JadeOrchidSong Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 bolt. Thank you again for saying what I wanted to say too. You are such an encouragement! I am thankful to WTM for being a place where I can ask questions. You bet I have learned a lot!!! With that being said, I wish I never read that article I linked. I feel my positive experience with martial arts is contaminated. A piece of my innocence is violated and lost, especially considering martial arts being religious is SUCH a FOREIGN idea to me, who practiced every night after dinner with a martial arts master for free and who come from where the best known martial arts style in China originated-----my own HOMETOWN. Again, let us agree to disagree. My experience does not speak for other people's experience. Now after this vent, I can rest and go on with my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOrchidSong Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Samm, I totally agree with you on Falun Gong. It is deceiving. I am still angry that they presented their art performance as the "authentic" Chinese performing art while propaganding their own agenda with no mention of it in their advertisement. It wasted my well meaning parents-in-law a couple hundred dollars to buy two tickets for dh and me to see their performance and then tried to solicit praise from me during intermission. The nerve of them!!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Edited: Sorry this isn't technically a straight "Christian response" but I hope my link and experience will give you something to think about. My children took a few years of Aikido (the practice shut down to move and isn't back up yet :( ). I'd say there's a little spirituality there. My children are agnostic/atheist and the teacher a Christian. However, the only time it ever came up was at closing you would bow in respect to your teachers and bow to a "greater being"/God/universe (whichever you choose). They can respect his beliefs and the beliefs inherent in a practice such as Aikido without any problem. I am a little perturbed by the amount of disrespect for Eastern Religions and martial arts on here. "Hinky" and other words. Simply because they are not your flavor of religion should not give you the right to be offensive about them. Of all of the studios we've taken lessons at, only one required prayer and that was a Christian TWD studio. So maybe a wee bit of respect for these other religions and ancient traditions even if you don't practice them? An article on spirituality with Aikido (and each other martial art may have a million more opinion articles, as well): http://www.aikidostudent.com/oldasc/content/?p=155 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El... Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Edited: Sorry this isn't technically a straight "Christian response" but I hope my link and experience will give you something to think about. My children took a few years of Aikido (the practice shut down to move and isn't back up yet :( ). I'd say there's a little spirituality there. My children are agnostic/atheist and the teacher a Christian. However, the only time it ever came up was at closing you would bow in respect to your teachers and bow to a "greater being"/God/universe (whichever you choose). They can respect his beliefs and the beliefs inherent in a practice such as Aikido without any problem. I am a little perturbed by the amount of disrespect for Eastern Religions and martial arts on here. "Hinky" and other words. Simply because they are not your flavor of religion should not give you the right to be offensive about them. Of all of the studios we've taken lessons at, only one required prayer and that was a Christian TWD studio. So maybe a wee bit of respect for these other religions and ancient traditions even if you don't practice them? An article on spirituality with Aikido (and each other martial art may have a million more opinion articles, as well): http://www.aikidostudent.com/oldasc/content/?p=155 Ooops, that was mine. I'm sorry. That wasn't what I meant. I have great respect for other religions, and for those who practice them. To me, a "hinky" martial arts school would either pressure kids into a new religious practice without their parents' consent, evangelizing via school, or make a deceptive claim about its religious intent, such as the one mentioned above. I'll be more careful how I phrase that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Meditation upon God's Word is definitely endorsed in scripture. Christians who are grounded in Scripture should realize this, but alas, so many have a knee jerk reaction. What we meditate on is a choice. I was referencing the "knee Jerk reaction" folks. That's why I clarified meditating upon God specifically. Not all Christians are mature in their faith or beliefs and get side-tracked by issues like this. Paul tells us to not create a stumbling block for those folks. Therefore, those Christians who "worry" about these types of issues can be free to abstain until they mature. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slipper Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Aikido is taught in a way that a person can escape from an unpleasant situation and not hurt their attacker. Many parents of special needs children (like myself) have taken martial arts in the hope that we can protect ourselves when a child attacks and not hurt our child. I don't think that is un-Christian. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty ethel rackham Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 If the basic point behind martial arts is to be able to defend oneself, I don't think any Christian should take martial arts classes. We are told in the New Testament to be defenseless/harmless, to turn the other cheek, and to resist not evil. JMHO, but I think nonresistance is based on the words of Jesus. To each his own. There was a time years ago when all of my children were in karate twice a week... but after really considering the words of Jesus and other NT commands, we couldn't do it now. So, if someone pulls a knife on you, you should let them stab you? If someone tries to rape you, you should just submit? What if someone was trying to harm one of your children? Should you just let them? I've never heard "turn the other cheek" in terms of self-defense. Are you a pacifist? Do you oppose all war? Do you oppose resisting all evil? Sorry, I don't mean to attack you. I am just really confused (as a mature Christian.) 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samm Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 If the basic point behind martial arts is to be able to defend oneself, I don't think any Christian should take martial arts classes. We are told in the New Testament to be defenseless/harmless, to turn the other cheek, and to resist not evil. Paul instructs Christians to resist evil, even using martial terms. Ephesians 6:10-17 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Anyway, no matter what I have always let my kids know their martial art classes are to considered sport. I do not seriously expect them to use it for self-defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) . Edited November 19, 2015 by Love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) . Edited November 19, 2015 by Love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOrchidSong Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 PlainMom, Can you answer questions in post #59? What would you do in those situations when fleeing is impossible? Do you know there are specific martial arts forms that are for successful escape from your predator without causing harm to him? PlainMom and Samm, I am never involved in physical fight. I practiced martial arts for my own physical health. My sons practice it as a sport for health, too. AND IF there are circumstances they can not escape predators, they have skills to fight and not get themselves or their wives and children killed! Samm, I am glad your kids take it as sport too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SproutMamaK Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The idea that Christians should never defend themselves and are to sit there completely passive no matter what happens seems completely out of line with, um, everything in the Old Testament. The idea that defending yourself would be wrong and that Christ wants you to sit there and pray while evil things happen to you is just... well, I can't think of any polite word to use here, so I'll just say that I very much disagree. God is certainly a God of prayer and faith, but he is also a God of wisdom, preparation, and appropriate action. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Christian pacifists have a point, and their convictions are very real, very honourable, and deeply brave. I don't think pacifism is the only way to interpret Jesus' commands about violence, evil and resistance... But it's also not an invalid interpretation. It's actually quite a natural conclusion. Pacifists are not stupid, nor are they cowardly. They have changed the world, and will continue to do so. Every country who has drafted or conscripted soldiers has had to accommodate that small portion of men and women who would rather be flogged, court martialed, beaten to a pulp by comrades, or mowed down on the battlefield before they would follow an order to raise a gun or fire a shot. Because that's really what they think Jesus' words mean. Neither are these people jellyfish. It's not that they don't try for escape with all their wits and strength. They use their own bodies as human shields for others. They lay down their lives. They just refrain from killing force. (I don't know if they also avoid causing injury.) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samm Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I was replying to the statement that "We are told in the New Testament to be defenseless/harmless, to turn the other cheek, and to resist not evil." Resistance against evil is a mainstay of Paul's message. To the extent that Scripture bring unity between us Christians, I am very glad. A sword -- any sword, never mind the sword of the Spirit-- is a weapon. I can't begin to, or would dare to, put limits on how the Holy Spirit may choose to wield the sword He admonishes me to take up. I can say that I believe real fighting -- the sort from criminals -- is nasty, unimaginably bloody, gory, and above all -- fast. Very, very fast. The people who win are those who can imagine it -- who "go there" with the mindset of "ending it now" through whatever means. I definitely urge my children to work to avoid physical confrontations. My aim is that they see their martial art as sport which happens to involve a lot of padding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) . Edited November 19, 2015 by Love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 "Turn the other cheek" is more of an Eastern religious idea btw. AKA ahimsa (nonviolence) etc. Some of the martial arts are based in part on this principle, i.e., strategizing so the aggressor's violence is either ineffective or only harms the aggressor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minerva Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 For some reason I am having a hard time using the quote button. I have a question for PlainMom. I want to preface this by saying I am asking it sincerely and not intending to start anything, just trying to understand. When you say that it is a "government that God ordained " what does that mean? How do you know that this is a government that God ordained? Are all governments ordained by God? When a government supports killing (war, capital punishment) can you still support them as a Christian/Pacifist? While I am not a Christian, I strive to be a Pacifist and have been deeply inspired by some Christian Pacifists (Tolstoy, Martin Luther King) and am earnestly interested in how to be a pacifist and still support a government that supports murder (in its many forms). I finished typing this and realized it is waaaayyy off topic. Oops! Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Christian pacifists have a point, and their convictions are very real, very honourable, and deeply brave. I don't think pacifism is the only way to interpret Jesus' commands about violence, evil and resistance... But it's also not an invalid interpretation. It's actually quite a natural conclusion. Pacifists are not stupid, nor are they cowardly. They have changed the world, and will continue to do so. Every country who has drafted or conscripted soldiers has had to accommodate that small portion of men and women who would rather be flogged, court martialed, beaten to a pulp by comrades, or mowed down on the battlefield before they would follow an order to raise a gun or fire a shot. Because that's really what they think Jesus' words mean. Neither are these people jellyfish. It's not that they don't try for escape with all their wits and strength. They use their own bodies as human shields for others. They lay down their lives. They just refrain from killing force. (I don't know if they also avoid causing injury.) I believe you are glorifying pacifists a bit. While I agree that they are committed to their beliefs, it is much easier to do so when you live in a society that will protect you from much of the evil in the world. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 If the basic point behind martial arts is to be able to defend oneself, I don't think any Christian should take martial arts classes. We are told in the New Testament to be defenseless/harmless, to turn the other cheek, and to resist not evil. JMHO, but I think nonresistance is based on the words of Jesus. To each his own. There was a time years ago when all of my children were in karate twice a week... but after really considering the words of Jesus and other NT commands, we couldn't do it now. I have to disagree with your here. The "turn the other cheek" portion for scripture is always taken out of context. You have to understand what a slap to the cheek meant then. It was basically an action to shame a person, a sign of disrespect. It was a shaming slap. Jesus was basically saying, if someone shames you or calls you names, ignore it; don't retaliate. However, when Jesus was slapped by the temple police in John 18:22-23, Jesus did not turn the other cheek. He asked the temple police to prove what He (Jesus) said was wrong and if they couldn't, they shouldn't slap Him. The slap was not an issue of whether or not to protect oneself. It was an issue of honor and truth. You also might want to read Luke 22:36 where Jesus tells his disciples they will need to purchase swords. Why would they need to do this? To provide a defense as they go out into the world to preach His message. Not a defense for the Word, but for those seeking to rob and murder for gain. Christians have every right to defend and protect their families against the violence of this world. However, we are to abstain from violence in the face of religious persecution for His name's sake or if we are being denigrated for our faith. In those times, we are to be like lambs led to the slaughter -- like Jesus. This is martyrdom. This point was made by Jesus himself when he rebuked Peter for drawing his sword and cutting off one of the soldier's ears. Jesus said to Peter, don't you think I can call down angels from my Father to defend me if I wanted to (paraphrase)? The point was, Jesus was being martyred for our salvation. It was the plan that He would die and rise again. Peter was not to disrupt the plan. Jesus doesn't ever say it's okay for us or our family to be harmed or murdered for money, possessions, sex, or the fun of it. The only time nonviolence was practiced in the NT was in the face of persecution for His name's sake. Jesus defended His Father's house against the money lenders through a violent display. Jesus withered an olive tree. Jesus will come again to destroy the ungodly. His tongue will be a sword. He will burn the chaff. These NT displays and prophecies are not peaceful or non-violent actions. They are righteous actions, and we, as the body of Christ, are to be righteous like Jesus. Defending yourself and your family against violence that is not related to religious persecution is a righteous act. This is what I get from reading the Bible in context. Just how I see it from reading the Bible in context, but please don't think I don't respect your position because I do. Everybody makes different determinations and decisions based upon their beliefs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Meditation upon God's Word is definitely endorsed in scripture. Christians who are grounded in Scripture should realize this, but alas, so many have a knee jerk reaction. What we meditate on is a choice. even the one yoga practice that made me very uncomfortable from a religious view - was fine as long as I ignored the voice of the yogi and focused upon God. I didn't want to have to do that every single time I did that yoga practice (auditory issues) so I don't do that practice. however, every other practice I have done has been fine. (from a religious standpoint. there was one mass-produced for profit dvd was a. piece. of. garbage. thanks, I want someone who is an experienced yogi, not looking to make a buck by cashing in on another market segment.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samm Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think most people overestimate their inner Chuck Norris. The actions of most people and many animals in a time of obvious life-threatening crisis will strongly resemble that of a pacifist -- whether they have trained for years or not. Most people just freeze up. It takes unusual conditioning and fortitude to not be killed within a few seconds by a killer intent on killing you. I can only think those who survive or fight back or whatever you want to name it were called to do so, or had divine intervention, or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I believe you are glorifying pacifists a bit. While I agree that they are committed to their beliefs, it is much easier to do so when you live in a society that will protect you from much of the evil in the world. I think there is a difference between "glorifying" and respecting pacifists -- or defending them. Some posts up-thread seemed to be characterizing pacifism is the next thing to idiocy. It's not passive or stupid. It's hard, and one of the hard parts is being thought of as passive and stupid. If I actually glorified pacifists, you'd think I'd mention them more often, eh? Of course, you are right that, "It's much easier to do so when you live in a society that will protect you from much of the evil in the world." -- Which is to say two things: it's easier to live out the values when there are very few situations where violence, especially deadly violence is even an option, and where there is little to no forceful oppression that needs resisting. However, it's also just plain easier to remain a *living* pacifistic under the safety of a protective society. There are most likely some pacifists that would give up on their professed values in a more violent social setting. Often rhetoric changes when rubber meets the road. On the other hand, there are also some pacifists who would just plain die the first time someone tried to kill them. That's kind of what the heart of the philosophy is: that one would willingly choose death before choosing to kill. It's not exactly their fault that we shelter most of them from ever needing to enact that decision in our societies. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think we need to obey the simple words of Jesus, and not explain them away with culture or anything else. I am not trying to convince you- just saying I believe the words of Jesus, as He said them, and believe He said them so we would follow them. Many people over time didn't have books on the culture of Jesus' day (which may or may not be accurate) and I think if all we have is the Bible, we can take it at it's word, and that is enough. Jesus words are enough for me. See, though, the thing is it could be that the people from that culture might think you're the one adding to the simple, straightforward meaning of the words Christ spoke. To them,the phrase "turn the other cheek" might means something completely different than what it means to you (it's a figurative phrase that has to be interpreted; if someone is grabbing your purse, you're not going to actually turn your other cheek to them in this context; you're going to let go of your purse). And since it's their culture in which the words were spoken, and their culture in which Christ lived, and their culture that gave us the Scriptures in the first place, it might be their perspective that needs to be accepted as what the words mean. You have filtered the words through your own experience/understanding, in a western culture 2000+ years removed from when the words were spoken, and then you have interpreted what Christ was saying in a way that makes sense to you (coming up with what this means for how you will respond in a situation). There's a lot going on there beyond the "simple words of Jesus." Really. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SproutMamaK Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I already said that I believe we are under the NT, and not the OT, since Jesus came. I guess I will add- using the phrase "sit there and pray" doesn't make it wound like you have a lot of faith in prayer. I could be wrong, so please don't take offense. I don't know you, after all. But prayer is active, and trusting in Jesus is active. Fleeing is active, and so is calling authorities. Jesus is powerful, and the battle is spiritual, not against flesh and blood (according to the NT). God doesn't say to use "appropriate action." He sent His Son to tell us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. For me, it is about what Jesus said, and the NT. You don't have to agree, I just wanted to respond. I have plenty of faith in prayer. I do not have faith that God desires prayer INSTEAD of physical action in all circumstances. Prayer, fleeing, calling for help all active; so is defense. I can find plenty in the Bible to speak against inciting violence for no reason, but nothing to say that one cannot physically defend themselves against danger. I find many reference to weapons, battle, fighting, etc, many of which are spiritual, many of which are not. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I can respect that your position is grounded in how you interpret that Scriptures and that you are willing to abide by that no matter what (thought obviously I disagree with your interpretation), but I admit that it does raise my hackles that someone who has had to fight for their life in the past may hear "you shouldn't have done that, God says you should have died instead" from this rhetoric. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ooops, that was mine. I'm sorry. That wasn't what I meant. I have great respect for other religions, and for those who practice them. To me, a "hinky" martial arts school would either pressure kids into a new religious practice without their parents' consent, evangelizing via school, or make a deceptive claim about its religious intent, such as the one mentioned above. I'll be more careful how I phrase that. No problem. It was a general tone (not pointing to you in specific) that I think doesn't really contribute to conversations about other religions or practices. Aikido is taught in a way that a person can escape from an unpleasant situation and not hurt their attacker. Many parents of special needs children (like myself) have taken martial arts in the hope that we can protect ourselves when a child attacks and not hurt our child. I don't think that is un-Christian. Exactly. The way our teacher described it is not to hurt an attacker, but you are stopping them *for their own good* as they do not really want to hurt you and in hurting you, they really are also hurting themselves. It's an act of kindness to stop and not maim. There are different beliefs behind the different martial arts, though. We chose Aikido for its non-violence after some very rough experiences with assault-oriented dojos. I think most people overestimate their inner Chuck Norris. The actions of most people and many animals in a time of obvious life-threatening crisis will strongly resemble that of a pacifist -- whether they have trained for years or not. Most people just freeze up. It takes unusual conditioning and fortitude to not be killed within a few seconds by a killer intent on killing you. I can only think those who survive or fight back or whatever you want to name it were called to do so, or had divine intervention, or both. What? Have you never had a Momma Bear come out in you? I have been assaulted and people respond differently. I'm a "claw the eyes" type person on instinct. ;) There's the Fight or Flight reflex and it depends on the person and circumstances. I wouldn't say most freeze up at all. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty ethel rackham Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think most people overestimate their inner Chuck Norris. The actions of most people and many animals in a time of obvious life-threatening crisis will strongly resemble that of a pacifist -- whether they have trained for years or not. Most people just freeze up. It takes unusual conditioning and fortitude to not be killed within a few seconds by a killer intent on killing you. I can only think those who survive or fight back or whatever you want to name it were called to do so, or had divine intervention, or both. And every good martial artist is taught this. My 5'11" 130 lb black belt would probably be no match in hand-to-hand combat (or against weapons) with someone bigger and faster intent on killing him. But that is not all of what they teach. They teach that the best way to win a fight is to avoid one. But, if you can't avoid one, training in martial arts can help ones odds. Diffusion techniques to facilitate an escape, disarming techniques (removing weapons as well as incapacitating the opponent (not killing.)) You are right that no one knows how one will react in a fight or flight situation. Certainly, a few martial arts classes are not going to make that much of a difference (unless they work on personal confidence, which may actually prevent the fight in the first place.) But, years and years of study and conditioning do help make the reactions more automatic. (This is why I don't trust a MA style that gives out black belts like candy - if it doesn't take nearly a decade to master, that belt isn't worth as much.) No guarantees, but increasing the odds as long as one does not overestimate one's abilities or underestimate the opponent's advantage. Back to the original discussion, both of my older kids are black belts in karate. They are both non-violent people and martial arts gave them confidence against bullying - not so much in the ability to fight back but in being comfortable enough in their own skin to draw such unwanted attention. We did not find any conflict between what was taught at the school and our faith. My kids did study the history and philosophy of their chosen art, not to absorb the religious or spiritual effects, but to understand how it developed and informed the growth of the art. Just like we would study the culture and religion of a civiliation to understand it's artistic heritage. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emzhengjiu Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I curious if those who believe as Christians we should not defend ourselves or others, are you against having a police force and a military? It seems wrong to me that to want the police and military to do what we will not rather than what we cannot do for ourselves. I believe Jesus calls us to be peacemakers not necessarily pacifists. Regardless all the marital arts programs that I've know teach using the least force to defend yourself not to harm the other person. ETA: spelling 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Really, we can't go back in time and see what the 'culture' was. Some authors believe it was one way, some believe it was another. God does not tell us to figure out the culture in order to know what he "really" means. But He does tells us to obey His words. Besides, if it was based on culture, no one could really know what Jesus meant unless they had access to books besides the Bible to figure it all out, which hasn't been possible for many people over time, and still isn't possible for many people today. I still believe that the Bible alone in enough, and Jesus' words are enough. There are lots and lots of writings from people who lived at that time. We don't have to figure anything out. They tell us. :) But I agree with you on the bolded, except that instead of "books besides the Bible" I would say "apostles and disciples who sat under his teaching" -- they can (and did) tell us what Jesus meant. They were there; they'd know. We differ on whether or not the original meaning and teaching is accessible. I believe it very much is through the writings of the early church fathers and through the practices and doctrines developed in the earliest of churches. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 All this time I've thought Jesus was a pacifist. You learn a new thing every day! Yup, one of the biggest misconceptions about Jesus. Many people either just don't understand, realize, or remember (pick one) that Jesus is God. God is not a pacifist by any means. God is just and righteous which require much more than pacifism. While He is merciful, loving, and long-suffering of our rejection of Him, He must, by His very nature, judge and punish unrighteousness in any form. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slache Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Yup, one of the biggest misconceptions about Jesus. Many people either just don't understand, realize, or remember (pick one) that Jesus is God. God is not a pacifist by any means. God is just and righteous which require much more than pacifism. While He is merciful, loving, and long-suffering of our rejection of Him, He must, by His very nature, judge and punish unrighteousness in any form. I think it's because when we think Jesus we think cross and his actions were that of a pacifist at the time. We don't think about the fact that it was his design or that he could have stopped it at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I think there is a difference between "glorifying" and respecting pacifists -- or defending them. Some posts up-thread seemed to be characterizing pacifism is the next thing to idiocy. It's not passive or stupid. It's hard, and one of the hard parts is being thought of as passive and stupid. If I actually glorified pacifists, you'd think I'd mention them more often, eh? Of course, you are right that, "It's much easier to do so when you live in a society that will protect you from much of the evil in the world." -- Which is to say two things: it's easier to live out the values when there are very few situations where violence, especially deadly violence is even an option, and where there is little to no forceful oppression that needs resisting. However, it's also just plain easier to remain a *living* pacifistic under the safety of a protective society. There are most likely some pacifists that would give up on their professed values in a more violent social setting. Often rhetoric changes when rubber meets the road. On the other hand, there are also some pacifists who would just plain die the first time someone tried to kill them. That's kind of what the heart of the philosophy is: that one would willingly choose death before choosing to kill. It's not exactly their fault that we shelter most of them from ever needing to enact that decision in our societies. It isn't particularly difficult to expect other people to deal with the **** in the world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 It isn't particularly difficult to expect other people to deal with the **** in the world.I don't think pacifists expect it. I'm not even sure they are grateful for it, knowing what they think of as 'the cost' of such peace and freedom. (Though, probably, at some level they are happy not to be dead. I don't quite know how that works.) No, it's not particularly difficult to live as a pacifist in modern western societies. It's also not particularly difficult to live as a non-pacifist who lets law enforcement, military, etc, deal with the ****, like the average citizen. Honestly, life is reasonably non-violent, and easy, for the vast majority of people -- not just for pacifists. It's not their fault that they happen to be nearby enough get the side-effects of other people taking actions that they consider immoral. I don't know what people have against that. What other options do they have? How exactly would they manage to not benefit? Move to a more violent country? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I'm answering in blue here. But, you need to read Ancient Greek, Aramic, and Hebrew to read what was actually written. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Quakers, then ? I read a book a while back about all the work they did in the lead up to WW11 trying to prevent war, and all the work they did once war broke out...I'm pretty convinced there are many ways a community can serve, protect and defend, and that pacifists have plenty to offer us. Not a lot, no. More than some other groups but still not much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 And I already said- I think God ordained the government to keep law and order for those that need it. Non-resistant people would rather be killed for not fighting, than to kill another person. When it comes down to it, I think who lives or dies, or who is free and who is not, all comes down to God's hand more than any human action. I know you said you're not coming back, but if you do I'd like your take on this: IF, in the situation you found yourself in when you called 911 had turned violent - and the perpetrator against you was killed by a cop - would you not, by your action of calling 911 have caused that persons death? You can't really have it both ways, I don't think. If you'd rather die than fight, you can't ask someone else to fight your battles for you. I find it very...off-putting, actually. it does not put forth a nice representation of your faith. It comes across as very selfish. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I know you said you're not coming back, but if you do I'd like your take on this: IF, in the situation you found yourself in when you called 911 had turned violent - and the perpetrator against you was killed by a cop - would you not, by your action of calling 911 have caused that persons death? You can't really have it both ways, I don't think. If you'd rather die than fight, you can't ask someone else to fight your battles for you. I find it very...off-putting, actually. it does not put forth a nice representation of your faith. It comes across as very selfish. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 That's a good point - if you won't fight for yourself, other people will fight for you. Which is worse? If you believe God is OK with some people getting into a scuffle, how do you decide you weren't chosen as a designated scuffler? My kids and I take TKD. I don't expect my kids to ever actually hit/hurt anyone. But I want them to feel like they can stand up for themselves physically as well as mentally / spiritually. Chances are, if that belief is a part of who they are, it is less likely that someone will start a fight with them in the first place. Therefore, less violence. As far as I know, kids who take martial arts aren't known for being particularly violent. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Police aren't being asked to fight a battle most of the time, they are being asked to enforce the law. I think it's silly to suggest a person practicing non-violence ought not be morally allowed to call the police. What next, you can only call the fire department if you're willing to fight fires ? Not a proper analogy. She specifically referred to calling 911 if she was being attacked, which implies she would be asking the police to do what she would not. It also fits with her previous reasoning about "ordained" governments previously. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 My kids and I take TKD. I don't expect my kids to ever actually hit/hurt anyone. But I want them to feel like they can stand up for themselves physically as well as mentally / spiritually. Chances are, if that belief is a part of who they are, it is less likely that someone will start a fight with them in the first place. Therefore, less violence. As far as I know, kids who take martial arts aren't known for being particularly violent. I have a relative who often made me feel like I was to be a sacrificial lamb to her ego. I was very conflicted with the relationship. CV in some Christian communities would have been to "turn the other cheek", submit to the pathetic woman, and let her feed her ego at my expense. I spent a lot of time contemplating and praying for how to handle it (I sure didn't get any help from family who should have protected me . . . . . ) "we are not required to submit to our enemies". and she *was* my enemy, no matter the relationship. she would have spiritually destroyed me if she was given the opportunity. (I'd never heard of boundaries - but was inspired on how to best enact them with her.) I have a son in MA now (another quit). he is learning self-discipline, focus, non-violent ways of conflict resolution, etc. - and that is something about MA most people dont' realized - the amount of NON-VIOLENT conflict resolution they learn. (and if it comes to that - they have the mental and physical skills) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Police aren't being asked to fight a battle most of the time, they are being asked to enforce the law. I think it's silly to suggest a person practicing non-violence ought not be morally allowed to call the police. What next, you can only call the fire department if you're willing to fight fires ? Well, of course. That's exactly what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Once again, we're reminded of the icky part of life called "the grey area". Black and white idealistic thinking is all fine and dandy in theory, but it NEVER works that way in real life. It just doesn't. Past the age of about 16, I expect that people should begin to realize that. Non-resistor, non-violence, non-defense = idealistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Sorry, CR, but it is silly. Law enforcement isn't about the moral beliefs of individual citizens. And law enforcement officers aren't heroic conscripts. They are paid professionals. I expect them to uphold the law whether they are dealing with a war enthusiast or the most conscientious of objectors. If the rule for calling police is 'must be willing to DIY this job yourself', most of us wouldn't be calling the police. Her position isn't based on ability to defend oneself. If it were then you would be correct. She is claiming it is morally wrong to do so, but is willing to ask someone else to do something she says is morally wrong to protect her. Very hypocritical. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 To be fair, Plain Mom is quite likely not hoping the police will come kill her perp instead of her doing so. From what she's written, I gather her hope is capture and arrest, not death. So I don't see hypocrisy but, as Sadie has said, a desire for the police to do their job: Help uphold the law. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 One doesn't have to hope for death for it to occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Oh, you guys are talking about a single poster ? I thought we were talking about pacifists in general. I didn't pick up a sense of moral superiority from that poster...I felt she was just stating her own ethical position as it applied to herself. I don't have a problem with one person choosing non-violence for themselves, and calling on law enforcement as needed, as long as that LEO was not coerced into the job, and chose it freely. She said it's better to die than someone else die in defending her(self). Then called for someone else to defend her. I'm just wondering when it went from wrong to right to possibly have someone else (perpetrator OR cop) get hurt. If that's not hypocritical, we're reading different dictionaries. But I do not think it would be right to harm or kill another in self-defense, especially if that person would be sent to hell if I killed them. . To be honest, I was once in that position (someone trying to harm my children) and I locked myself in a bathroom with them, prayed, and called 911, and we are all still here. Non-resistant people would rather be killed for not fighting, than to kill another person. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I don't disagree that the cops have a job to do and are the pros, but I'm bowing out now. We're having different conversations. You - about law enforcement, me - about ideals and morality. Therefore we'll just keep going in circles. I doubt Plain Mom will be back to answer the original question anyway, so this is all moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFG Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 But, you need to read Ancient Greek, Aramic, and Hebrew to read what was actually written. Exactly. Talk about cultural accommodation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I found this video last night after responding to this thread. I think he does a great job explaining the question of self-defense and being Christian. He bases his teaching on the Sermon on the Mount. You don't have to watch the whole thing. Pick it up at 27:00 mins. and you'll get to the self-defense part, but make sure you watch it at least through 34:00 mins. HTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I think he does a great job explaining the question of self-defense and being Christian. Here's where people like me have to stop [again] and readjust our heads from the constant spinning. Jesus is a pacifist, mature xians know this. The really insightful, devoted, mature xians even leave the military when they are convicted with such Truth (which means there are no mature xians in the military). No Jesus was no more pacifist than the god of the old testament who ordered genocide, mass murder, and offering virgin women to his soldiers for payment (keeping 32 for himself - wtf). And of course, mature xians know this. People agree to disagree and that blows my ever lovin' mind. How can one agree to disagree that the deity they worship, they feel most affection and love towards, may be such an abhorrent character as portrayed by others? How can one agree to disagree that the deity they want others to come to is portrayed in such ugly light? Even as a xian myself I couldn't have agreed to disagree about this any more than I would have agreed to disagree to the accusation my children are monsters and a danger to society. The hell they are, I'd say, and you take that back, kwim? But when it comes to the one who is supposedly the most important being in someone's life, it's okay that others paint him as a monster or else a *****? Shrug shoulders, walk away? I love how "mature" is the new "real" with regard to explaining which xian's assurances are trustworthy. I would have been livid if someone suggested I wasn't a "mature" xian when I believed. It completely trivializes one's entire religious experience to being rather cute, but not ready yet to sit at the grown-ups' table in the Great Conversation. It's so condescending and arrogant, imo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOrchidSong Posted June 19, 2015 Author Share Posted June 19, 2015 Albeto, Last time I checked, my title says "Christian response please". I do not mind you post in this thread, but please remain respectful to Christianity and I request that you change your "xians". It is offensive to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.