(May 14, 2019 at 8:57 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Interesting.  Why a universalist Quaker theocracy? I mean, why do you trust it.  I wouldn't trust any theocracy.  Before you know it, people will be burning at the stake.

I agree that "no theocracy" is best. I was just saying "if there had to be a theocracy" I'd pick Quakerism... or maybe Jainism... because these outlooks emphasize pacifism (one of my core values).

Quote:I support non-violence as well.  However, I support self-defense and defense of nation.  As a pacifist what is your take on self-defense and defense of country?

It's an interesting issue with no easy answer. The argument made against pacifism is often a pragmatic one: "If there is a nation of pacifists, they will be easily conquered by their (more violent) neighbors... and the nation of pacifists will become a violent nation anyway." In short: pacifism is self-defeating. It doesn't accomplish what it aims to achieve: a peaceful world. If anything, say pacifism's detractors, pacifism aids violence by allowing itself to be conquered by, and thereafter subjugated to, forces which have no qualms about using violence.

But this only works against "pacifism in a vacuum." Let's say that a government made it a point to be as pacifist as it could be. That is, it refused to use violence for any reason except when the enemy was banging at its door. And even then, with great consideration and restraint. Would we have had many of the wars we've had in the past century? Maybe one: WW II.

But if WW II is the only war we actually had in the past century, bloodshed would have been reduced by a wide margin. And that's not even considering the fact that if we hadn't entered WW I (which was highly avoidable) we might not have needed to fight WW II to begin with.

So, my thesis is: why don't we reduce violence to the lowest possible level and then (from there) work our way to complete nonviolence? But this hardly matters because, to me, pacifism is a value I impose on myself... not something I insist that the world's nations adopt. I can't control what the world's nations do with their power, but I can control my own actions. And that is what pacifism is to me: a personal commitment to nonviolence--full stop.

Also, my pacifism is tempered with a sense of Thoreauvian disobedience. I say: it is wrong to inflict violence on others, but there is no need to obey them either. Mahatma Gandhi showed that pacifism (mixed with disobedience) could bring the British Empire to its knees. Who knows what other giants we may fell with this simple sling and stone?

I have four pacifist heroes (though they may not all be considered perfect pacifists): Henry David Thoreau and Gandhi are the first two (whose ideas I've mentioned already). These two aren't particularly Christian. But the second two, Martin Luther King Jr. and Leo Tolstoy, are thoroughly Christian.

One of the things that has always puzzled me, given the teachings of Christ in the synoptic Gospels, is why Christians are so quick to endorse America's supremacy through violence. They are typically aligned with "the right" who are rather loose with military force. Why aren't Christians more "slow to wrath" (James 1:19) when considering military action? Christians stand shoulder to shoulder with the right wing who criticized Obama's so-called "apology tour." This was because Obama, during the course of visits to several different countries, admitted that America made some mistakes in the past. According to the right wing pundits, Obama should not have admitted any mistakes on America's part. Rather, he should have shook his finger at them and threatened to bomb them.

Ought not a Christian admit it when he or she makes a mistake, yet refuse to condemn others for doing so? Isn't that the Christian ideal?

This is one of the major gripes I have with Christians. They profess to have certain values, but when you actually examine what they endorse, you find that they ACTUALLY possess opposite values. I'm not a huge fan of liars and hypocrites, even if they say I'll burn in Hell for not joining their little social club. I'll keep ahold of what I know are genuine values and take my chances with the (probably nonexistent) lake of fire, thank you!

***

If you are indeed a Christian who is interested in nonviolence, I quoted a passage by a Christian author concerning the Book of Matthew that you might like to read when you have the time. If you find it interesting, I'd like to hear your take on it:

(May 14, 2019 at 10:02 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(May 14, 2019 at 8:57 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Interesting.  Why a universalist Quaker theocracy? I mean, why do you trust it.  I wouldn't trust any theocracy.  Before you know it, people will be burning at the stake.

I agree that "no theocracy" is best. I was just saying "if there had to be a theocracy" I'd pick Quakerism... or maybe Jainism... because these outlooks emphasize pacifism (one of my core values).

Quote:I support non-violence as well.  However, I support self-defense and defense of nation.  As a pacifist what is your take on self-defense and defense of country?

It's an interesting issue with no easy answer. The argument made against pacifism is often a pragmatic one: "If there is a nation of pacifists, they will be easily conquered by their (more violent) neighbors... and the nation of pacifists will become a violent nation anyway." In short: pacifism is self-defeating. It doesn't accomplish what it aims to achieve: a peaceful world. If anything, say pacifism's detractors, pacifism aids violence by allowing itself to be conquered by, and thereafter subjugated to, forces which have no qualms about using violence.

But this only works against "pacifism in a vacuum." Let's say that a government made it a point to be as pacifist as it could be. That is, it refused to use violence for any reason except when the enemy was banging at its door. And even then, with great consideration and restraint. Would we have had many of the wars we've had in the past century? Maybe one: WW II.

But if WW II is the only war we actually had in the past century, bloodshed would have been reduced by a wide margin. And that's not even considering the fact that if we hadn't entered WW I (which was highly avoidable) we might not have needed to fight WW II to begin with.

So, my thesis is: why don't we reduce violence to the lowest possible level and then (from there) work our way to complete nonviolence? But this hardly matters because, to me, pacifism is a value I impose on myself... not something I insist that the world's nations adopt. I can't control what the world's nations do with their power, but I can control my own actions. And that is what pacifism is to me: a personal commitment to nonviolence--full stop.

Also, my pacifism is tempered with a sense of Thoreauvian disobedience. I say: it is wrong to inflict violence on others, but there is no need to obey them either. Mahatma Gandhi showed that pacifism (mixed with disobedience) could bring the British Empire to its knees. Who knows what other giants we may fell with this simple sling and stone?

I have four pacifist heroes (though they may not all be considered perfect pacifists): Henry David Thoreau and Gandhi are the first two (whose ideas I've mentioned already). These two aren't particularly Christian. But the second two, Martin Luther King Jr. and Leo Tolstoy, are thoroughly Christian.

One of the things that has always puzzled me, given the teachings of Christ in the synoptic Gospels, is why Christians are so quick to endorse America's supremacy through violence. They are typically aligned with "the right" who are rather loose with military force. Why aren't Christians more "slow to wrath" (James 1:19) when considering military action? Christians stand shoulder to shoulder with the right wing who criticized Obama's so-called "apology tour." This was because Obama, during the course of visits to several different countries, admitted that America made some mistakes in the past. According to the right wing pundits, Obama should not have admitted any mistakes on America's part. Rather, he should have shook his finger at them and threatened to bomb them.

Ought not a Christian admit it when he or she makes a mistake, yet refuse to condemn others for doing so? Isn't that the Christian ideal?

This is one of the major gripes I have with Christians. They profess to have certain values, but when you actually examine what they endorse, you find that they ACTUALLY possess opposite values. I'm not a huge fan of liars and hypocrites, even if they say I'll burn in Hell for not joining their little social club. I'll keep ahold of what I know are genuine values and take my chances with the (probably nonexistent) lake of fire, thank you!

***

If you are indeed a Christian who is interested in nonviolence, I quoted a passage by a Christian author concerning the Book of Matthew that you might like to read when you have the time. If you find it interesting, I'd like to hear your take on it:

---

Leo Tolstoy Wrote:The words, ‘Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,’ had always
presented themselves to me as requiring endurance and self-mastery such as human nature is hardly
capable of. They touched me. I felt that to act thus would be to attain moral perfection; but I felt, too,
that I should never be able to obey them if they entailed nothing but suffering. I said to myself, ‘Well, I
will turn my cheek – I will let myself be struck again. I will give up my coat – they shall take my all.
They shall even take away my life. Yet, life is given to me. Why should I thus lose it? This cannot be
what Christ requires of us.’ Then I said to myself, ‘Perhaps in these words Christ only purposes to extol
suffering and self-denial, and in doing so He speaks exaggeratingly and His expressions are therefore to
be regarded as illustrations rather than precise requirements.’ But as soon as I comprehended the
meaning of the words, ‘do not resist evil,’ it became clear to me that Christ does not exaggerate, that He
does not require suffering for the mere sake of suffering, and that He only expresses clearly and
definitely what He means. He says, ‘Do not resist evil,’ and if you do not resist evil, you may meet with
some who, having struck you on one cheek, and meeting with no resistance, will strike you on the other;
after having taken away your coat, will take away your cloak also; having profited by your work, will
oblige you to work on; will take, and will never give back. ‘Nevertheless, I say to you, do not resist evil.
Still do good to those who even strike and abuse you.’
Now I understood that the whole force of the teaching lay in the words ‘do not resist evil,’ and that
the entire context was but an application of that great precept. I saw that Christ does not require us to
turn the other cheek, and to give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer; but He teaches us not to
resist evil, and warns us that doing so may involve personal suffering. Does a father, on seeing his son
set out on a long journey, tell him to pass sleepless nights, to eat little, to get wet through, or to freeze?
Will he not rather say to him, ‘Go, and if on the road you are cold or hungry, do not be discouraged but
go on’? Christ does not say ‘Let a man strike your cheek, and suffer,’ but He says, ‘Do not resist evil.
Whatever men may do to you, do not resist evil.’ These words, ‘do not resist evil’ (the wicked man),
thus apprehended, were the clue that made all clear to me, and I was surprised that I could have hitherto
treated them in such a different way. Christ meant to say, ‘Whatever men may do to you, bear, suffer,
and submit; but never resist evil.’ What could be clearer, more intelligible, and more indubitable that
this? As soon as I understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had appeared confused
to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible; what had seemed contradictory now became consistent,
and what I had deemed superfluous became indispensable. All united in one whole, one part fitting into
and supporting the other, like the pieces of a broken statue put together again in their proper places.

http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pdf/To...elieve.pdf

---

Thanks for the very well thought out thorough response.  

I agree.  We should be more slow to wrath when considering military action.  It is totally out of control with the military industrial complex.  I don't think it is just a Christian problem.  I think it is a sinful human nature problem.  

I agree, I do not like when Christians act like hyprocrits either.  I see that as part of there fallen human nature and also there are false Christians that do not act Christian.  

I will read the passage and get back with you.

---

(May 14, 2019 at 10:02 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(May 14, 2019 at 8:57 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Interesting.  Why a universalist Quaker theocracy? I mean, why do you trust it.  I wouldn't trust any theocracy.  Before you know it, people will be burning at the stake.

I agree that "no theocracy" is best. I was just saying "if there had to be a theocracy" I'd pick Quakerism... or maybe Jainism... because these outlooks emphasize pacifism (one of my core values).

Quote:I support non-violence as well.  However, I support self-defense and defense of nation.  As a pacifist what is your take on self-defense and defense of country?

It's an interesting issue with no easy answer. The argument made against pacifism is often a pragmatic one: "If there is a nation of pacifists, they will be easily conquered by their (more violent) neighbors... and the nation of pacifists will become a violent nation anyway." In short: pacifism is self-defeating. It doesn't accomplish what it aims to achieve: a peaceful world. If anything, say pacifism's detractors, pacifism aids violence by allowing itself to be conquered by, and thereafter subjugated to, forces which have no qualms about using violence.

But this only works against "pacifism in a vacuum." Let's say that a government made it a point to be as pacifist as it could be. That is, it refused to use violence for any reason except when the enemy was banging at its door. And even then, with great consideration and restraint. Would we have had many of the wars we've had in the past century? Maybe one: WW II.

But if WW II is the only war we actually had in the past century, bloodshed would have been reduced by a wide margin. And that's not even considering the fact that if we hadn't entered WW I (which was highly avoidable) we might not have needed to fight WW II to begin with.

So, my thesis is: why don't we reduce violence to the lowest possible level and then (from there) work our way to complete nonviolence? But this hardly matters because, to me, pacifism is a value I impose on myself... not something I insist that the world's nations adopt. I can't control what the world's nations do with their power, but I can control my own actions. And that is what pacifism is to me: a personal commitment to nonviolence--full stop.

Also, my pacifism is tempered with a sense of Thoreauvian disobedience. I say: it is wrong to inflict violence on others, but there is no need to obey them either. Mahatma Gandhi showed that pacifism (mixed with disobedience) could bring the British Empire to its knees. Who knows what other giants we may fell with this simple sling and stone?

I have four pacifist heroes (though they may not all be considered perfect pacifists): Henry David Thoreau and Gandhi are the first two (whose ideas I've mentioned already). These two aren't particularly Christian. But the second two, Martin Luther King Jr. and Leo Tolstoy, are thoroughly Christian.

One of the things that has always puzzled me, given the teachings of Christ in the synoptic Gospels, is why Christians are so quick to endorse America's supremacy through violence. They are typically aligned with "the right" who are rather loose with military force. Why aren't Christians more "slow to wrath" (James 1:19) when considering military action? Christians stand shoulder to shoulder with the right wing who criticized Obama's so-called "apology tour." This was because Obama, during the course of visits to several different countries, admitted that America made some mistakes in the past. According to the right wing pundits, Obama should not have admitted any mistakes on America's part. Rather, he should have shook his finger at them and threatened to bomb them.

Ought not a Christian admit it when he or she makes a mistake, yet refuse to condemn others for doing so? Isn't that the Christian ideal?

This is one of the major gripes I have with Christians. They profess to have certain values, but when you actually examine what they endorse, you find that they ACTUALLY possess opposite values. I'm not a huge fan of liars and hypocrites, even if they say I'll burn in Hell for not joining their little social club. I'll keep ahold of what I know are genuine values and take my chances with the (probably nonexistent) lake of fire, thank you!

***

If you are indeed a Christian who is interested in nonviolence, I quoted a passage by a Christian author concerning the Book of Matthew that you might like to read when you have the time. If you find it interesting, I'd like to hear your take on it:

---

Leo Tolstoy Wrote:The words, ‘Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,’ had always
presented themselves to me as requiring endurance and self-mastery such as human nature is hardly
capable of. They touched me. I felt that to act thus would be to attain moral perfection; but I felt, too,
that I should never be able to obey them if they entailed nothing but suffering. I said to myself, ‘Well, I
will turn my cheek – I will let myself be struck again. I will give up my coat – they shall take my all.
They shall even take away my life. Yet, life is given to me. Why should I thus lose it? This cannot be
what Christ requires of us.’ Then I said to myself, ‘Perhaps in these words Christ only purposes to extol
suffering and self-denial, and in doing so He speaks exaggeratingly and His expressions are therefore to
be regarded as illustrations rather than precise requirements.’ But as soon as I comprehended the
meaning of the words, ‘do not resist evil,’ it became clear to me that Christ does not exaggerate, that He
does not require suffering for the mere sake of suffering, and that He only expresses clearly and
definitely what He means. He says, ‘Do not resist evil,’ and if you do not resist evil, you may meet with
some who, having struck you on one cheek, and meeting with no resistance, will strike you on the other;
after having taken away your coat, will take away your cloak also; having profited by your work, will
oblige you to work on; will take, and will never give back. ‘Nevertheless, I say to you, do not resist evil.
Still do good to those who even strike and abuse you.’
Now I understood that the whole force of the teaching lay in the words ‘do not resist evil,’ and that
the entire context was but an application of that great precept. I saw that Christ does not require us to
turn the other cheek, and to give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer; but He teaches us not to
resist evil, and warns us that doing so may involve personal suffering. Does a father, on seeing his son
set out on a long journey, tell him to pass sleepless nights, to eat little, to get wet through, or to freeze?
Will he not rather say to him, ‘Go, and if on the road you are cold or hungry, do not be discouraged but
go on’? Christ does not say ‘Let a man strike your cheek, and suffer,’ but He says, ‘Do not resist evil.
Whatever men may do to you, do not resist evil.’ These words, ‘do not resist evil’ (the wicked man),
thus apprehended, were the clue that made all clear to me, and I was surprised that I could have hitherto
treated them in such a different way. Christ meant to say, ‘Whatever men may do to you, bear, suffer,
and submit; but never resist evil.’ What could be clearer, more intelligible, and more indubitable that
this? As soon as I understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had appeared confused
to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible; what had seemed contradictory now became consistent,
and what I had deemed superfluous became indispensable. All united in one whole, one part fitting into
and supporting the other, like the pieces of a broken statue put together again in their proper places.

http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pdf/To...elieve.pdf

---

I do find this passage interesting.  I do believe the key to the passage is do not resist evil as well.  He makes a good point.  

Additionally, the Lord told His disciples to carry swords for self-defense.  He told them to carry two swords between the twelve of them.  The Lord also teaches not to murder but killing in battle and in self-defense are allowed. 

I'd like to further discuss this passage if you have more questions or comments about it.

(May 14, 2019 at 9:48 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(May 14, 2019 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: you are thinking of catholicism not christianity.

Yeah, blame it on me for not picking "right" Christianity.

(May 14, 2019 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: divorce is allowed in christianity and in the bible

Tell it to Mormons and Catholics.

(May 14, 2019 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: How can you be so wrong about christian values if you hate them so much? could it be you have no real idea of what you hate and mock? Could it be you completely rely on stereotype and a blind racist type of anger based on ignorance and vitriol.

Yes I hate Christianity because, according to you, I chose Catholicism as a model for Christian state and, again according to you, that is not a real Christianity, so it rather seems that it is you who hates Christianity.

And yeah I'm the problem and not the fact that adherents of all versions of Christianity claim they are doing what God wants and reject all others as genuine Christians.

So this is what it actually means when Christians say that society is becoming more secular and further from Christian values: they blame secularists for their own inability to decide what real Christianity really is.

This is exactly what I mean when I said you have no clue what christianity is. you see 30 opposing sects where someone has to pick one expression of the religion.. this may work in every other religion on the planet but not here.  which is in part why you fail to understand that Christianity is not just one denomination. the bible points out the each denomination is like a different part of the body where Jesus Christ is the head. each part of the body is different because each part has a different function. The church is the body of believers who put Christ at the center of our religion. the whole church including catholicism, however catholicism is not the body unto itself, it too is just a part. Which is why I point out orginally how wrong you are about the most basic grasp of the christian religion.

You are so ignorant of the basic fundamentals of a religion you hate so much you are oblivious to the fact that if you modeled a christ societal rule around one denominational belief you are alienating the rest of society. The founding father's knew this (something you also seem oblivious to/The this country was a model of christian society from the beginning) and again something that was model almost picturesquely in the greatest generation running of the united states. in your statement you ignored everything I had to historically say as to how thscountry was run as a christian soceity and how in those times defined us as a great nation.. how petty and ignorant of you to assume one set of rues governing one potion of the body of believers would be able to allow the complete functionality of the body..

For example the range of motion in how a hand bends and naturally flexs would destroy a spin the light/information processed by the eye is useless to the ear and so on. in turn why would there only be rules in the church the benefits members who where like eyes to the body but have no or even the opposite affect to other parts of the fellowship? Again look how the founding father arranged the country and allowed each state to make it's one decisisions and how they kept the federal government completely away from religion but incorperated their religious beliefs into the government.

I think a decade of the America Right Wing Evangelicals/Dominionists seem to want will be difficult, and for many people, cruel, but would lead to a backlash that will end politicized religious partisanship as a powerful force in this country. So it will wind up being not worth it for all concerned.

(May 15, 2019 at 9:29 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I think a decade of the America Right Wing Evangelicals/Dominionists seem to want will be difficult, and for many people, cruel, but would lead to a backlash that will end politicized religious partisanship as a powerful force in this country. So it will wind up being not worth it for all concerned.

unlike clinton who vowed to remove the 1st amendment and force modern 'tolerances on the church and demand it accept the changes the country has under gone.. LGBT, women's roles, abortion, contraception, laws governing the discipline of our kids, ect.. or be subject to hate crime laws.

No that would not cause a civil war.. No wonder she wants our guns too...

Let's have that quote from Clinton on removing the First Amendment, Drich, and source it. My guess is that you're interpreting her words your own way as hard as you do the words of the Bible.

"Christian utopia" feels like an oxymoron. 

They can't even come close to creating this within their own sects/churches.

(May 15, 2019 at 10:20 am)wyzas Wrote: "Christian utopia" feels like an oxymoron. 

They can't even come close to creating this within their own sects/churches.

Hey smart guy it's call the history of america... look it up.

That is what a christian utopia looked like (US history up until the 1960s) then the "me" generation shat it up from that point on.

(May 15, 2019 at 10:05 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Let's have that quote from Clinton on removing the First Amendment, Drich, and source it. My guess is that you're interpreting her words your own way as hard as you do the words of the Bible.

Yeah, I'd kind of like to read that quote as well.

Boru

(May 15, 2019 at 12:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 15, 2019 at 10:20 am)wyzas Wrote: "Christian utopia" feels like an oxymoron. 

They can't even come close to creating this within their own sects/churches.

Hey smart guy it's call the history of america... look it up.

That is what a christian utopia looked like (US history up until the 1960s) then the "me" generation shat it up from that point on.

But what exactly was so utopian about pre-1960's United States? People loosing their jobs & starving during Great Depression, maybe? Or the Civil War in the 1860's?