Quote of the Day #005 – Pacifism

Quote of the Day
30 Oct, 2007
9

"Love your enemies" is not a complete philosophy in itself – it must be balanced with "protect the weak" and "do justice."

– danielg

Tags: Quote of the Day

9 Responses

Comments9
Pingbacks0

keith johnson says:
31 October, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Hi Seeker:
You talk about balancing the teachings “love your enemy” with “protect the weak” and “do justice”. That seems to imply a conflict between those commandments. It seems to me that God wouldn’t offer conflicting commandments; God wouldn’t require us to break one commandment to obey another. Killing an enemy in war, a person who is only trying to do his duty they way our soldiers are trying to do theirs seems inconsistent with loving that person (and with loving the soldier’s family too, it seems to me). It also seems to me that the enemy soldiers are among the weak who we ought to be protecting.
your friend
Keith
Log in to Reply
Care to comment danielg says:
31 October, 2007 at 10:17 PM
State Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, admitted to having sex with a man he met at an adult video store in Spokane last week, according to a police report released Tuesday afternoon.
The police report offers a damning and far different version of events from the brief account Curtis gave to The Columbian Monday, one that seems likely to threaten Curtis’ political future.
The report is filled with graphic details of an encounter that began at a porn store on a Spokane Valley strip and concluded miles away in Curtis’ room at the city’s poshest hotel.
The police report contains an account of how Curtis allegedly donned women’s clothing, red stockings and a black sequined lingerie top before engaging in a sex act at the store. He continued to wear them throughout the night under his clothing.
Log in to Reply
Care to comment danielg says:
31 October, 2007 at 10:17 PM
As someone noted before, the Conservative Kink bar has been set so high, that if you aren’t found dangling from a ceiling beam wearing a minimum of two wetsuits with a dildo shoved up your butt, you’re considered kind of vanilla.
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
1 November, 2007 at 2:39 PM
That seems to imply a conflict between those commandments. It seems to me that God wouldn't offer conflicting commandments; God wouldn't require us to break one commandment to obey another.
When there is balance, it does not mean that such things are conflicting, but rather, two parts of a complete whole. Most profound truths appear in paradoxical pairs, and to eliminate one or the other is heresy. This is why, for instance, it says that mercy and truth met in jesus christ.
When we kill doing justice, we are not breaking the command to not kill, which the jews more properly translate, "do not murder."
Such conflicts seem contradictory, but such is the nature of paradox and the balance of truth.
As for loving the enemies, again, you can't make this a blanket statement to cover all situations. If someone were attacking your loved ones, would you disable them, perhaps kill them to stop them? Your philosophy does not seem to account for justice or the need to use lethal force to protect the innocent. Mine does, and I think it is biblical AND takes into proper consideration the command to love our enemies.
Enemies who attack with lethal force or to do harm have already chosen their judgment, and we are entirely loving and truthful when we dispense that judgment to protect the weak and innocent.
Log in to Reply
keith johnson says:
1 November, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Hi Seeker:
YOu wrote:
When there is balance, it does not mean that such things are conflicting, but rather, two parts of a complete whole. Most profound truths appear in paradoxical pairs, and to eliminate one or the other is heresy. This is why, for instance, it says that mercy and truth met in jesus christ.
A paradox is different from flat out contradiction. But the example you just offered doesn't even seem like a paradox to me: there is not even a hint of conflict between mercy and truth.
When we kill doing justice, we are not breaking the command to not kill, which the jews more properly translate, "do not murder.
Assuming that lawful killing is proper, there is no conflict between "doing justice" and capital punishment. But if the commandment "thou shalt not kill" means we are commanded not to take another's life, killing while doing justice isn't a paradox, it's a flat out contradiction. IMO this example doesn't support your POV about war either.
As for loving the enemies, again, you can't make this a blanket statement to cover all situations. If someone were attacking your loved ones, would you disable them, perhaps kill them to stop them? Your philosophy does not seem to account for justice or the need to use lethal force to protect the innocent.
I draw a distinction between repelling a criminal who is attacking an innocent victim and killing an enemy in war. In war, the enemy are people who believe themselves to be doing their duty the same way we believe our soldiers are. War necessarily involves killing innocent people since many of the enemy are innocent people–it necessarly fails to protect the innocent. The argument you make IMO doesn't apply to war, even though it might apply to the "intruder attacking my family" example you just cited. Now about that example…
I am not sure about the stronger version of pacifism (I'll call it level 2 pacifism–L2P) that would prohibit using violence against an intruder. But I don't see how L2P fails to account for justice. On L2P, God's command to love your enemies is a necessary component of justice–when a person fails to love the intruder by killing him, the defender has chosen to reject justice, so goes the argument. Rejecting justice is exactly what results from the idea that we have to balance one mandate from God against another–if God's commands are justice then breaking one command to keep another is choosing one injustice instead of another. The L2Pist doesn't believe God demands we break any of his commandments.
As for protecting the innocent, the L2Pist would deny that anyone's true well being depends on breaking God's commandment to love our enemies. He would have faith that God will take care of such things, that God doesn't command us to do anything that in the end brings harm to the innocent.
Mine does, and I think it is biblical AND takes into proper consideration the command to love our enemies.
Enemies who attack with lethal force or to do harm have already chosen their judgment, and we are entirely loving and truthful when we dispense that judgment to protect the weak and innocent.
Wrt to war, the position you cite above makes our soldiers to be equally deserving of suffering the sword of justice. In war, combatants on both sides are the weak, deserving of protection.
your friend
Keith
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
2 November, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Assuming that lawful killing is proper, there is no conflict between “doing justice” and capital punishment. But if the commandment “thou shalt not kill” means we are commanded not to take another’s life, killing while doing justice isn’t a paradox, it’s a flat out contradiction.
I AM talking about lawful killing. Killing in self defense is lawful. So is killing in a just war or as an agent of the law. So are the capitol crimes listed after the ten commandments.
I see no conflict at all, but I see in your position no way to defend the weak, nor to punish the wicked, which is God’s justice.
I draw a distinction between repelling a criminal who is attacking an innocent victim and killing an enemy in war. In war, the enemy are people who believe themselves to be doing their duty the same way we believe our soldiers are.
It doesn’t matter what they believe. Hitler believed he was right. What makes a war just or unjust is based on God’s standards of right and wrong, and we better make sure we are on the right side.
-if God’s commands are justice then breaking one command to keep another is choosing one injustice instead of another. The L2Pist doesn’t believe God demands we break any of his commandments.
It is you who believes that such actions are breaking commandments. I do not. I will repel an attacker who intends to do me harm, and I’ll care for him (if he lives) after I’ve disabled his wicked intent. If not, he is still to blame for his fate, and not me. Did I fail to love him? Maybe. But I won’t lose any sleep over breaking a commandment, because I do not apply things absolutely like you.
Perhaps I am not explaining it correctly, but I see no contradiction, only a paradox and mystery which I think is normative in the spiritual life. Those who want to nail it all down to one global commandment for all situations are as bad as those who want to be subjective about everything. I think the middle path this the correct one.
Log in to Reply
keith johnson says:
2 November, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Hi Seeker:
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. Now to your response:
I AM talking about lawful killing. Killing in self defense is lawful. So is killing in a just war or as an agent of the law. So are the capitol crimes listed after the ten commandments.
IF killing in warfare is lawful killing, then it doesn't conflict with a command not to murder. My claim is that it conflicts with the commands to "love your neighbor" and to "love your enemy. My point in bringing up "lawful killing" was to challenge your citing paradox as a defense Christian participation in war. I don't see that paradox is the issue–war is either consistent with loving ones enemy or it isn't.
I see no conflict at all, but I see in your position no way to defend the weak, nor to punish the wicked, which is God's justice.
I would deny that it is the Christian's job to punish the wicked. But wrt warfare, I see no way in your position to love your neighbor or your enemy.
It doesn't matter what they believe. Hitler believed he was right. What makes a war just or unjust is based on God's standards of right and wrong, and we better make sure we are on the right side.
I don't think it does matter what they believe. Assuming Hitler actually did think he was right, that doesn't imply he was blameless, but I would argue that his foot soldiers were generally no more guilty that our men and women in Iraq are guilty now (that's not guilty at all, lest I be misunderstood). I don't see how our soldiers can be sure we're on the right side in the Iraq war–I don't see why they can be sure their is a right side.
It is you who believes that such actions are breaking commandments. I do not. I will repel an attacker who intends to do me harm, and I'll care for him (if he lives) after I've disabled his wicked intent. If not, he is still to blame for his fate, and not me. Did I fail to love him? Maybe. But I won't lose any sleep over breaking a commandment, because I do not apply things absolutely like you.
Well, I;m not sure how absolutely I apply things, being a fallen sinner like everyone else:-) But I would argue that God's commandment to love is supposed to be an absolute requirement, and that when we fail to do so we have sinned. Is war OK? IMO it is not, but IMO there's no legitimate doubt that it is wrong for us not to love our neighbors and enemies. I think God's command to love allows for no shades of gray.
your friend
keith
Log in to Reply
keith johnson says:
2 November, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Oops! My sentence, "I don't think it does matter what they believe" should have read "I think it does matter what they believe.
Keith
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
21 April, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Hey, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he attacks women and children, execute justice.
Log in to Reply

You must log in to post a comment.

Quote of the Day #005 – Pacifism

9 Responses

Subscribe by Email

Browse by Category

Log In