syo
Well-Known Member
If I defend myself, they will call me guilty for using ''violence''.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are some of your thoughts about Pacifists?
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Why would a pacifist accuse you of that?If I defend myself, they will call me guilty for using ''violence''.
For me, I would never accuse anyone who chose to defend themself, it is their choice, exactly as it is my choice to not defend myself. I can die for others while helping them into a secure area, but I chose to not harm those who hate me, because I do not wish to hold hate within me.
syo
Well-Known Member
Because that's what they do. They created ''peaceful'' laws and they can put me in jail.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I have no view on pacifism, people are what they are, so long as they are not causing harm then no problem
LOL, no.
Nope, i think in a similar way (i think), i don't care for violence, the difference between you and me is if someone is violent to you as a pacifist you accept it. If someone is violent to me then will end up in a great deal of pain and possibly hospitalised. I did the turn the other cheek act and git hurt, it won't happen again.
Only if they cross the road without looking. Swerving and braking can have serious consiquences
No, but i don't trust anyone until that trust is earned.
In my experience, Christian "pacifists" aren't actually pacifists. They generally have no problem with violence as long as it's inflicted by God.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Got news for you fella. Have a look at who is running the world now (they’re mostly the ones starting all the wars).
If you respect other people's decision to use violence, then how are you a pacifist?
And they will continue if we let them.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
In the sense that I do not rule over others, it is their own choice what they see as acceptable to them.
Personally, killing is non acceptable for me to do at any level, that is the form of pacifist that I am
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
We have to choose to be with truthful and good people or the deceivers/liars/evil people will have their way.
Anyone who promotes peace is worthy of my respect. Do I automatically trust them? Not necessarily, because trust requires more that simply being peaceful, but it is a good starting point.
Alienistic
Anti-conformity
No, people can identify as whatever they please. Have heard too many state that they are of peace or non-violent, in order to gain trust while playing a long con. Or many state that they are of peace and are the polar opposite. Many can pretend to be whatever they want over the internet or in their lives and play the role nicely.
Authentic pacifists though, carry on if that’s what they desire and seek. Although they would be neutralized, rendered ineffective pretty easily. But I’d understand this, this world of hostility, times of war are not really for them and they wish to take no part in it. Some would rather die than go to or contribute to war, and that’s pretty awesome in my opinion. Some pacifists have a bold side also and will only resort to this if absolutely necessary.
I'm a pacifist, so someone can quote me and tell me what they think of me.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yes, Gandhi failed. Independence to territories was a British economic compulsion. Nearly all territories were given independence at that time. Independence was not wholly because of Gandhi. And what happened after independence was not according to Gandhian view. Actually Gandhi said that the Congress party should be dismantled. Not doing that led to a 55 year rule of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Thankfully, that is over now and the dynasty is in tatters.
I wish there were more in the world, in a lot of ways.
However, in a more negative sense, I see it as a luxury. It's much easier (and more possible) to be a pacifist in a society where there isn't overwhelming levels of violence and crime.
I also find myself wondering how possible it is, or how positive it is, to be a pacifist when you have people depending on you. So, sure, I might turn the other cheek when faced with violence. Am I willing to make the same choice if it's my children facing violence? My wife?
So...that would be my basic tenets;
1) It's an honourable position but;
2) Pacifists are largely dependant on the environment around them
3) A pacifist is someone who won't physically step in if my child was being beaten.
That last is obviously an unusual and extreme example, but that's my point. On the daily, pacifism is fine. But I think MOST people can be pushed beyond this boundary, and I actually think they should move from pacifism to action, even if only in extreme situations.