Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given the current discussions regarding pacifism happening in various threads, and considering that in one of the posts MLK was brought up, I thought it was interesting when I popped the t.v. on a few minutes ago to see a special about the Freedom Riders.
It did bring something to light that I think is being overlooked in the discussion here. The Freedom Riders did not simply allow evil to happen unchecked. They went to where it was and confronted it, non-violently, fully aware that they were putting their lives on the line.
Until those of us who believe that every situation is solvable by non-violent means are willing to put our lives on the line in the situations that our policemen, servicemen and others do who daily put theirs on the line to achieve safety for those in harm's way, I don't know that we have the right to criticize how those situations are being handled by them.
Given the current discussions regarding pacifism happening in various threads, and considering that in one of the posts MLK was brought up, I thought it was interesting when I popped the t.v. on a few minutes ago to see a special about the Freedom Riders.
It did bring something to light that I think is being overlooked in the discussion here. The Freedom Riders did not simply allow evil to happen unchecked. They went to where it was and confronted it, non-violently, fully aware that they were putting their lives on the line.
Until those of us who believe that every situation is solvable by non-violent means are willing to put our lives on the line in the situations that our policemen, servicemen and others do who daily put theirs on the line to achieve safety for those in harm's way, I don't know that we have the right to criticize how those situations are being handled by them.
Thoughts?
If I were living in America right now, I'd be much more active. Since I'm in Italy, and most people here are already against the war (and have been since the start--"here we go again..") it's kind of like preaching to the choir.
However, I am seriously considering starting a Quaker meeting in my city. There aren't many Quakers, and I'm not "officially" Quaker, but I like how they live and what they believe.
It is however a good idea to raise people's awareness, and to speak the truth. Often truth is unpleasant, but it is nevertheless important to strive towards.
There are also "activists" who "get into the line of fire" in protest, such as in Gaza. While I agree with their goals for peace, I think that is not the right way to go about it. I think it has to start with speaking the truth to the masses, and to get people thinking about what they have been told.
Until those of us who believe that every situation is solvable by non-violent means are willing to put our lives on the line in the situations that our policemen, servicemen and others do who daily put theirs on the line to achieve safety for those in harm's way, I don't know that we have the right to criticize how those situations are being handled by them.
Are you going to protect people in harm's way? If not, how do you have the right to criticize those who do, and to accuse them of loving war and violence? Do you expect them to protect others through non-violent means, while not being willing to set the example and do the same thing?
MLK spoke his truth to the masses, and he also LIVED (and DIED) his truth with them and peacably fought for an end to evil in a given situation. He didn't sit on the sidelines telling everyone to ignore an evil situation and it would go away. He and those who agreed with him were in the trenches, standing between other people and the evil attitudes and acts of those who would harm them.
Or do you simply not believe that evil should be confronted, or that people in harm's way should be protected from evil? Do you believe that only those who are committing evil acts are worthy of being Loved?
Until those of us who believe that every situation is solvable by non-violent means are willing to put our lives on the line in the situations that our policemen, servicemen and others do who daily put theirs on the line to achieve safety for those in harm's way, I don't know that we have the right to criticize how those situations are being handled by them.
Are you going to protect people in harm's way? If not, how do you have the right to criticize those who do, and to accuse them of loving war and violence? Do you expect them to protect others through non-violent means, while not being willing to set the example and do the same thing?
MLK spoke his truth to the masses, and he also LIVED (and DIED) his truth with them and peacably fought for an end to evil in a given situation. He didn't sit on the sidelines telling everyone to ignore an evil situation and it would go away. He and those who agreed with him were in the trenches, standing between other people and the evil attitudes and acts of those who would harm them.
Or do you simply not believe that evil should be confronted, or that people in harm's way should be protected from evil? Do you believe that only those who are committing evil acts are worthy of being Loved?
Yes, evil ought to be confronted. And there are many ways to confront evil. One is to expose lies. If someone tells you a lie, and another person tells you that you have been lied to, are they judging you?
You might say that I am a hypocrite because I don't throw myself in the line of fire. Maybe so.
But apparently many people on this forum who claim to follow Jesus, still haven't read His words!
So until people start to consider what their "Lord" tells them to do, jumping out in the line of fire will seem only silliness.
MLK certainly preached a message of non-violence. He also had the opportunity to practice it, and I hope those of us who believe in it like he did, will have the opportunity to demonstrate it in the future, to help change the world we live in.
(BTW, speaking of "changing the world," I also recognize that many Christians are waiting to rapture away from here, so obviously I wouldn't expect much from them in the way of wanting to change the world for the better..)
Yes, evil ought to be confronted. And there are many ways to confront evil. One is to expose lies. If someone tells you a lie, and another person tells you that you have been lied to, are they judging you?
I don't know what you are referring to here.
Quote:
You might say that I am a hypocrite because I don't throw myself in the line of fire. Maybe so.
But apparently many people on this forum who claim to follow Jesus, still haven't read His words!
So until people start to consider what their "Lord" tells them to do, jumping out in the line of fire will seem only silliness.
What line of fire are you talking about throwing yourself into? To protect someone from evil, or to protest war in general? Those are two very different things and I would not suggest the latter, personally. But the first? Yes, I think you're being hypocritical. If you are going to tell others that they are wrong and evil to protect others from harm but you are not willing to do anything yourself, then that makes you hypocritical.
Quote:
MLK certainly preached a message of non-violence. He also had the opportunity to practice it, and I hope those of us who believe in it like he did, will have the opportunity to demonstrate it in the future, to help change the world we live in.
MLK didn't wait for an opportunity, he created one. He saw evil being done to others, and he stepped in.
Quote:
(BTW, speaking of "changing the world," I also recognize that many Christians are waiting to rapture away from here, so obviously I wouldn't expect much from them in the way of wanting to change the world for the better..)
This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It's easy for us to condemn the beliefs and actions of others in order to avoid seeing the problem with our own actions (or lack thereof). We're all guilty of it.
Let me turn this back to what you said you wanted to do to "confront evil". Start a Quaker meeting? That doesn't confront evil. But Quakers did. Here in the US, during the time of abolition, they spoke up against slavery, they put their lives on the line to help people escape slavery, and they put their time and resources towards helping freed slaves and educating them.
They confronted an evil situation and did something about it. They didn't ignore the problem of evil as you continue to do in your responses to me. Your focus is completely lop-sided, ignoring the plight of those in harm's way and condeming those who help those people while never offering any viable or realistic alternative in what you say or what you do. Until you can see that and address it in a realistic way, I don't think you should expect people to take what you're saying into serious consideration.
MLK didn't wait for an opportunity, he created one. He saw evil being done to others, and he stepped in.
Let me turn this back to what you said you wanted to do to "confront evil". Start a Quaker meeting? That doesn't confront evil. But Quakers did. Here in the US, during the time of abolition, they spoke up against slavery, they put their lives on the line to help people escape slavery, and they put their time and resources towards helping freed slaves and educating them.
They confronted an evil situation and did something about it. They didn't ignore the problem of evil as you continue to do in your responses to me. Your focus is completely lop-sided, ignoring the plight of those in harm's way and condeming those who help those people while never offering any viable or realistic alternative in what you say or what you do. Until you can see that and address it in a realistic way, I don't think you should expect people to take what you're saying into serious consideration.
This is a situation endemic to pacifism . . . the unimpeded actions of evil. Idealistically . . . pacifism is appealing . . . but the most peaceful person is a dead one. The unimpeded march of evil will result in just that.
This is a situation endemic to pacifism . . . the unimpeded actions of evil. Idealistically . . . pacifism is appealing . . . but the most peaceful person is a dead one. The unimpeded march of evil will result in just that.
Quite.
The problem with pacifism, as I see it, is that pacifists allow the ideal to become all-important to the point that it over-rides Love in their minds and actions. Love does not stand by and allow evil to destroy people. As someone who has to actively work at overcoming the tendency towards black & white thinking, I understand how people can fall into that trap.
What idealists may not realize is that MANY of us have struggled with these very things at length, and do our best to let the wisdom of Love temper our ideals and inform our behavior in each individual situation we encounter. That does not mean that we lust for violence or revenge or never see a time where non-violence is the Loving and wise course of action.
Where I think idealists have it RIGHT is that it is important for us to be continually checking the motives behind our actions and make sure that Love for ALL is our guiding Light. It is always good to be seeking non-violent alternatives, imho. But if pacifism becomes the focus rather than Love, then I see pacifism as siding with Evil.
Does God always use non-violent means to solve problems? No.
How often did the Lord call on Israel to wipe out their enemies?
Example - Saul was told to kill all men, women, and livestock.
1 Samuel 15:2-3 - "Thus says the LORD of hosts, `I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. `Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
Saul was not totally compliant...
1 Samuel 15:9 - But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly
God's response...
1 Samuel 15:10-11 - Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands."
So God obviously wanted violence used in this case to solve a conflict.
If you follow the Bible into Esther, Saul's blunder almost wiped out the Jews - for Haman was a descendant of Agag, and it was his plan, to kill all of the Jews, that was almost enacted.
What line of fire are you talking about throwing yourself into? To protect someone from evil, or to protest war in general? Those are two very different things and I would not suggest the latter, personally. But the first? Yes, I think you're being hypocritical. If you are going to tell others that they are wrong and evil to protect others from harm but you are not willing to do anything yourself, then that makes you hypocritical.
MLK didn't wait for an opportunity, he created one. He saw evil being done to others, and he stepped in.
This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It's easy for us to condemn the beliefs and actions of others in order to avoid seeing the problem with our own actions (or lack thereof). We're all guilty of it.
Let me turn this back to what you said you wanted to do to "confront evil". Start a Quaker meeting? That doesn't confront evil. But Quakers did. Here in the US, during the time of abolition, they spoke up against slavery, they put their lives on the line to help people escape slavery, and they put their time and resources towards helping freed slaves and educating them.
They confronted an evil situation and did something about it. They didn't ignore the problem of evil as you continue to do in your responses to me. Your focus is completely lop-sided, ignoring the plight of those in harm's way and condeming those who help those people while never offering any viable or realistic alternative in what you say or what you do. Until you can see that and address it in a realistic way, I don't think you should expect people to take what you're saying into serious consideration.
I'll start by addressing your last statement:
It's not that people should take into consideration what I say, but what Jesus said. If we want to discuss resistance to violence, Jesus tells us "turn the other cheek." Can we live that, or not?
The Hilter's, Stalin's and Muslim brotherhood's of this world that are committed to Jihad will not stop simply because of mentality that pacifists of this world believe that will resolve the issue.
The mentality of pacifism emboldened Hitler...and I don't believe the Jews who didn't put a resistance in the Holocaust sided with evil.
And we have this being played out again...there are countries and groups openly calling for wiping out of the Jewish nation (and it's primary Allies ... the US) off the face of the earth, while the pacifists are bringing out the smores and kumba ya songs.
No doubt ahigherway ....... the US is going to have to bail out Europe, again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
