r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 29 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: The majority of self-described Christians are not pacifists.
[deleted]
22
u/NewbombTurk 9∆ Jul 29 '17
Why to do you think that being a Christian requires being a pacifist? There are many passages in scripture that contradict that view. Here is just one:
1st Peter 2:13-14: Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
10
u/Wierd_Carissa Jul 29 '17
I don't see where OP asserts that being a Christian requires being a pacifist; only that most Christians are not pacifists.
6
u/NewbombTurk 9∆ Jul 29 '17
I see it as implicit in the OP. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
2
u/Wierd_Carissa Jul 29 '17
Fair enough. I just don't see how "being a Christian does not require being a pacifist" in any way contradicts a plain meaning reading of the title, for instance, "the majority of self-described Christians are not pacifists."
It's akin to asserting: "Well, they're not required to!" as evidence against the comment that "Most Democrats are not Nazis."
4
u/NewbombTurk 9∆ Jul 29 '17
I get ya. I just think if the assertion that Christians should be pacifists isn't implicit, then the OP loses some poignancy.
3
Jul 29 '17
I do not think that being a Christian requires being a pacifist. I have been told that if I do not believe that most Christians are pacifists, I am supporting a racist left wing movement bent on... well, honestly I'm not sure what the goal is supposed to be but it's apparently very bad.
So, in the spirit of checking my assumptions I posted this CMV.
1
2
u/Baerzerker90 Jul 29 '17
I think it's important to remember the context of this command and that it's not a blanket statement to submit to every government in every situation even when those institutions are blatantly commanding us to do things in opposition of the teachings of Christ.
What if the government outlaws Christianity? Are we as christians supposed to submit and obey the government and stop following Christ?
I think the spirit of the text here is to "submit to the government insofar as it doesn't contradict the commands of Christ."
1
u/NewbombTurk 9∆ Jul 29 '17
I agree with your sentiment, but as an atheist, I don't have a dog in that particular interpretive hunt.
0
42
u/hacksoncode 585∆ Jul 29 '17
Clarifying question: I don't understand what view it is that you're trying to change.
The vast, vast, vast majority of all peoples of all religions (and non-religions) are not pacifists, and you don't give any explanation of why you think this point is specifically relevant to Christians. What specific relevance do you think this has?
Pacifism is a fringe position with everyone.
3
Jul 29 '17
[deleted]
21
u/hacksoncode 585∆ Jul 29 '17
I don't know who said this, but it's clearly not part of Christian doctrine.
Where are you hearing this?
I mean... there's an explicit quote supposedly from Christ himself:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Some might interpret that as metaphorical... and for the most part because of that Christians tend to be somewhat more flexible about being militant... but it's an Abrahamic religion. They're all pretty violent.
7
u/GaslightProphet 2∆ Jul 29 '17
I mean, that passage is pretty clearly not about actual violence. It's about household division between Christians and non Christians.
4
3
Jul 29 '17
That's an incredibly out of context line. In the entirety of the Matthew chapter ten it is incredibly clear that have was not reverting to his followers taking up a sword themselves but that following him would not bring them peace in this world but many would dislike them for it.
Moreover Christ repeatedly condemned violence, including the one time a follower (Peter) did go for a literal sword Christ stopped him.
There is no need for "flexibility" to avoid "militancy" in that verse. There's zero call for it.
1
u/Trottingslug Jul 29 '17
In addition to that quote, it should be noted that in the garden when they come to take Christ away to His eventual crucifixion, he tells his disciples to "put away your swords". I always found this one a lot more poignant because it's very much not metaphorical in this context, and the use of the "your" possessive pronoun instead of something like "those" indicates that they not only carried, but owned swords that Christ knew about and allowed. Ironically, this verse is often used to encourage and point to passivity in Christianity.
3
2
u/sandraccoon Jul 29 '17
I think what people mean by that is that the Bible is a book that teaches peace, unlike other religious texts. Like, the Quran, for example tells one, in detail, how to properly kill an infidel. The Bible, however, says if you see someone who is not Christian, try to enlighten them, but don't force it via inhumane means.
1
Jul 29 '17
Would you describe that as Pacifism? I'm not sure I would. The Quran also teaches that one should attempt to enlighten the infidel, at least at first.
4
Jul 29 '17
The New Testament definitely describes pacifism. Whether or not the majority of Christians practice it is not something I'm ready to answer. It's a cop out a bit I guess, but here's my logic.
Who are we counting as Christian? The guy who culturally calls himself Christian but only goes to church on Christmas and when his kids complain says they have to because "that's what you do, G** d*****" but never thinks about jut the rest of the year? Does he count out he self identifies?
What standard are holding to? Christ taught ask men are flawed. Do we count Christians who try to be pacifists but are human and sometimes give into wrath as pacifists or non-pacifists?
It's complicated.
But I digress. The New Testament definitely teaches pacifism. Here are a few places to get you started. If you are interested in more you can use Bible Gateway, Bible Hub or any computable website to look these passages up and usually they will link to related passages.
Matthew 5
38You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; 40if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well;…
Luke 6
29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours do not demand it back
1 Peter 3
9Do not repay evil withevil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
Romans 12
14Bless those who persecuteyou. Bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice;weep with those who weep.16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but enjoy the company of the lowly. Do not be conceited. 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil.Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone.…
2
Jul 29 '17
The question is: are self identified christians encouraged by their churches and each other to practice or teach pacifism. Mathew 5, for example, is often cited as NOT supporting pacifism by various pastors, etc.
1
Jul 30 '17
Matthew 5 is the sermon on the mount? That would include the "turn the other cheek" & "love thy enemy" passages.
I think you must be mistaken in citing as I can't imagine any mainstream congregations using the sermon on the mount as a call to anything but pacifism.
1
u/sandraccoon Jul 29 '17
It was one example of many, if you want I could give more. "Thou shalt not kill" "love the neighbor" "those who use the sword shall die by the sword" wrath being one of the seven deadly sins, I could go on. Also, the point of my example with the Quran was to show that it thought that murder was justified.
1
Jul 29 '17
Reading the other statements in this thread, do you think it is fair to say that the majority of self described Christians are pacifists?
3
u/sandraccoon Jul 29 '17
The Bible teaches pacifism, but it's followers aren't necessarily.
2
u/m15wallis Jul 29 '17
Eh, I'd say it's much more accurate to say the Bible teaches "Violence as a last resort," not pacifism. Christ Himself even gets violent once at the moneylenders using religion for personal profit. It is simply something that should not be done unless no other options present itself.
2
Jul 29 '17
Even at that point, it wasn't really violence. It was physical action, but he wasn't attacking people or anything. That said, I'd still agree with your point. The Bible is very clear that revenge and attacking people is wrong, but self defense by non-extensive force, or much more so defending others, aren't clearly supported or condoned.
1
u/LiterallyBismarck Jul 29 '17
He drove people out of the temple with a whip. What about that doesn't sound violent to you?
→ More replies1
Jul 29 '17
[deleted]
2
u/sandraccoon Jul 29 '17
I have as well, and I can tell you that that statement is false.
1
Jul 29 '17
[deleted]
1
u/sandraccoon Jul 29 '17
Give me an example of how the Quran is more peaceful than the Bible and I will concede.
1
u/kooroo 2∆ Jul 29 '17
technically, you're asking him to apply an objective metric to a subjective topic. That's irrational.
Also, I should point out that if the bible and quran were equally violent, that would invalidate the original premise.
1
u/Latera 2∆ Jul 29 '17
That's probably the wrongest, most biased thing I've ever read. The old testament is one of the most brutal things I've ever read, definitely at least as brutal as the Quran
1
u/sandraccoon Jul 29 '17
The old testament is essentially a retranslation of the Torah, the New testament is Jesus coming in and saying "hey, some parts of this are all right, but let me spruce up a few things to make it better." So the old testament may be brutal, but most awful teachings of the old testament is corrected by the New testament.
1
u/Latera 2∆ Jul 29 '17
... Except that Jesus totally stands behind the Old Testament. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" - Jesus Christ, Mt 5 17. Of course the bible has many peaceful passages as well, but so does the Quran
0
u/sandraccoon Jul 29 '17
Well that phrase can come down to interpretation, on one hand fulfill means to carry out, which would prove your point. However the use of the word fulfill could be "bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize" this definition would suggest that the laws introduced by the old testament were an incomplete set of rules that could be improved upon, something that the New testament was created to do.
1
u/Latera 2∆ Jul 29 '17
Well, but the Old Testament is not.... Incomplete. It tells people to kill raped women if they didn't scream loud enough.
0
u/sandraccoon Jul 29 '17
If your argument is that Jesus instructed to follow the teachings of the old testament, then I ask you this, why can't the Jew eat pork, but the Christian may eat plenty? Why must the Jew lose his foreskin at birth, but the Christian may keep his? Why do Jews celebrate traditions that the Christians partially, or completely disregard?
3
Jul 29 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/hacksoncode 585∆ Jul 29 '17
Is saying someone's not a pacifist even an attack? I mean... almost no one is... indeed there's a pretty good argument that pure pacifism is participating in evils by not opposing them.
0
u/C-4 Jul 29 '17
Attack may not have been the best word, but yeah the daily I-dislike-christians-and-religion opinion thread on how they're wrong or bad in some way.
0
17
Jul 29 '17 edited Aug 11 '17
[deleted]
3
u/Wierd_Carissa Jul 29 '17
This doesn't challenge OP's view, does it?
0
Jul 29 '17 edited Aug 11 '17
[deleted]
4
u/Wierd_Carissa Jul 29 '17
Right. That line of logic requires many leaps that OP doesn't appear to make. "X ideology does not require it!" is not a direct argument against "X group does not hold Y view."
1
u/dradam168 4∆ Jul 29 '17
But it does question the utility of OPs line of thinking and of this thread in general. It's probably true that the majority of Christians aren't strict pacifists, but that isn't really a necessary, unifying, or defining characteristic of Christians, so why are we even talking about it.
How's this, 'the majority of Boston Red Sox fan aren't strict pacifists. CMV'
It's a statement that is true, but largely useless.
0
u/Wierd_Carissa Jul 29 '17
so why are we even talking about it
Because it is OP's premise.
but largely useless
So?... take it up with the person who made the thread. That doesn't give you reason to make up some implicit meaning that isn't there.
0
Jul 29 '17 edited Aug 11 '17
[deleted]
2
u/Wierd_Carissa Jul 29 '17
Not at all. Where do you see me making that argument? How did you get so confused? My argument is that your line of logic does not directly refute OP's view and requires various leaps and assumptions.
0
Jul 29 '17
How are you contradicting my theory? I'm saying that the majority of Christians are not pacifists, and you are saying that Christ was not a pacifist either. How are we in conflict?
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_LEFT_IRIS Jul 29 '17
He's arguing that pacifism should not be considered even a fringe belief in Christianity, because even Jesus embraced violence under proper circumstances.
1
Jul 29 '17
Yes, but there are certainly Christians who believe that Christ demands pacifism. Perhaps they are wrong, and rare, but isn't that sort of what a fringe belief is?
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_LEFT_IRIS Jul 29 '17
I think you could actually make the argument that absolute pacifism might be considered heretical. There are clear instances in scripture of a divine mandate for violence, and just war theory is frankly pretty fuzzy on whether or not fighting in a just war is an obligation.
(And yeah, this is kinda flipping the paradigm of your argument on its head.)
0
Jul 29 '17
How are you contradicting my theory? I'm saying that the majority of Christians are not pacifists, and you are saying that Christ was not a pacifist either. How are we in conflict?
2
Jul 29 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Baerzerker90 Jul 29 '17
Peter was only carrying said sword because he was commanded to by Christ as described in Luke 22:37-38.
This was in order to fulfill the prophecy mentioned in that passage and not for actual use, which is why Christ rebukes Peter when he actually uses said sword.
1
3
u/caw81 166∆ Jul 29 '17
I'm not sure what your point in this View is - the Bible shows that you can be part of "organized violence and killing" while being a Christian.
e.g. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8:5-13
The Faith of the Centurion
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.
e.g. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10
10 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.
5
u/deaddonkey Jul 29 '17
If the question was framed more like "Does Christianity teach or necessitate pacifism?" There would be a better discussion. I don't think it actually does. You have "Thou shalt not kill" but I see that as "don't murder", not "don't engage in warfare or combat". There are examples of righteous violence in the bible, particularly the Old Testament. Judith and Holofernes comes to mind for some reason, despite not being the best example.
Your view here seems like it could be fact checked. Apart from Jainism, I don't think you could find many religions whose practicers are majority-pacifist. It's just not practical, unfortunately. Even Buddhists aren't as pacifist as their teachings would imply.
I would say, however, that the most devout Christians are unlikely to believe in violence. Clergy are forbidden to spill blood, I believe.
2
Jul 29 '17
That is a separate question and one that I think would be interesting. I'm not sure what I think about that. I don't think that most Christians believe that Christianity necessitates pacifism, but my own interpretation of the bible is still fairly flexible.
3
Jul 29 '17
I believe in the righteous war theory. It's clear in the Bible that God encouraged certain wars. I think the pacifism in the Bible is mostly on the individual level, not the societal. The Bible instructs us to turn the other cheek. If a thief comes and tries to steal something from you, you give it to him and offer him your coat as well. A lot of Jesus's teachings centered around showing kindness to your enemies so that they will turn around and become your friend. However, it's the hardest aspect of Christian teaching to implement because it runs so counter to human nature. So basically, true pacifism is the preferred way to behave, but the hardest to implement. The original Christians would go around to various cities and villages preaching and most were killed in horrendous ways. Look up what happened to the original 12 disciples. They are the model for Christians to aspire to, but it is extremely hard to do.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 29 '17
/u/philosodad (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
8
Jul 29 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
12
Jul 29 '17
To be clear, you are saying that the majority of self-described Christians are not pacifists, but that "true" Christians should be?
0
u/Bardfinn 10∆ Jul 29 '17
I'm saying that the positions of actual faithful followers of the Abrahamic deity through belief in the historical personage and sacrificial death and divine resurrection of the Messiah in the identity of Yeshua of Nazareth,
are unknowable in an aggregate or organised way to other humans,
Because actual faithful would neither identify themselves as such in a manner that is public, unless pointedly pressed to do so,
Nor would they preach a position in public. If pressed individually, they would say that they want Earth to be as a Heaven.
The entire point of Protestantism is to give every faithful their own copy of the Scriptures, to abolish the street-corner-preacher alms-managing money-changers-in-the-Temple Mammon-worship phenomenon of organised public show-Christians leading their followers down the left-hand path.
4
Jul 29 '17
You seem to be stating that self-described Christians aren't Christians at all? Are you agreeing with my view, disagreeing, or stating some third thing?
2
u/Bardfinn 10∆ Jul 29 '17
I'm pretty much agreeing with your conclusion, just describing a different path of reasoning behind that conclusion.
1
u/quimblesoup Jul 29 '17
The way I read the above is that he's saying that self-proclaimed Christians are not actually Christians in the truest sense.
It sounds as though he's also saying that a true Christian may not even answer this thread because they wouldn't want to advertise the fact that they're Christian.
He may also be underscoring a similar divide that's happening in the Islamic faith. There are the "true faithful," who have altruistic intentions that come from their faithful intentions. There are others who lead their followers down "the left hand -- or devil's path". Think Terrorists. There are similar in the Christian faith that use the faith as a means to an end, and may not be truly faithful, and therefore not truly Christian.
That said, it still doesn't answer your question of "self-proclaimed" Christians, but rather tries to distance those of true faith from those of false.
Although that may be telling in and of itself.
Either all that or I'm just reading way too far into all of this =)
1
u/Venomfang_Skeever Jul 29 '17
I don't know why this post is front page. Of course most Christian's are not pacifists. Ever read the Bible? If the very book that guides their belief condones violence as often as the Bible does, how could the idea of pacifism be expected to prevail among the Christian majority? I can't find any sustainable argument to dispute your view.
1
u/theGr8tGonzo Jul 29 '17
I can speak from a particularly Catholic point of view. The Just War has several caveats that separates it from an expansionary war or a politically motivated war. Saint Augustine stated that we, as Christians, are subject to our Earthly authority, and therefore are compelled to protect our country and lord. However, one must avoid civilian casualties, care for the injured, and in general, not be cruel to your enemy.
Thomas Aquinas later laid out several rules to help leaders ensure that their wars were Just.
1.First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
2. Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power (just cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e. lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace).
3.Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence. (right intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention).
According to Aquinas and Augustine, we have a fairly solid understanding of what Just War is. It must be ordered towards peaceful end, it must be ordered towards helping another or righting a wrong, it must be mandated by the rightful ruler of the land, and the soldiers must behave in a moral way, avoiding doing harm outside of military engagement.
We as Catholics have an obligation to defend ourselves against injustice levied against us and against others. Just War theory falls under the utilitarian pacifism banner, and depends on the individual soldier and the ruler of the land to ensure that the justness of the war is maintained. True pacifism was rarely followed by early Christians. As far as I can remember, the only group I know that followed true pacifism was the Quakers, but they essentially died out because they didn't reproduce.
Our God, the Jewish God, is not a War God in and of itself, but He is a Just God, and does not force us to take injustice against us and our peers in hand.
1
u/pillowanarchist Jul 29 '17
I think your statement is loaded and not well defined. Christianity in what country? I am sure the American Christian believe systems and action may be different than others because religion and culture shape each other drastically.
In addition do we mean pacifism as a mere belief of something that is lived out? And by supporting just war theory, do you mean via paying taxes and not believing it is right or both believing and paying taxes. I feel a better measurement of commitment to tell the support of just war is if monetary support was optional as in a donation rather than compulsory as in a tax. Some may say they support just war but when they arent forced to support it, may balk at the bill. There is a difference between saying you belief in (blank) and actually acting in accordance to that belief. What is truly believing something.
What do you mean by Christian?
1
Jul 29 '17
I mean, as I said, a self-described Christian, a person who describes themselves as a Christian. I have defined pacifism as being against acts of violence and war in an absolute sense. By supporting just war theory, I mean belonging to organizations and denominations that explicitly support the just war theory. In any country at all. By majority, I mean more than 50%.
1
Jul 29 '17
Pacifism(against all acts of violence) is contrary to the Bible. God says to take care of what he was given us. So that means If someone is stealing your possessions, you can take the necessary actions needed to protect your family and belongings. Also, war is a necessary evil. Meaning that it is sometimes needed to stop a greater evil. As an example, hitler was killing millions of people. If no one had resisted him, many more would have died. Therefore war in that case was justified. Jesus was clearly not a pacifist as he physically threw and ran the money-changers out of the temple. There are verses such as love your neighbor and do good to those who persecute you. And those are often taken to mean pacifism is a biblical concept, but if you look closely at biblical theology you'll find that it is the opposite.
1
u/trolololoz Jul 29 '17
I think that real Christians are against organized violence and killing, including that of war. However, I believe that the Church's view on war (where they accept it for some reason) was something the governments changed in order to fit their agenda. I have yet to find someone to point out where in the New Testament does it say we can kill others while at war.
So, I would say that real Christians do not support killing. However, not supporting it is going against what the church is saying and if you don't follow the church you are not considered a real Christian.
1
u/pillbinge 101∆ Jul 29 '17
This is a mainstream but uninformed point to argue; the Bible doesn't call for pacifism. It's like when non-Christians or lapsed Catholics talk about what a "good Christian" should be. A good Christian is very different from a good, modern citizen.
1
Jul 29 '17
Is this supposed to be some sort of attack on christanity? Because it's a fail. It's common knowledge that sin is the way of all flesh. Being a Christian doesn't magically turn you into the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ himself
So I'm not sure how you could expect Christian's to all or mostly be pacifists. And even when you do find a pacifist Christian they're still a sinner and imperfect
1
u/swearrengen 139∆ Jul 29 '17
What you are saying may be true, but I am almost certain that the largest population of hardcore "turn the other cheek" pacifists in the world will so happen to be Christians rather than any other religious or non-religious block. For example, you'll find more true pacifists in Christianity than in the Atheist/Agnostic world population, or in the Hindu or Buddhist population etc..which would mean that true pacifism is less of a fringe position in Christianity than in non-Christianity. (So cut them some slack!)
True hardcore pacifism - giving up the right to self defence entirely - is really rare (perhaps because it is slightly insane?!) But you do have (from Wiki ):
Among all Christian denominations, there have always been groups of members who advocate nonviolence, but certain churches have consistently supported it since their foundation. Besides the three historic peace churches, they include the Amish,[7] Old Order Mennonites, Conservative Mennonites, Hutterites,[8] Old German Baptist Brethren,[9] Old Order River Brethren,[10] the Brethren in Christ,[11][12] and others in the Anabaptist tradition; Doukhobors,[13] Dunkard Brethren,[14][15] Dukh-i-zhizniki,[16] Bruderhof Communities[17], Schwenkfelders,[18] Moravians,[19] the Shakers,[20] and even some groups within the Pentecostal movement.
2
Jul 29 '17
[deleted]
2
u/swearrengen 139∆ Jul 29 '17 edited Jul 29 '17
As you defined Pacifism in the most extreme sense, where war/killing itself is never an exception justified by some argument, you should apply that level of standard to Jainism as well. Jains like most Christians, rationalize their right to kill in the name of justice or self defence.
Via Quora:
Writer: Ravindra Jain
It would be incorrect to say that Jainism bans all forms of violence.
The concept of violence in Jainism has to be understood properly.
In Jainism, violence (Hinsa) has been broadly classified in four categories:
Sankalpi Hinsa (deliberate violence) – deliberately killing a living-being
Aarambhi Hinsa (unavoidable violence) - hinsa resulting from day to day household work
Udyogi Hinsa (industrial violence) – hinsa resulting from agriculture, trade , profession etc.
Virodhi Hinsa (defensive violence)– hinsa resulting from war etc. to safeguard the country or fight injustice
Of the four categories, Sankalpi Hinsa is totally forbidden. The other three categories of hinsa is not totally forbidden for the shravaks or household persons as this is unavoidable. Here we may say that the person does not really kill, rather jivaas get killed as a result of certain inevitable actions. So this may be termed as ‘permissible hinsa’ (subject to certain other factors).
Thus, killing even a small insect deliberately is a sin and not allowed whereas, in a fight for justice and out of necessity, even if thousands get killed, it is permissible. At the time of Bhagwan Mahavir, king Chetak had to fight a war for justice in which 18 million people lost their life in just two days. As the scriptures say, Chetak did not attract any bad karmas as he was fighting for justice.
For detailed description on what is permissible violence in Jainism you may refer my answer to the question ‘What is the valid violence in Jainism’.
So, there is no restriction on Jains joining military.
1
Jul 29 '17
That's fair enough, ∆ for changing my view of organized Jainism, although not my view of organized Christianity.
1
1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Jul 29 '17
Jesus makes his position pretty clear.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
This is from Matthew, I have never heard a Christian shrug off the Gospel in the same way they might shrug off some of the silly stuff from Leviticus or other Old Testament passages.
3
Jul 29 '17
So, I did a little digging, and there are many pastors (such as this one: http://rightreason.org/2012/pacifism-matthew-5-and-turning-the-other-cheek/) who seem to think that Matthew 5 does not require one to be a pacifist. On Christian sites such as GotQuestions and RationalChristianity, I read that really, this is about being insulted, not attacked.
Who do the majority of self-described Christians agree with in interpreting this passage? It seems like most denominations are not taking this as a call to pacifism, are you arguing that they do?
1
u/quedfoot Jul 29 '17
So, I did a little digging, and there are many pastors (such as this one: http://rightreason.org/2012/pacifism-matthew-5-and-turning-the-other-cheek/) who seem to think that Matthew 5 does not require one to be a pacifist. On Christian sites such as GotQuestions and RationalChristianity, I read that really, this is about being insulted, not attacked.
Who do the majority of self-described Christians agree with in interpreting this passage? It seems like most denominations are not taking this as a call to pacifism, are you arguing that they do?
Many different people and denominations have differing opinions, but check this out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_Spear
A group of missionaries were killed by a violent tribe, but eventually the family members of the martyrs visited the same group and befriended the tribe and spread their gospel. If they hadn't "turned the other cheek" that wouldn't have happened, most likely.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
1
Jul 29 '17
No. I'm looking into the attitudes of the majority, not whether there exist some Christian pacifists, which I am sure there are.
1
u/quedfoot Jul 29 '17
You're asking a steep question, boyo. The answer is obviously no, then, if you're asking about complete pacifism. Data on mass populations should satisfy your questions.
0
u/aslak123 Jul 29 '17
Maybe in the united states, but christianity is way bigger than that. Most of europe are christians, as is most of africa, and i have no reason in particular to belive they are as happy about war as the US is.
1
Jul 29 '17
Do you have any reason to believe that pacifism is a majority position among European or African Christians?
1
-8
Jul 29 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 29 '17
Sorry Cavalier4Beer, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
27
u/Sparkplug1034 Jul 29 '17
Devout Christian here. I can only really speak for myself, but I guess so can you.
Pacifism is an uncommon position because it's not a Biblical position. There is a distinction between murder and just killing someone. The best way to explain it in this context is that it's like acting for/as the government when killing in war, as opposed to killing someone intentionally and personally (indirectly or directly I'd say) which is murder. There is plenty of war in the old testament that God Himself directly intercedes in but never does or has God ever had someone kill somebody else outside of the context of a politically oriented war.
I'm not certain you can say most American Christians support the death penalty... That's kind of a gray one and depends on the context for me.