the enemy and he is confronted with a situation where he must renounce his Christianity or his allegiance to those he fights for to spare his own life then he must go to his death with no resistance as did Christ go to the cross. In short he should martyr himself for his beliefs.
There is a lot more to it than I just wrote but I hope that it will clear some things up for you or give you some direction when meditating on the issue.
:bravo:
-
I think a lot of people take the scriptures that talk about turning the other cheek and love thy neighbor to mean never defend yourself and that war is bad way out of context...to the point that they are of the belief that at no time should we defend ourselves or raise a fist to defend others.
They've adopted an almost amoral morality.
It's hard to explain.
I guess the best definition of this brand of "Christian pacifism" is the mind boggling actions of one James Earl Carter. Both while he was in office and his post presidency actions.
-
I think a lot of people take the scriptures that talk about turning the other cheek and love thy neighbor to mean never defend yourself and that war is bad way out of context...to the point that they are of the belief that at no time should we defend ourselves or raise a fist to defend others.
They've adopted an almost amoral morality.
It's hard to explain.
I guess the best definition of this brand of "Christian pacifism" is the mind boggling actions of one James Earl Carter. Both while he was in office and his post presidency actions.
You mean Pacifist to the point of defending true enemies of God and man? I am in absolute agreement with you on that one, Sarge.
-
You mean Pacifist to the point of defending true enemies of God and man? I am in absolute agreement with you on that one, Sarge.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at. That kind of pacifist is more dangerous to this country than any terrorist.
-
You mean Pacifist to the point of defending true enemies of God and man? I am in absolute agreement with you on that one, Sarge.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at. That kind of pacifist is more dangerous to this country than any terrorist.
HI5 to that Sarge. :cheersmate:
-
I think a lot of people take the scriptures that talk about turning the other cheek and love thy neighbor to mean never defend yourself and that war is bad way out of context...to the point that they are of the belief that at no time should we defend ourselves or raise a fist to defend others.
Yup.
I always say that God only gave me two cheeks...after that I fight back.