/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism

>>836516

>Matthew

>Matt

If some faggot tax collector afraid of getting the s— beat out of him by the people he extorted said to not resist evil in contradiction to the rest of the Bible can anyone really trust him? Of course you'd love people to listen to him because you're evil yourself.

>>836524

Too fricking bad. No matter how much your sensitive evil ass hides me, other people can still see the truth.

>>836516

Have you looked into Anabaptist theology especially the Bruderhof? I also found this not sure if it is something that will help as I didn't read the entire article.

https://motnw.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/nonresistance-a-biblical-theology-of-violence-part-1/

The word in the Greek means something more of the sort of opposing.

So, not resisting evil means not moving either against or towards your demons but letting temptations flow through you as if phantasms.

>>836525

The truth is that you follow a wordly prosperity gospel.

>>836529

That's weird. The word used in the Latin Vulgate can mean continue or withstand.

<do not withstand an evil person

<do not continue an evil person

>>836530

I don't even know what to say because your sentiment is gnostic not Christian. You're an obvious ortholarper.

>>836529

Where did you pick that up?

"Evil" in this context isn't referring to temptations, it's talking about the actions of other people who are oppressing you. Not resisting evil would mean, like the metaphor says, turning to him the other cheek.

>>836527

Yes I'm starting with the anabaptists and their relatives, especially since my own tradition shares their legacy. Thanks for the link.

>>836532

That's not weird, you're being pedantic.

>>836535

Said the man cursing Saint Matthew because he gets in the way of his will to power.

>>836546

Not hitting them back is included in the broader sense of not letting passion control you in any sense. They still control you if you let them control your thoughts.

>>836532

That's why we don't translate to another language and then to our own, we translate directly from the source. Ad fontes.

>>836554

matthew gets in the way of basic self-respect.

>>836558

Between respecting God and myself, I choose the former.

>>836559

I don't think you choose either.

>>836565

I know you think so. We don't follow the same God.

>>836516

Romans 13 legitimizes a government's punishment against injustice.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment… For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

I believe that some violence can be justified, but I am in no position to make the decision. Clearly the Lord condones some violence, but unless I believe I have received revelation directly from God, pacifism is for me. In my mind, being a complete pacifist as Christ was (offering no resistance despite unjust oppression) is the most moral thing a person can do. Offering any resistance at all is a sign of pride. If I defend myself with violence, I'm putting this perishable life ahead of my eternal life. If I defend my property, I'm demonstrating that my love of material things is worth more than the well-being of another person. It may seem like a very cucked existence, and I am sure to be taken advantage of, but that embarrassment is due to vanity. Why should I prevent others from expediting my passage into the Beatific Vision? Why should I complain when people rob me of all my possessions when the Apostles were told to even surrender their cloaks and carry no money belt, no bag, and no shoes on their mission? Why should I fight in a military outfit for a country that is going to pass away into dust, killing people whose souls may be yet unfit for eternal judgement? Why should I repay evil with violence when the Lord will correct all injustice with far more perfect retribution than I can ever hope to achieve?

Even passively participating violence is no exception for me. I scoff at the trolley problem. Save five people and kill one? Who am I to weigh lives and value persons? No one. I will do everything I can to save as many people as possible in each situation, but without ever taking the position of God who ultimately decides who should live and who should die. They are tied to the tracks? Then I am not responsible for their deaths – the person who tied them is culpable. They are simply inattentive? I will not become a murderer for their imprudence.

This is truly the most difficult life. It is far easier to defend oneself or one's belongings than it is to be a pacifist. You may be called weak, but pacifism requires true inner strength and cannot be maintained without the grace of God. The only exception I can think of would be to save another person's life. There is no truer love than to die for a friend, as our Lord stated. You must be sure of the sacrifice, though. If your friend or family is in no mortal danger, you ought not resort to violent resistance. You must not abandon your pacifism for the honor of another person, for then you are only reinforcing their pride and vanity – you are not truly sacrificing yourself for them. There can be no question that when Christ told us to "turn the other cheek," He intended for us to humble ourselves before evil so as to prepare our souls for complete submission to the infinite glory and the severe authority of God.

>>836516

life is war whether we like it or not, when we're dead there might be peace

>>836598

Yes, but if the Christians were the governing authorities, and they abode Christian teachings, violent punishment against injustice would not be used. This is precisely why Christians cannot and/or should not seek power – a Christian government is doomed to fail. In this lifetime, perfect government is impossible, and only limited efficacy is achieved when the government assumes the role of God by the administration of human justice (which is detrimental to those in charge). While we are to be subject to violent governing authorities, we should not condone violent governing authorities. Our subjection is the preparation of our souls for the perfect government which will be led by God Himself.

>>836516

John the Baptist told soldiers to do violence to no man nor to accuse any falsely, and to be content with their wages. Luke 3:14. This helps indicate the fact that armed forces help maintain order and that for some greater cause this order serves God's purpose in ways that no other being could grasp. Paul in Romans 13 and Peter in his first epistle chapter 2 give in the form of a commandment in scripture that we should obey the temporal authorities, and it follows this even to the point of accepting the penalty for unjust laws, as the apostles did when they were beaten and sent away for preaching Christ in Acts 5:41. God the Father saw fit that they should suffer shame for Jesus' name, rather that they were counted worthy of it as recorded in Acts 5:41. He also said they would be delivered up to councils and kings for a testimony (Mark 13:9, Revelation 10:11, Psalm 119:46), but to fear none of those things (Revelation 2:10, Luke 12:4-5) which they would suffer at their hands.

One who takes up a weapon to some cause should be prepared to be struck by one as well, as it popularly goes, you never carry a gun unloaded. That's not to say that it is wrong to procure a weapon, not at all, but simply be ready for all the consequences of doing so. Matthew 26:52.

I would disagree with the position of mandatory pacifism, because it implies more than personal pacifism but it condemns those that are not pacifist. Yet we see that God has ordained the powers that be and insofar as they are protecting the innocent as Romans 13 states, they are acting in accordance with and being used as instruments of protection. And so, it would be to despise government (2 Peter 2:10-13) to condemn non-pacifists. But neither do I in any similar way condemn pacifists either. Rather I take the Romans 14 approach, whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and, let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. As it says in Romans 14:14, "to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." As these things are not binding on any particular scripture. Thus we might have vegetarians, pacifists, etcetera, without condemning non-vegetarians, non-pacifists, etc

>>836609

>trolley problem.

A hypothetical that God would not allow to happen in practice. I cite 1 Corinthians 10:13 for your consideration.

>There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

>>836611

The Christian monarchs weren't pacifists and Christianity flourished under them. Idk if the jews inserted the synoptics into the NT within the last century to rewrite history or something but pacifism wasn't the logical conclusion of Christianity until last century.

This is what's wrong with Protestantism: Op starts with a conclusion he wants, and then tries to argue backwards to find the premises he needs to support his conclusion. This is just all to typical of the major protestant religions, and they all came to the same conclusion that sin has no consequences and some even came to the conclusion that good works are evil (Presbyterianism?)

>>836662

Yep, goodness forbid we derive our morals from something real like nature, God's creation, instead of making stuff up and justifying it later with pilpul.

>>836643

I was saying that the trolley problem isn't a problem at all. Despite it being unlikely to ever occur, even if it did, it's easy to resolve with Christian ethics.

>>836644

Just because Christian monarchs did a thing, doesn't mean it was the right thing. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. I entrust all violence to my Lord, who will do it justly on my behalf if He sees fit.