tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post3487114254316941746..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Is Pacifist Absolutism Immoral?Weekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-78290293272466829752009-02-08T23:19:00.001-06:002009-02-08T23:19:00.001-06:00Hi Tony & MartinThank you for the encouragemen...Hi Tony & Martin<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the encouragement!<BR/>Anne/ WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-22136124488369851762009-02-08T23:19:00.000-06:002009-02-08T23:19:00.000-06:00Hi AnastasiaI'm not at all saying that the aggress...Hi Anastasia<BR/><BR/>I'm not at all saying that the aggressor's blood is on their own head for merely legal purposes. I'm saying that their blood is on their own head for all purposes. <BR/><BR/>It's a huge and terrible thing to take a human life. That's not in dispute. But whether it <I>should</I> damage our souls and our relationships with God under the very specific circumstances we have laid out -- that is where, I think, we part company. I do not think the defender is ashamed before God nor estranged from him. <BR/><BR/>Take care & God bless<BR/>Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-69980265532921148652009-02-08T17:05:00.000-06:002009-02-08T17:05:00.000-06:00Thank you for your thoughts on this, WF.Thank you for your thoughts on this, WF.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04232209481041145155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-2951529353761329122009-02-07T05:37:00.000-06:002009-02-07T05:37:00.000-06:00Thanks! Well said.Thanks! Well said.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-90681999056004964402009-02-06T12:36:00.000-06:002009-02-06T12:36:00.000-06:00During the Vietnam War, when I was a hard-core pac...During the Vietnam War, when I was a hard-core pacifist, it was the Communists who manipulated and used us. Hard lesson to learn.<BR/><BR/>Sure, for legal purposes, their blood is upon their own head. Thing is, we have no legal purposes. What we see is relationship. Killing someone still significantly damages our psyches, our growth in Christ, our likeness to Him and our communion with Him. Even when what we did was necessary. As for him whose life we have taken, there's really no way to love a person while killing him. However justified it may be in civil or religious law, it's still missing the mark. So we still repent.Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-15456029890592936542009-02-06T11:46:00.000-06:002009-02-06T11:46:00.000-06:00Hi Anastasia - Do you all not recognize the princi...Hi Anastasia - <BR/>Do you all not recognize the principle that "his blood will be on his own head"? (E.g. Leviticus 20:9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 27) I'm not saying we're bound by the ancient Hebrew laws; I'm saying that the general principle seems legitimate: that stopping a wrongdoer is the fault of the wrongdoer. Otherwise, the right of police, courts, etc. -- there would be no difference between arrest and kidnapping, but for that principle. Which is to say, I think that principle is a human universal. <BR/><BR/>Hi Steve - <BR/>I know a lady who is a Quaker. They're hard pacifists, at least on paper. She's mentioned to me that, during WWII, the Quakers got played for fools by the Nazis. All with the best intentions, but (perhaps, in my reading) an unwillingness to see that the "talk" was not happening in good faith; it was just to pacify that pacifists while they did whatever they pleased. <BR/><BR/>Take care & God bless<BR/>Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-74473622916993619512009-02-06T01:10:00.000-06:002009-02-06T01:10:00.000-06:00"Do no harm."I like that phrase to guide the Chris..."Do no harm."<BR/><BR/>I like that phrase to guide the Christian in his or her freedom.<BR/><BR/>Standing by and letting someone be killed without lifting a finger is doing great harm.<BR/><BR/>If we had a lot of Christian pacifists during World War II...we would have lost. <BR/><BR/>Thank God for Christiand willing to lay down their lives and to kill enemy attackers if necessary.<BR/><BR/>We are here today because of brave men amd women like that.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16504238047156860312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1283276897520212862009-02-05T22:40:00.000-06:002009-02-05T22:40:00.000-06:00Or to put it more birefly, for us, sin is "missing...Or to put it more birefly, for us, sin is "missing the mark," and choosing the lesser evil still misses the mark.<BR/><BR/>(Christ, of course, is the Measure and the Mark.)Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-9691079257718183602009-02-05T22:20:00.000-06:002009-02-05T22:20:00.000-06:00Within a legal framework, guilt can only be assign...Within a legal framework, guilt can only be assigned to someone who sins (a)knowingly and (b)willingly, so I see your point.<BR/><BR/>Not having a legal framework, we Orthodox pray for forgiveness for sins we have committed knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly. <BR/><BR/>As I said, in a perfect world, we wouldn't be put in the position of having to choose the lesser evil, and whose fault is it the world isn't perfect? Mine as much as anyone's, at least.<BR/><BR/>Or, if I were a saint, I could pray and the aggressor would find his hand unable to move or would be unable to see his would-be victims or would suddenly collapse or whatever. (I once posted a story about one such miracle at<BR/>http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/ochi-day-protection-of-holy-theotokos.html ) But I am not a saint, and again, whose fault is that, if not exclusively my own? So yes, in Orthodoxy, I am still guilty if I choose the lesser evil, even if I am forced to do so, in the service of my country, for example, or in defense of my family.Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-12287850920288632252009-02-05T11:35:00.000-06:002009-02-05T11:35:00.000-06:00Hi againI understand what you mean that killing so...Hi again<BR/><BR/>I understand what you mean that killing someone is always evil. But where does the guilt lie? Does the guilt lie with the person who did the killing? If they were the aggressor it does. If they had a better alternative it does. <BR/><BR/>But in the case of a defender killing a would-be murderer, I think the guilt for the death of the would-be murderer lies with the would-be murderer, not with the defender. That is, the evil in the situation is attributable to the would-be murderer in that situation, not to the defender.<BR/><BR/>Take care & God bless<BR/>Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-79166059966963026892009-02-05T08:03:00.000-06:002009-02-05T08:03:00.000-06:00Orthodoxy taught me that for (almost) every rule, ...Orthodoxy taught me that for (almost) every rule, there is an exception. Breaking the rule can sometimes be a lesser sin than keeping the rule would have been. But either way, the lesser evil is still <I>evil</I>. So I gave up the puerile and prideful delusion of keeping my skirts pure and clean. It reminded me of my equally adolescent vow that alcohol would never pass these virgin lips, nor a swear word, either. Yeah, RI-ight...Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-3348200760284092932009-02-04T22:31:00.000-06:002009-02-04T22:31:00.000-06:00I have high respect for the type of pacifist who s...I have high respect for the type of pacifist who stands between the attacker and the victim; that is a pacifist I would praise. The one who stands to the side and watches, not so much. <BR/><BR/>I think one reason I want to voice this is the growing number of people in the West who seem -- well, you're familiar with the concept of an honor suicide? Many are ashamed of the West and think the only honorable thing the West can do is die. And so they preach the immorality of self-defense in the face of known enemies. I'm not saying that's the case for all; but I've met a few for whom I suspect it's the case. And when it's the case, that's an evil and pernicious little motive for playing holier-than-thou and convincing people it's immoral to defend the helpless. <BR/><BR/>What you said about it being rare to be that extreme. I agree. For instance, I've heard the American Civil War used as an example of a time when war solved something, namely slavery. But there had been a proposal for the government to redeem the slaves and purchase their freedom. Can't remember if it also included funding for a startup home. Can you imagine the destruction and devastation that would have been saved if the pacifist's answer had gone through? The economic and social impact too -- the North followed a scorched-earth policy at times, and then a long and none-too-gentle military occupation during "Reconstruction". Long story short: if the pacifist route had been managed, the end of slavery could have been a national triumph instead of a mixed triumph/tragedy with long-reaching scars. <BR/><BR/>But I'm rambling. I'm curious -- are you willing to mention why you're no long an unconditional pacifist? <BR/><BR/>Take care & God bless<BR/>Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-70667814343638917622009-02-04T20:51:00.000-06:002009-02-04T20:51:00.000-06:00Make no mistake: whenever something becomes uncond...<I>Make no mistake: whenever something becomes unconditional, that means it is claiming sole title to the highest possible spot. If it were not claiming the highest spot for itself, it would be conditional on whatever was more important, rather than unconditional.</I> <BR/><BR/>I had never thought of that before, and it's such an excellent point! Especially when I consider that God's love for us is unconditional. <BR/><BR/>Probably such a stark choice as you posit is rare; usually there are all sorts of in-between things that could be done to protect the "innocent", not that anybody really is. Like pepper spray or shooting in some non-lethal spot or running away; usually there are options.<BR/><BR/>In Orthodox thought, if I were ever in such a situation (kill the aggressor or let the victims be killed) I would not be considered pure in either case. In choosing the lesser evil, I would still be choosing <I>evil</I>. I would still have to confess it as sin. If the world were perfect, I wouldn't be faced with such choices, and whose fault is it the world isn't perfect? Mine as much as anyone's, or more. Or if I were a saint, I could pray and some miracle would happen, and whose fault is it I am no saint? <BR/><BR/>Another piece of fine work, Anne. Thanks from this one-time (many years ago) absolute pacifist.Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.com