Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Note 151.* "Armies as instruments of God's vengence"
Note 261.* "Turn the other cheek"

Peace,
Richard

    	What about Luke 22: 36

    	This sounds like an admonition to me.

    re:  .2 (Luke 22:36)
    
    Yes - one of the phrases in the Bible that illustrate why the Bible in
    and of itself cannot be used for guidance.  There is always the need for
    guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I believe the context is that Jesus said
    something to the effect that, "When I last sent you out, I sent you
    without purse or sword.  Now I send you out with both, and he that hath
    no sword ...."   I could pick and choose, and end up a poor fryar or a
    Knight Templar.  Neither might be the destiny God wishes for me.
    
    DR
    
    
    
    

    That should be frIar, I think.  Didn't want anyone to think I was
    chicken.  (Least of all a poor one!)
    
    DR

	Luke 22:35 "Then he said unto them, But now he that hath a purse, let
			him take it, and likewise his srcip; and he that hath
			no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

	The context is that Jesus is preparing the Apostles for their future
	after his crusafixion. Shorly there after Jesus is taken, but not
	before Simon Peter uses his sword to cut off a guys ear. Jesus
	heals the hear but in only one of three cases where this is reported
	are his words recorded. He basicly tells Peter that this is not the
	time for this because it's part of the plan for Him to be taken. He
	does not criticize the use of a sword per se. And of course it  is
	unlikely that Jesus' desciples would be carrying swords if Jesus did
	not approve of them. And while in some areas the use of a sword for
	protection from animals is possible a) there are other better weapons
	for that purpose (ie spears) b) they were in a pretty "urban" area
	where the most likely "animals" around walk on two legs.

			Alfred

    It seems to me that Richard's question really breaks down into two
    issues.  First, are certain activities, such as war and capital
    punishment, examples of "self-defense"?  And second, even if they are,
    does that make them justifiable?

    I think the answer to the first question is that it depends.  It might
    be possible to categorize some specific wars as "self-defense",
    particularly if it meets the criteria established for a "just war"
    (which I consider an oxymoron, but that's another story).  But not all
    decisions to go to war are cases of self-defense, and even those that
    can be considered as such nevertheless leave open to interpretation the
    application of morality to the specific actions carried out in the name
    of that war.  In other words, not everything done in the name of a
    general goal that you deem acceptable are themselves specifically
    legitimate.

    That is why even in a world view that accepts warfare as necessary,
    there is still the concept of the war crime.  Certainly everyone agrees
    that war is a terrible thing, but the point of defining "war crimes" is
    to limit the horrors of war to those actions that are related to the
    aims of the war itself.  Barbaric actions for their own sake are not
    acceptable merely because they are committed during warfare.  This is
    the point of Nuremberg.

    Similarly, while a society can claim a legitimate need to establish a
    criminal justice system, in the name of its self-defense, that does not
    excuse itself from the moral responsibility to behave in a human and
    civilized fashion while carrying out this aim.  Torture, capital
    punishment, and other immoral barbarities are therefore inexcusable,
    whether or not "self-defense" is the justification.  That is why most
    of the civilized world (with the unfortunate exception of the United
    States) has abolished the death penalty.

    The question is then how far we want to go when defining the limits of
    acceptable behavior when acting out of self-defense?  I agree with
    Jesus's pacifistic vision, as articulated in the Sermon on the Mount,
    that violence, hatred, revenge, and the taking of human life are
    unacceptable responses, and inconsistent with a theology of love.

    -- Mike

    RE: .6 Perhaps you may want to start a separate topic on the
    death penalty. For me a civilized country almost by definition
    *has* a death penalty.

    RE: Self Defense. Self defense is an obligation one has if they believe
    that the body is indeed a temple and/or that God dwells within us.
    Obviously killing the attacker is not a desirable thing but may be
    what it takes to stop the attack. or it may be a side effect of an
    action needed to stop the attack. Likewise we have an obligation to
    defend the less able. What moral person stands buy while a child is
    beaten or killed? If the only alternatives are to allow the killing to
    continue or to cause the attacker a blow that may kill them do you
    allow the child to die?

    There are times when force cannot be stopped without either using
    a counter force or when the initial force completes its activity and
    stops on it's own. When force is uses pain and perhaps death is a
    possibility. Is there a parent here who has not used force to separate
    fighting children? Or do you let them beat each other until they get
    tired or finally decide to head your verbal request that they stop?
    
    		Alfred

    As it has been pointed out before, pacifism (particularly the pacifism
    endorsed by Jesus) is not passive, but rather actively acts to oppose
    evil through loving and moral means.  It is my belief that both
    violence and passiveness in the face of a world that falls short of our
    standards are simply alternative modes of despair (in fact, I wrote an
    essay on this just last Sunday, but it is a bit more than 100 lines
    long, so I won't post it here).
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .8 Perhaps you can post a pointer to the file?
    
    		Alfred

    re -1 (Alfred)
    
    I second that idea Mike. 
    
    :-)
    
    Kb

    Okay, the file is located at CRBOSS::QAR$:[VALENZA.PUBLIC]DESPAIR.TXT.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .2 Luke 22:36

	Ah, yes.  Jesus' disciples once again demonstrate how poorly
the understand their Teacher and his teachings (Verse 38):

	"The disciples said, 'Look! Here are two swords, Lord!'"

	Jesus, in a rare display of exasperation, reveals a degree of
human anxiety and frustration in his response:

	"'That is enough!' [or 'Enough of this!'] he replied.

	Curiously, Jesus never says exactly how he intends the sword
to be used.  Clearly, it is not for severing off the right ear of the
servant of the High Priest, as was noted earlier (Luke 22.47-53).

	I wonder, what else could a sword be used for besides killing?

	Or was Jesus speaking metaphorically, and not speaking about a
physical sword at all?

Peace,
Richard

>	Jesus, in a rare display of exasperation, reveals a degree of
>human anxiety and frustration in his response:
>
>	"'That is enough!' [or 'Enough of this!'] he replied.

	Interesting interpretation, what is it based on? Are there other
	examples of Jesus using sarcasm?

			Alfred

Note 270.13

>	     -< I think you're stretching it a bit Richard >-

Au coutraire, mon frer!  My exegesis may not parallel yours, but
that does not mean I am stretching it.  Check the footnote on verse 22.38
in your Bible.  Also, allow me to direct your attention to Luke 22.51,
where Jesus speaks a similar rebuke directly in response to the use of
the sword.

>	Interesting interpretation, what is it based on? Are there other
>	examples of Jesus using sarcasm?

Sarcasm??  I detect no sarcasm (not on Jesus' part anyway). 8-}

Am I understanding you correctly?  Are you suggesting that Jesus was saying
(in effect),  "You had better get a weapon and prepare to engage your enemies
in mortal combat (in defense of self, of course).  Kill, if you must, to
preserve your skins!"?

Peace,
Richard

    I think one can conclude from the foregoing that the passage in
    question is obscure, at best.  By itself it seems an inappropriate base
    for one's lifetime approach to violence and self-defense.
    
    Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, many things that seem sinful may
    be correct.  One does them with fear and trembling, and only by
    subsequent grace (which we may not be privileged to feel) do we know
    the wisdom of our actions.  
    
    DR

>Also, allow me to direct your attention to Luke 22.51,
>where Jesus speaks a similar rebuke directly in response to the use of
>the sword.

    I would hardly call that a rebuke. Perhaps it's worded differently
    in your translation. In mine it just says Jesus healed the ear.

    "And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his
    ear, and healed him."

    He didn't speak to the Disciple at all.


>Sarcasm??  I detect no sarcasm (not on Jesus' part anyway). 8-}

    Your earlier note seemed to imply sarcasm on Jesus part. It that wasn't
    what you were trying to say you missed the mark.

>Am I understanding you correctly?  Are you suggesting that Jesus was saying
>(in effect),  "You had better get a weapon and prepare to engage your enemies
>in mortal combat (in defense of self, of course).  Kill, if you must, to
>preserve your skins!"?

    If it only appears that I was "suggesting" that I missed the mark. I
    was trying to say that explicitly. It is the only logical
    interpretation of the verses we've been discussing. This is not to say
    that I believe we are always to use deadly force. Obviously not from
    the examples of the Disciples. There are times when it is better (ie
    more in God's purpose) to be a martyr but clearly the other case
    exists. We must depend on the guidance of the Spirit to know the
    difference.

    			Alfred

    re:  .16 "he didn't speak to the disciple at all..."
    
    Maybe I'm thinking of another of the synoptics, but I thought Jesus
    said something like, "Put away the sword; those that live by the sword
    will die by the sword."   If that's not reproof ....
    
    DR
    
    

Re: 270.13

	"For Jesus, the test is a matter of the spirit, and the sword is
a symbol of conflict and death.
^^^^^^^^
	The disciples misunderstand completely: 'Look, Lord, here are two 
swords.'    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Resigning himself to their blindness, Jesus ironically cries out
in despair: 'It is enough.'"                                   ^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^

	Now, I can understand why my interpretation is considered questionable.
After all, I'm just a wild-eyed radical with no sense of balance, right?

	But the foregoing was written by William Baird, Professor of New
Testament, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, TX,
from the _Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible_, Abingdon Press,
Nashville, TN (1984).

	Baird's interpretation would not support self-defense.

	Of course, you have every right to pooh-pooh his interpretation and
suggest that he is stretching it a bit, as you did my 270.12.  Doubtlessly,
many will.

	Interestingly, Luke 22 verses 35-38 have no parallel in the other
Gospels.  Since Luke was not present, where do you suppose he got this
information? (I know, I know - God.)

Peace,
Richard

Note 270.16 CVG::THOMPSON "Semper Gumby"

>    "And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his
>    ear, and healed him."   

>    He didn't speak to the Disciple at all.

Oh?  Well, you and King James probably know more about what the Lord did
than I, but here's what the TEV says (Luke 22.51):

"But Jesus said, 'Enough of this!'  He touched the man's ear and healed
him."

>>Sarcasm??  I detect no sarcasm (not on Jesus' part anyway). 8-}

>    Your earlier note seemed to imply sarcasm on Jesus part. It that wasn't
>    what you were trying to say you missed the mark.

Imply?  I see it not.  Miss the mark; ie, sin?  Moi?  Yes, I am a sinner.

>>Am I understanding you correctly?  Are you suggesting that Jesus was saying
>>(in effect),  "You had better get a weapon and prepare to engage your enemies
>>in mortal combat (in defense of self, of course).  Kill, if you must, to
>>preserve your skins!"?

>    If it only appears that I was "suggesting" that I missed the mark. I
>    was trying to say that explicitly. It is the only logical
>    interpretation of the verses we've been discussing.

My Sovereign and Savior doth not speak out both sides of his mouth.  Nor
doth he preach a comfortable or logical balance.  Yours apparently doth.

Bless you,
Richard

        You have heard the commandment 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a
        tooth.'  But I say to you:  Offer no resistance to injury...You
        have heard the commandment, 'You shall love your countryman but
        hate your enemy.'  But I say to you:  Love your enemies, pray for
        your persecutors" (Matthew 5:38-39 and 43-44).

	[Tacit appendix:  "And then, kill them."]

	??

	Richard

Re: .13  Alfred

>>	Jesus, in a rare display of exasperation, reveals a degree of
>>human anxiety and frustration in his response:
>>
>>	"'That is enough!' [or 'Enough of this!'] he replied.
>
>	Interesting interpretation, what is it based on? Are there other
>	examples of Jesus using sarcasm?

I don't know about sarcasm, but here is an example of where Jesus may have
been somewhat ironic:

	And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt
	before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit
	eternal life?"  And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good?
	No one is good but God alone."
					Mark 10:17-18 (RSV)

The straightforward interpretation is that Jesus was rebuking the man for
calling him "good", since only God is good.  Another possible interpretation
(which would almost be the required interpretation for someone who believes
that Jesus is God) is that Jesus was in effect saying to the man "If you
call me 'Good Teacher' you might as well call me 'Lord', since only God is
good."

Getting back to Luke 22:36, my first inclination is to dismiss it as one of
many contradictions in the Bible - a very human book.  It's a difficult verse
to understand.  Let's look at it in context:

	[24] A dispute arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as
	the greatest. [25]  And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles
	exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are
	called benefactors.  [26] But not so with you; rather let the greatest
	among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
	... [31] Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural],
	that he might sift you [plural] like wheat, [32] but I have prayed for
	you [singular] that your [singular] faith may not fail; and when
	you [singular] have turned again, strengthen your bretheren."
	[33] And he said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison
	and to death." [34] And he said "I tell you, Peter, the cock will
	not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me."

	  [35] And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no purse or
	bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"  They said "Nothing."
	[36] He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it,
	and likewise a bag.  And let him who has no sword sell his mantle
	and one."
						Luke 22:24-26,31-36 (RSV)

Okay, so far there seem to be two possible interpretations. The
straightforward one is that Jesus will soon no longer be with the disciples,
so they have to prepare to fend for themselves.  They'll need purses (money),
bags (possessions) and swords (!!).  But why would they need swords if
they've been told to love their enemies?  The interpretation Richard gave
is that Jesus is exasperated, still angry perhaps at the disciple's argument
over who was the greatest among them, so he tells them something that
obviously goes against what he has taught them before.  (Of course the
disciples don't appreciate the irony: in verse 38 they tell Jesus "Look,
Lord, here are two swords.")

But here's the kicker: in verse 37 Jesus explains *why* he told them they
needed purses, bags and swords.  It's not because they'll need to fend for
themselves.  It may or may not be ironic.

	[37] "For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me,
	'And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what was written
	about me has its fulfillment."

I got curious and looked up the footnote given in the RSV.

	Yet it is the will of the LORD to bruise him;
	  he has put him to grief;
	when he makes himself an offering for sin,
	  he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days;
	the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;

	  he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied;
	by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
	  make many to be accounted righteous;
	and he shall bear their iniquities.
	
	Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great,
	  and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
	because he poured out his soul to death,
	  and was numbered with the trangressors;
	yet he bore the sin of many,
	  and made intercession for the transgressors.
						Isaiah 53:10-12

"[He] was numbered with the transgressors".  What immediately struck me when
I read this was that it could be taken as a prophesy of Jesus dying on the
cross surrounded by condemned criminals.  But in Luke 22:37 Jesus is applying
this verse to his disciples!  Were his disciples criminals?

I've pretty much come around to agreeing with the interpretation Richard
favors.  The disciples are arguing about who is the greatest among them, so
Jesus becomes angry and gives them a stern lecture.  First he tells them that
the greatest among them must be as young people or servants.  Then he warns the
disciples that Satan is trying to tempt them, and asks Peter to strengthen the
other disciples when Jesus is gone.  But when Peter says "Lord, I am ready to
go with you to prison and death", Jesus rebukes him, saying "the cock will not
crow this day before until you three times deny that you know me"!  And now
Jesus becomes ironic/sarcastic, it seems to me.  He compares his disciples to
the criminals who would be executed beside him!  "Who needs criminals", he
seems to be saying "when I have disciples like you?  You can fulfill the
prophesy for all I care.  Why don't you arm yourselves with swords and go out
and rob someone?"  Of course the disciples don't understand the irony.

				-- Bob

Bob and Richard,

You make good points.  Indeed, your interpretation may (or may not) be
the correct one.  I am hesitant to claim irony when it is not very
obvious.

Fortunately, God has revealed to us just as much through the writings
of Paul and the other apostles as through the words of Jesus (not
forsaking God's revelation in the Old Testament either).

Collis

>	Now, I can understand why my interpretation is considered questionable.
>After all, I'm just a wild-eyed radical with no sense of balance, right?

    A totally unfair charge. Your interpretation is considered questionable
    because it is illogical. I have serious respect for you and believe
    you do have a sense of balance.

>	But the foregoing was written by William Baird, Professor of New
>Testament, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, TX,
>from the _Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible_, Abingdon Press,
>Nashville, TN (1984).

    It's still illogical.

    		Alfred

    RE: Jesus using irony. Given that the Disciples (as you see it)
    failed to understand irony even though they had years of knowledge
    of Jesus in the flesh and all the verbal and non verbal clues available
    to one actually in the presence of the speaker why oh why would
    God expect us 2,000 years later to see it? No, either the Disciples
    understood what was being said or a clear explanation/correction
    would have been provided. God does not try to trick us.

    		Alfred

Re: .24  Alfred

Why did the disciples argue among themselves about which of them was the
greatest even after having been with Jesus for three years?

				-- Bob

	RE: .25 What has that to do with abortion? 

	Seriously though I believe the argued so that Jesus could provide the
	very clear message about rank that he did. It is in fact part of why
	I find it so hard to believe Jesus was being ironic with his sword
	comments.

			Alfred

Re: .26 Alfred

>	Seriously though I believe the argued so that Jesus could provide the
>	very clear message about rank that he did.

Do you mean that the disciples faked the argument so that Jesus could teach
them a lesson, or that God manipulated the disciples like puppets on string to
create the argument?

Also, how do you interpret Luke 22:37?

				-- Bob

	RE: .27 Re: .26 I mean that He took advantage of a normal human
	condition. Perhaps I should have said that the arguement was recorded
	to provide background for the answer. I'll not get dragged into the
	puppet thing this time around thank you. :-)

			Alfred

	Luke 22:37 is not clear to me. I will refrain from answer until I have
	a defendable opinion.

Note 270.23

>    A totally unfair charge. Your interpretation is considered questionable
>    because it is illogical. I have serious respect for you and believe
>    you do have a sense of balance.

Ah, you're right!  Rather than saying you had made such an accusation, I
was merely acknowledging my reputation.  And, if you believe I have a sense
of balance in the conventional sense of the word, then you just haven't
gotten to know me very well. 8-}

>    It's still illogical.

I expected this.  It may not make any difference, but I'd like you (and the
other readers here) to know that I understood Luke 22.35-38 the way I did
*before* consulting a reputable commentary.  I am not conforming my
interpretation to a commentary.  It merely affirmed mine.

Secondly, I am not strongly analytical.  If something is illogical, I do not
categorically dismiss it.

To me, many of Jesus' teachings defy logic and *none* of Christ's teachings
support the taking of human life for the sake of self-preservation or defense.
Perhaps that's why so many Christians ignor them.  Such teachings are "too hard"
and irrational.

Peace be with you,
Richard

Don was right about the rebuke. The parallel passage in Matthew is:

Matthew 26:51-54
    And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and
    drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off
    his ear.  Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place:
    for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.  Thinkest
    thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me
    more than twelve legions of angels?  But how then shall the scriptures be
    fulfilled, that thus it must be?

There is no mention in the other Gospels of buying swords.

	-- Charles

    It's been almost two weeks since I wrote .7. Is anyone going to
    respond to it?
    
    		Alfred

re Note 270.7 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     There are times when force cannot be stopped without either using
>     a counter force or when the initial force completes its activity and
>     stops on it's own. When force is uses pain and perhaps death is a
>     possibility. Is there a parent here who has not used force to separate
>     fighting children? Or do you let them beat each other until they get
>     tired or finally decide to head your verbal request that they stop?
  
        There would seem to be some difference between "force" that
        is destructive and force that merely imposes one's morally
        informed will.

        When parents separate fighting children, they are usually
        VERY careful to not cause lasting harm to any of the
        combatants.  The force is measured to prevent destruction (of
        persons, at least!) but to allow the imposition of the
        parent's will.

        I think that the case of adults supervising children is a
        special case, and is not one that we can blindly apply to
        relations among adults or among nations.  

        (It might very well apply to God's overview and intervention
        in human affairs, but that is God's business, not ours except
        in the very perilous case of when humans believe that they
        have clear, unambiguous direction from God to take a certain
        action.)

        Of course, we who are called Christians do have one very
        central and clear example of how God intervenes in human
        affairs when humans have gone astray.  We know the extent to
        which God allowed himself to be subject to force and the
        extent to which God used force to deal with human wickedness. 
        (Hint:  we get the name "Christian" from his title.)

        Bob

	I've been taking a course in technological ethics this summer
	session. It's been very interesting because it forces one to
	deal with ethics away from religion. This is something I haven't
	really done before. As a result I'm starting to look at some things
	differently.

	When I was in college I first got to know and understand pacifists
	including a number of Mennonites and Quakers. I had a deep respect
	for them and their beliefs. However, I had a hard time accepting
	those beliefs. As I grow older I have a harder time still. Justifying
	pacifism, without religion, seems very difficult. The position seems
	quite immoral as it is degrading the to value of people, opinion and
	a healthy society. A peaceful society is a great thing and greatly
	to be desired but pacifism, with it's great disregard for human
	nature, almost guarantees that a peaceful society can never happen.

	In the context of religion, pacifism means that people must either
	flee a violent area or allow themselves to be martyred. Neither is
	conducive to the betterment of society. So I have trouble reconciling
	a desire for a better world with pacifism. 

	The attitude of pacifists I have met towards people with other
	beliefs has also been a turn off. Most of them treat people of other
	beliefs as the devil incarnate. Condescending and holier then thou
	attitudes seem to be the norm among pacifists. There are exceptions
	to be sure and I treasure some friendships with pacifists. I will,
	if need be, exercise my beliefs to allow them to continue theirs
	but do sometimes wish they were willing to be proactive in stopping
	violence.

			Alfred

    From my own perspective, the religious and the philosophical approaches
    to pacifism are not divorced from one another.   That isn't to say that
    I reject out of hand the purely religious arguments that might be
    important to others, and certainly religion plays an important part in
    my own pacifism; but I don't think of my approach as being purely
    religious in nature.  The implication of this for my life, as I have
    mentioned before, is that, to me, what Jesus taught and how he lived his
    life was right, not because Jesus said and did those things, but because
    his philosophy of nonviolent love speaks to the very core of my being.

    I am not offended by those who believe that violence in self-defense is
    a necessary evil.  I can understand their position, even if I disagree
    with it.  But what I cannot accept is the way in which our society
    often elevates this presumed necessary evil to the status of a virtue.
    The seriousness, the tragedy, the waste involved in the taking of human
    life becomes drowned out by a chorus of Ted Bundy jokes, television
    images of smiling soldiers proudly boasting of the death they cause,
    and various vindictive and mean-spirited glee over executions or the
    killing of criminals by gun-toting vigilantes.  Those people who
    society doesn't like become dehumanized as "scum", "vermin", stripped
    of their humanity and defined to be undeserving of even being
    considered human.  And yet many of the same apostles of vindictiveness
    who bandy such dehumanizing expressions of hate find it in themselves
    to go to their church on Sundays and pray to a God who allegedly taught
    them to love their enemies. 

    An important tenet of pacifism is a belief in the inherent value of all
    human beings.  Quakers express this by the phrase, "that of God in
    everyone".  Not all who consider themselves pacifists agree on the
    implications of this tenet; there is really a spectrum of pacifism that
    ranges across a wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors.  Elise Boulding
    described in a _Friends_Journal_ article four different categories of
    pacifists, two of which include people who may conditionally (or
    unconditionally!) support their nation in times of war.  I am not sure
    that the term "pacifism" isn't so broad as to be meaningless.  But I
    think that the belief that Quakers translate to "that of God in
    everyone" is the one thing that these various pacifists accept as a
    basic ideal, even if they disagree on the implications.

    Thus I would contend that anyone who professes to be a pacifist, but
    who also considers anyone else to be "the devil incarnate", is clearly
    contradicting what they profess to believe in. Equally importantly,
    though is the other side of the coin--that pacifism should not be
    afraid to offend by the strength of its convictions; historically, many
    of the world's most famous pacifists were unafraid to speak out for
    what they believed.  John Dear, in his book "Our God is Nonviolent",
    traces the lives of several active pacifists who fought for justice and
    peace in their time.  Jesus, John Woolman, and Dorothy Day all spoke up
    against the evils that they witnessed around them.  What this means is
    that though pacifism is often confused in many people's minds with
    cowardice or martyrdom, this is in fact a straw man; what pacifism
    advocates is a creative third way that represents neither passive
    acceptance nor active aggression.
    
    -- Mike

Note 270.33

Alfred,

I sense you're sincere about this.  And, I also sense you may be ripe for
a new paradigm about pacifism and pacifists.  Mind you, Alfred, Mike Valenza
is more likely to be better equipped to communicate with you on the logical
level that you seem to prefer.  But, allow me to give it a shot anyway.

[Note: I composed this reply before reading Mike's entry 270.34.  Nice
 job, Mike!]

>	I've been taking a course in technological ethics this summer
>	session. It's been very interesting because it forces one to
>	deal with ethics away from religion. This is something I haven't
>	really done before. As a result I'm starting to look at some things
>	differently.

IMHO, ethics should never be divorced from religion.  Religion should never
be divorced from the rest of your life.  Like Daniel Berrigan said, "The
first thing they always want to take away from us [pacifists] is the Bible."

>	The position seems
>	quite immoral as it is degrading the to value of people, opinion and
>	a healthy society. A peaceful society is a great thing and greatly
>	to be desired but pacifism, with it's great disregard for human
>	nature, almost guarantees that a peaceful society can never happen.

Ah...but I see anything else as degrading to human life.  When Jesus said
"Love your enemy," did he mean only when it made sense to do so?  Did he
mean only as long as it seemed like a good thing to do?  Did he mean only
as long as it was easy or comfortable to do so?

I personally think not.  I also realize that love is not always successful.
Love frequently fails to bring about the desired result, at least, in the
short term.  One study I read estimated that love overcame conflict situations
only 75% of the time.

What do we do with that other 25% of the time?  I can tell you what the
culture tells us to do.  But to me, that just is not the Way of Jesus.

>	In the context of religion, pacifism means that people must either
>	flee a violent area or allow themselves to be martyred. Neither is
>	conducive to the betterment of society. So I have trouble reconciling
>	a desire for a better world with pacifism.

It must seem like "to fight or to take flight" are our only alternatives at
times.  And, the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi would seem to
support what you are saying.

Not unlike my brothers and sisters in the military, I believe that there are
some things worth dying for.  But, as a soldier of the cross, I am reluctant
to say that there is anything worth snuffing out a life for.

>	The attitude of pacifists I have met towards people with other
>	beliefs has also been a turn off. Most of them treat people of other
>	beliefs as the devil incarnate. Condescending and holier then thou
>	attitudes seem to be the norm among pacifists. There are exceptions
>	to be sure and I treasure some friendships with pacifists. I will,
>	if need be, exercise my beliefs to allow them to continue theirs
>	but do sometimes wish they were willing to be proactive in stopping
>	violence.

I have found the holier-than-thou syndrome to be more prevalent among the
fundamentalist Christian non-pacifists.  My guess is that there exists no
grouping which is completely free of blemishes and warts! 8-}

I, too, wish more pacifists would be willing to be pro-active and not wait
for war to break out.  But, let's face it, pacifism is not funded nearly
as well as militarism is.

There just aren't very many billboards proclaiming:
                     "Be all you can be - Work for peace" or
                     "The Few - the Proud - the Pacifists" or
                     "Aim high - World Peace"

God bless thee, Friend,
Richard

Re: .35 Richard

>>	I've been taking a course in technological ethics this summer
>>	session. It's been very interesting because it forces one to
>>	deal with ethics away from religion. This is something I haven't
>>	really done before. As a result I'm starting to look at some things
>>	differently.
>
>IMHO, ethics should never be divorced from religion.  Religion should never
>be divorced from the rest of your life.  Like Daniel Berrigan said, "The
>first thing they always want to take away from us [pacifists] is the Bible."

Maybe Alfred's point was that technological ethics applies to both religious
and non-religious people, so it has to be described in a way that is
independent of religion.  If you're trying to explain why its unethical to
dump toxic waste, for example, it's not enough to quote a verse from the Bible.
You need some non-religious basis for defining what is ethical (e.g. you
might say that an action is ethical if it benefits society and unethical if
it hurts society).

				-- Bob

    See also topic 285 on Ethics, religion and Christianity.
    
    			Alfred