<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Pacifism Ever An Idol</title>
	<atom:link href="http://peacetheology.net/pacifism/is-pacifism-everan-idol/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://peacetheology.net</link>
	<description>Engaging faith and pacifism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 06:10:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://peacetheology.net/pacifism/is-pacifism-everan-idol/#comment-7705</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:03:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peacetheology.net/?page_id=1922#comment-7705</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m sorry but this argument does not convince me.  Whether one is a pacifist or not I don&#039;t see anyone that can fault the writer&#039;s desire to love and indeed the central thrust and message of Jesus&#039; teachings and life example was such.  The problem I have with pacifists per se is that they generally are opposed to all violence period.

I think any discussion must first be prefaced by an attempt and hopefully an agreement between pacifists and non pacifists as to what constitutes violence.  Does self-defence when attacked constitute violence, does physically intervening to help an old lady being mugged constitute violence, does smacking a two year old who puts his fingers in a plug socket consititute violence, does playing rugby or American football consitiute violence, is it wrong for the police to use violence to break up and drugs den or brothel of under-age girls?  If General Romeo Dellaire had been empowered to use force he would the Rwanda genocide may have been averted or curtailed. 

The problem I have with pacifists is that they only see or stubbornly choose to see only half the story.  They either choose to use the excesses and misuse of force as an argument for complete abolition of all violence, or they fail to consider the logical consequences of their arguments i.e. anarchy.  Violence crops up a lot in the narrative of scripture and often Israel&#039;s use of violence in warfare is clearly blessed by God.  That is from the pacifist viewpoint a rather inconvenient truth.  The young King David did not go and offer Goliath anger management classes.

Of course at this point the argument goes in one of two directions.  Some will claim we&#039;re under a new covenant (which indeed we are) but use it as an argument that the God has changed his mind / mood since those days, whilst others will frankly use an inordinate amount of patronising waffle to suggest the text of the old testament doesn&#039;t really mean what it says.

If we look at the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, it is true that we see in the main a model and an exhortation towards peace as a lifestyle BUT we forget that our Lord also whipped the money changers in the temple.  I think from this we can&#039;t say Jesus was a pacifist as we&#039;re left with a glaring flaw in the logic.  Rather I would suggest that of love for God and our neighbour we may be faced with situations where the use of violence is in fact the most loving action it is possible to take.  Because of this I would suggest that pacifism is an idol.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sorry but this argument does not convince me.  Whether one is a pacifist or not I don&#8217;t see anyone that can fault the writer&#8217;s desire to love and indeed the central thrust and message of Jesus&#8217; teachings and life example was such.  The problem I have with pacifists per se is that they generally are opposed to all violence period.</p>
<p>I think any discussion must first be prefaced by an attempt and hopefully an agreement between pacifists and non pacifists as to what constitutes violence.  Does self-defence when attacked constitute violence, does physically intervening to help an old lady being mugged constitute violence, does smacking a two year old who puts his fingers in a plug socket consititute violence, does playing rugby or American football consitiute violence, is it wrong for the police to use violence to break up and drugs den or brothel of under-age girls?  If General Romeo Dellaire had been empowered to use force he would the Rwanda genocide may have been averted or curtailed. </p>
<p>The problem I have with pacifists is that they only see or stubbornly choose to see only half the story.  They either choose to use the excesses and misuse of force as an argument for complete abolition of all violence, or they fail to consider the logical consequences of their arguments i.e. anarchy.  Violence crops up a lot in the narrative of scripture and often Israel&#8217;s use of violence in warfare is clearly blessed by God.  That is from the pacifist viewpoint a rather inconvenient truth.  The young King David did not go and offer Goliath anger management classes.</p>
<p>Of course at this point the argument goes in one of two directions.  Some will claim we&#8217;re under a new covenant (which indeed we are) but use it as an argument that the God has changed his mind / mood since those days, whilst others will frankly use an inordinate amount of patronising waffle to suggest the text of the old testament doesn&#8217;t really mean what it says.</p>
<p>If we look at the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, it is true that we see in the main a model and an exhortation towards peace as a lifestyle BUT we forget that our Lord also whipped the money changers in the temple.  I think from this we can&#8217;t say Jesus was a pacifist as we&#8217;re left with a glaring flaw in the logic.  Rather I would suggest that of love for God and our neighbour we may be faced with situations where the use of violence is in fact the most loving action it is possible to take.  Because of this I would suggest that pacifism is an idol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pi</title>
		<link>http://peacetheology.net/pacifism/is-pacifism-everan-idol/#comment-3364</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peacetheology.net/?page_id=1922#comment-3364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[thank you~  totally digging it.  &lt;3]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thank you~  totally digging it.  &lt;3</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

