Violence is something that exists in life, and sooner or later all of us will be confronted with it on some level. Many people are taught to submit when confronted with violence. These people tend to believe that in order to be 'peaceful' they must never be aggressive themselves. After all, Jesus said 'turn the other cheek'. These people are taught, falsely, that if they submit, the bad guys will not hurt them. But that puts the decision about your welfare in someone else's hands - and at best, that someone has already demonstrated zero respect of you and your rights.
In some cases, this may work as a survival strategy, but by definition it puts you at the mercy of the aggressor. Pacifism is not a survival strategy in the real world - it only works when EVERYBODY is a pacifist. One aggressive individual in a room full of pacifists is THE BOSS, and the pacifists have no rights.
It is appropriate and moral to be aggressive in response to an attack. The basis of this morality is in not being the initiator of the conflict.
A careful reading of the Bible shows that 'turning the other cheek' means to not respond to insults or other similar provocation with force. But when the provocation escalates to bodily harm to you or other innocents, or even hurting you in a financial way by stealing what is yours, then you have the moral right and obligation to defend yourself. A truly excellent treatment of this subject can be found at The Cornered Cat. Highly, highly recommended.
It is possible and right to be a non-pacifist, deal from a position of strength, and still be a moral person who loves God.
-Pop
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I sort of agree with that. And you made some solid pints. But don't you think that the Old Testament was a spirit of take the sword, while the New Testament Christ said those who live by the sword will die by the sword? So the old testament teaches force, while under the new covenant we are taught to be peaceful spirit? But I really do agree with what you posted.
Hi, Dan;
That link to the Cornered Cat has an excellent article that goes into some depth on this subject. It even covers the specific point you make.
Peter was told to put his sword away (under unique circumstances - Jesus was fulfilling a prophecy); Peter wasn't told to get rid of it. The sword is not (necessarily) the first response to a threat. I recommend checking out the Cornered Cat - she has very clear, rational explanations of this subject. When Jesus told Peter to put his sword away, there is some background there that is not obvious.
Regards,
Popgun (used to be just Pop)
Post a Comment