If so, then shouldn’t the government of the so called Christian country be pacifist?
If not, then are pacifists a higher moral authority than god?
I just think these might be interesting questions to ask a statist.
Yes.
But gov’ts by definition are aggressors. Hence, anarchy is the only morally acceptable situation.
I was a statist. When I recognized the state as being anti-christian in its essence, I had a strong attraction to anarchy. I find it easy to convince the catholics I know to come closer to a minarchist/anarchist stance when I bring this up.
So, yes, most people consider him to have been a pacifist?
I do. I think most others do. Some don’t.
Do you know anyone who doesn’t consider jesus to be a pacifist? I haven’t heard the views of those who don’t. I thought that’s what the whole “turn the other cheek” was about.
Awesome. I can’t wait to try using this line of reasoning…
I think that Jesus was a pacifist, but that pacifism is not a requirement for salvation. (Only for sainthood.)
The reasoning goes, that if Jesus was a pacifist, that would mean pacifism is the only moral ground, and that therefore using violence to resolve issues is not the Christian way. And since government only uses violence to resolve issues, that would make it immoral.
Yup.
People will throw the very weak “necessary evil” argument out there. But then you can counter that by showing how all goods and services can be provided privately and without taxation.
If they take their religion seriously, they’ll at least be scratching their heads, if not wanting to hear more.
Not sure you are going to get far with this. Catholics use the guidance of the church to determine morality, Most protestants use the bible. The religion has experienced two thousand years of evolution since the teaching of Christ.
Trying to narrow that down to “pacifism is the only moral ground” is a bit much. For example, the crusades were seen as perfectly moral, in fact particpating in the crusades were free pass into heaven… why??? the pope declared it so.
Which is why I would point out that if Jesus was a pacifist, then the crusades were immoral, unless god is changing, in which case a pacifist is more moral than god. I really don’t think it would be too difficult. We’ll see.
No offense but seems like this kind of reasoning will end up no where productive.
A) It’s a non-sequitur. A smart statist will point this out.
B) It will appeal to emotion, driving the discussion into hostile argumentation.
C) It’s an appeal to rhetoric. What does “Christian Nation” even mean?
It is a wrong reasoning. Jesus recommends pacifism. He does not demand it.
Pacifism is recommended the same way that giving all your posessions to the poor is recommended, which is also not a must-have requirement for eternal life.
Even an AnCap society couldn’t be pacifist though. We could be “non-agressors,” which is an improvement over government but we couldn’t all be pacifists. We’d still have PDA’s and the like because there will almost surely always be some agressors out there. Plus, of course, the mentally disturbed and such.
Pacifism is a great ideal but no society (that wants to survive anyway) could be wholly pacifist.
Pacifism is a great ideal but no society (that wants to survive anyway) could be wholly pacifist.
Hence, why Jesus’ theory if taken to its logical conclusion, is asinine. Jesus even brought up the point that trying to save your life in the present would allow you to “lose it” while dying to follow Jesus would see you “gain it”. So anybody who isn’t on a suicide mission is going to defend themselves, although that isn’t what Jesus would recommend.
Even though anarcho-capitalism isn’t pacificst, pesudo-Christians who wish to employ self-defense would still be forced into being anarchists, which would only help the movement.
“Which is why I would point out that if Jesus was a pacifist, then the crusades were immoral, unless god is changing, in which case a pacifist is more moral than god. I really don’t think it would be too difficult. We’ll see.”
To open up, the Crusades were both aggressive and defensive in theory. In practice, most of the Crusades were aggressive, but, as Christians, we hold that people are naturally inclined to evil anyway and that it requires the Holy Spirit working on people’s wills to make them will to do that which is good, so it’s no surprise really that a lot of the Crusaders did things we would consider ‘bad’.
To define Jesus as ‘pacifist’ or ‘aggressor’ in the kind of ways we’re seeing here is misguided, and hence the point you make about pacifists being more moral than God. Of course you can define a pacifist as being more more moral than God, but what is the standard of ‘pacifist’ or ‘aggessor’? To your garden-variety statist or Anarchist, they are defined in purely human contexts, without reference to anything outside themselves, and the enemy is always ‘the other side’.
As Christians, we do not judge things in human contexts, but out of the Bible - the absolute - which speaks down to the context. (You might answer that Catholics say that The Pope is the absolute arbiter, but the arbiter of what? The Bible. When The Pope speaks in terms of The Bible, he often speaks more truth than most Protestants becoz he’s not infected with the Protestant diseases of dispensationalism and Arminianism - you would have to repudiate Augustine to go that far, and the Papists have never repudiated Augustine. So that potential objection is answered.)
What has this got to do with ‘pacifism’? Heaps! The ‘turn the other cheek’ business is addressed to US as CHRISTIANS, in response to the aggressive stance of the power at that time, the Roman Empire. Remember who Jesus is speaking to: not a huge crowd, a la ‘Life of Brian’, but the disciples alone. At a time when a Roman officer could command any Jew to do anything and they had to obey under pain of death, such that Judea was planning for rebellion, which happened shortly after, Jesus was telling HIS FOLLOWERS ‘don’t do that, but go the extra mile.’ (Luke 6:20 - 6:36) This was simple common sense as much as an eternal decree.
Now to pacifism. Jesus is BEYOND pacifism or aggression. He is the definition of both. Question: Where is the pacifism of Jesus, the risen Lord, in Revelation? Mate, that’s heavy! Or even, while teaching the disciples, in Luke 12:49 - 12:54 - “I came not to bring peace but a sword.”
This is the reason why Christianity is opposed to both statism - unity (apparently naturally agressive) and anarchism - particularity (apparently naturally passive) - they are Hellenic in origin, absolutizing the context of either the One or the Many. The Triune God is both ONE & MANY - equal ultimacy of one God in many (3) persons.
Jesus is neither a pacifist nor an aggressor. He is both. Why? Becoz He’s not interested in pacifism or otherwise, but in faith and obedience. So I wish people would just drop off this whole pacifist thing - I think I’ve answered it well enuf now. I would simply ask the Christians on this website to be careful of placing too much trust in it - we should use the Austrians when they’re dealing in economic theory, becoz (under Common Grace) they’re Biblical, but recognize that they lose the plot when they step outside those bounds into social theory, becoz they’re not. (In fact they’ve got no idea, but that’s another story!)
You have to remember that Christianity isn’t just about pacifism. There’s also the Christian standard of a “just war”. So it’s a mix of both.
“Even though anarcho-capitalism isn’t pacificst, pesudo-Christians who wish to employ self-defense would still be forced into being anarchists, which would only help the movement.”
Umm, Biblical Law gives people the right to defend themselves, their families, and property - eg: Exodus 22 - but just quickly, and becoz it might prove instructive:
What is a ‘pseudo-Christian’?
How does ‘employing self-defense’ ‘force’ these ‘pseudo-Christians’ into ‘being anarchists’?
Having shown that Biblical Law denies pacifism the way that term is commonly understood, how does this help ‘the movement’?
What is ‘the movement’?
Am I having fun? Not anymore - I’m finished!
Jesus supported the laws of the Old Testament:
“Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as “the commandment of God” (Matthew 15:3) and as the “Word of God” (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: “Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).”
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm
The Old Testament demanded the deaths of non-believers, believers of other gods, gays, etc.
Something is not right here. I don’t think Jesus ever demanded the deaths of non-believers. I think he actually preached the opposite.
He may have believed the old testament was divinely inspired, but if memory serves correctly he also stated that many rituals, rites, and passages in the old testament were not to be observed anymore.
I don’t know if I am remembering my Sunday sermons correctly so I may be mistaken. Its been a long time since I attended church.
Edit:
A better way to put it is that his word superceded the old testament.