-
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!
Who's a pacifist?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
In defense of this, if they believed that only God could legitimately use violence, they at least wouldn't be hurting anyone.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
What denominations? The concept makes no sense to me.
If a person has a violent god, then what would stop the person from resorting to violence?
If a person has a god that could do ANY violence to anyone ever, they need to find a different god.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Romans 12:19 New International Version (NIV)
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
Of course if you are non Christian, this won't work for you.
If you are an atheist or irreligious, don't expect "the imaginary" God to do anything for you.
It only works for true Christians who keeps his commands.
Psalm 119:113-115 New International Version (NIV)
ס Samekh
I hate double-minded people,
but I love your law.
You are my refuge and my shield;
I have put my hope in your word.
Away from me, you evildoers,
that I may keep the commands of my God!
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Of course the are pacifists. They act like pacifists, they think like pacifists, and they talk like pacifists.
You, unlike they, are trying to infer totally human wisdom and judge a being who is beyond being judged.
You are the created, He is the creator, therefore, why
He acts in any way is totally beyond yours and my comprehension, except as He shares a very limited picture of the totality of events and reasons,
It really is none of our business.
Can you explain how the acceptability of non-human violence disrupts pacifism? Would you say the same of a pacifist who believes that, say, tigers can legitimately use violence?
There's nothing inconsistent in recognizing the immorality in human violence whilst simultaneously recognizing that God has the right to take human life. Human life belongs to God, we are His creatures and thus His property.
The universe and everything in it is His property. He has the right to punish sin, take life and demand worship.
The universe and everything in it is His property. He has the right to punish sin, take life and demand worship.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The bible says that God is a God of war. And Jesus said he wasn't sending peace on the earth but division.
God's wrath against the Jewish nation was to send Rome against them. Several million Jews were killed
and the rest exiled and enslaved - as most of the authors of the bible had said would happen.
I would argue that they are not pacifists because they are not against all violence, only human violence, from what I gather from your post.
arthra
Baha'i
Baha'is do not claim to be "Pacifist" but if drafted into military service we are supposed to request "Non-combatant service":
"Our position as Bahá'ís is not that we won't obey our Government or support the country if attacked, it is that we do not believe in, or wish to part in, killing our fellow-men. We are not conscientious objectors at all, we will serve, but wish, as there is a provision in the law in the U.S.A. covering our attitude, to be classified as non-combatants. If you need to consult on this matter, you should refer to the N.S.A., as this question continually arises, and they can give you advice which will be the most accurate and applicable to present conditions."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 15, 1952)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 406)
Further the Guardian wrote:
"While the believers, he feels, should exert every effort to obtain from the authorities a permit exempting them from active military service in a combatant capacity, it is their duty at the same time, as loyal and devoted citizens, to offer their services to their country in any field of national service which is not specifically aggressive or directly military. Such forms of national work as air raid precaution service, ambulance corps, and other humanitarian work or activity of a non-combatant nature, are the most suitable types of service the friends can render, and which they should gladly volunteer for, since in addition to the fact that they do not involve any violation of the spirit or principle of the Teachings, they constitute a form of social and humanitarian service which the Cause holds sacred and emphatically enjoins."
(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 122)
"Our position as Bahá'ís is not that we won't obey our Government or support the country if attacked, it is that we do not believe in, or wish to part in, killing our fellow-men. We are not conscientious objectors at all, we will serve, but wish, as there is a provision in the law in the U.S.A. covering our attitude, to be classified as non-combatants. If you need to consult on this matter, you should refer to the N.S.A., as this question continually arises, and they can give you advice which will be the most accurate and applicable to present conditions."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 15, 1952)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 406)
Further the Guardian wrote:
"While the believers, he feels, should exert every effort to obtain from the authorities a permit exempting them from active military service in a combatant capacity, it is their duty at the same time, as loyal and devoted citizens, to offer their services to their country in any field of national service which is not specifically aggressive or directly military. Such forms of national work as air raid precaution service, ambulance corps, and other humanitarian work or activity of a non-combatant nature, are the most suitable types of service the friends can render, and which they should gladly volunteer for, since in addition to the fact that they do not involve any violation of the spirit or principle of the Teachings, they constitute a form of social and humanitarian service which the Cause holds sacred and emphatically enjoins."
(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 122)
According to classical Christian theism, 'God' - the supernatural, incorporeal, immutable and omniscient divine creator - cannot commit 'violence', because violent acts are born of passions and emotions which are subject to mutability, and God cannot experience change.
One of the earliest Christian pacifists was Origen of Alexandria, the early late second century church father i.e.
“You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.” (Against Celsus VIII.7.3)
“If all the Romans… embrace the Christian faith, they will, when they pray, overcome their enemies; or rather, they will not war at all, being guarded by that divine power which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just persons.” (Against Celsus VIII.70).
“If all the Romans… embrace the Christian faith, they will, when they pray, overcome their enemies; or rather, they will not war at all, being guarded by that divine power which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just persons.” (Against Celsus VIII.70).
Origen - Wikipedia
Origen of Alexandria[a] (c. 184 – c. 253),[3] also known as Origen Adamantius, was an early Christian scholar, ascetic,[6] and theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer who wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and biblical hermeneutics, homiletics, and spirituality. He was one of the most influential figures in early Christian theology, apologetics, and asceticism.[6][7] He has been described as "the greatest genius the early church ever produced".[8]...
Origen was an ardent pacifist[168][169][159][170] and, in his Against Celsus, he argued that Christianity's inherent pacifism was one of the most outwardly noticeable aspects of the religion.[168] While Origen did admit that some Christians served in the Roman army,[171][172][159] he pointed out that most did not[171][159] and insisted that engaging in earthly wars was against the way of Christ.[171][169][159][170] Origen accepted that it was sometimes necessary for a non-Christian state to wage wars,[173] but insisted that it was impossible for a Christian to fight in such a war without compromising his or her faith, since Christ had absolutely forbidden violence of any kind.[173][170] Origen explained the violence found in certain passages of the Old Testament as allegorical[158] and pointed out Old Testament passages which he interpreted as supporting nonviolence, such as Psalm 7:4-6 and Lamentations 3:27-29.[158] Origen maintained that, if everyone were peaceful and loving like Christians, then there would be no wars and the Empire would not need a military.[174]
Origen was an ardent pacifist[168][169][159][170] and, in his Against Celsus, he argued that Christianity's inherent pacifism was one of the most outwardly noticeable aspects of the religion.[168] While Origen did admit that some Christians served in the Roman army,[171][172][159] he pointed out that most did not[171][159] and insisted that engaging in earthly wars was against the way of Christ.[171][169][159][170] Origen accepted that it was sometimes necessary for a non-Christian state to wage wars,[173] but insisted that it was impossible for a Christian to fight in such a war without compromising his or her faith, since Christ had absolutely forbidden violence of any kind.[173][170] Origen explained the violence found in certain passages of the Old Testament as allegorical[158] and pointed out Old Testament passages which he interpreted as supporting nonviolence, such as Psalm 7:4-6 and Lamentations 3:27-29.[158] Origen maintained that, if everyone were peaceful and loving like Christians, then there would be no wars and the Empire would not need a military.[174]
Please read this quotation, directly lifted from one of his works:
Origen (c. 185 - c. 254):
“…When we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of. And on these points, when expounding the verse in the second Psalm, ‘Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,’ we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood…
But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view, ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that, as we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim at exerting our own power of eloquence, but, adapting ourselves to the weakness of our charge, both say and do those things which may appear to us useful for the correction and improvement of the children as children, so the word of God appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of the appropriateness of its announcements (regarding Him). And, generally, with regard to such a style of speaking about God, we find in the book of Deuteronomy the following: “The Lord thy God bare with your manners, as a man would bear with the manners of his son.”
It is, as it were, assuming the manners of a man in order to secure the advantage of men that the Scripture makes use of such expressions; for it would not have been suitable to the condition of the multitude, that what God had to say to them should be spoken by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of His own person. And yet he who is anxious to attain a true understanding of holy Scripture, will discover the spiritual truths which are spoken by it to those who are called “spiritual,” by comparing the meaning of what is addressed to those of weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of acuter understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same passage by him who is capable of comprehending it.…”
“…When we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of. And on these points, when expounding the verse in the second Psalm, ‘Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,’ we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood…
But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view, ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that, as we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim at exerting our own power of eloquence, but, adapting ourselves to the weakness of our charge, both say and do those things which may appear to us useful for the correction and improvement of the children as children, so the word of God appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of the appropriateness of its announcements (regarding Him). And, generally, with regard to such a style of speaking about God, we find in the book of Deuteronomy the following: “The Lord thy God bare with your manners, as a man would bear with the manners of his son.”
It is, as it were, assuming the manners of a man in order to secure the advantage of men that the Scripture makes use of such expressions; for it would not have been suitable to the condition of the multitude, that what God had to say to them should be spoken by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of His own person. And yet he who is anxious to attain a true understanding of holy Scripture, will discover the spiritual truths which are spoken by it to those who are called “spiritual,” by comparing the meaning of what is addressed to those of weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of acuter understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same passage by him who is capable of comprehending it.…”
There was a very clear patristic consensus concerning this doctrine of 'divine aseity' and allegorical reading of the Old Testament anthropomorphicisms, not just in Origen's Alexandrian school. And practically all of the pre-Augustinian Fathers were pacifists or at least as close to outright pacifism as possible.
For Christians, the Old Testament prophets were nought but inspired men communicating truths about the immaterial God of Abraham in language comprehensible to the primitive time period of their delivery, which we call the doctrine of 'divine condescension'. Jesus, on the other hand, is considered by us to be God Himself come in human form, as described in the four gospels. No condescension here but rather God Himself With Us.
Last edited: