Opinion of transformational pacifism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/#2.5

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical--which he's created a thread on, which I highly recommend for people who are interested in that specific issue and haven't rehashed their position endlessly already--whereas I was trying to explain why the sets of circumstances that lead to unavoidable (or difficult to avoid) violence are themselves unacceptable and ought to be the targets of our working for a better world.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

No more questions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

No more questions.

Okay then.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

They description you linked to seems more like utopianism than anything else. It doesn't mention sin and redemption in there. I believe in promoting a spirit of peace and compassion, and in criticising the patterns of thought and culture that lead to violence, but the idea of setting up an international order of world peace based on some theory of spiritual evolution isn't credible or practical, and if someone tried to impose, it, it would be not peace but violence.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The 'international order' part of it bothers me too, which is a large part of why I don't use this as an absolute self-identification.

[dead0man]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

Because of the possibly sketchy way the one dude died (in handcuffs, bleeding out in the street basically....though the reality of the situation wasn't as bad as that brief description sounds) or is any killing by a cop a "sin"?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Because of the possibly sketchy way the one dude died (in handcuffs, bleeding out in the street basically....though the reality of the situation wasn't as bad as that brief description sounds) or is any killing by a cop a "sin"?

he is saying any killing is a literal sin...and that there are situations where all available choices lead to sin...

...he claims he is attempting to live in the manner that is in agreement of the Kingdom of God timeframe when Christ is ruling and there will be no bloodshed or killing, thus killing to him is a sin.  Of course, he overlooks the fact that at the time when Christ reigns on earth, there will also be no eating of meat.  So, to be consistent, he would have to say killing animals and eating their meat is also a sin.  Which again, would run contrary to scripture.

---

He claims that since we live in a fallen world, our dealings with that fallen world will place us in situations (e.g. cops faced with a rampaging gunman) where all solutions to some problems are sinful.  I do agree with him that we live in a fallen world…But, what he fails to realize is that Christ did NOT come here to institute rules that would be in effect during the Kingdom period (else we wouldnt be eating meat), rather Jesus came to earth to provide a way for us to overcome the situations that this fallen world presents to us, and overcome them in a way that is not sinful.

Nathan’s view creates so much contradiction with scripture, that he has to preemptively backfill by asserting we are tempted in ways beyond what Christ was tempted, or that it was Christ’s infinite knowledge that allowed him to avoid sin  But even his attempts to backfill run contrary to scripture, because the scripture explicitly states that Christ was tempted in every way, and that the way to avoid sin is NOT perfect knowledge, but love (“love is the fulfillment of the law”).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

still...I must say, this is one of the more interesting topics that has graced this board in some time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

Because of the possibly sketchy way the one dude died (in handcuffs, bleeding out in the street basically....though the reality of the situation wasn't as bad as that brief description sounds) or is any killing by a cop a "sin"?

Because any killing is a sin. Though, note that jmfcst and I have significantly different positions on hamartiology, neither of which are especially representative of Christians (mainly because no one position is).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Though, note that jmfcst and I have significantly different positions on hamartiology, neither of which are especially representative of Christians (mainly because no one position is).

ham-art-iology?  don't tell me, let me guess - is it the study of pig art?

In any case, if that word is going to be on the test, I'll need a dictionary and a whole day to study.

[dead0man]

Because any killing is a sin.

Oh....really?  That's not how I read it.  Even in self defense?  To protect others?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Because any killing is a sin.

Oh....really?  That's not how I read it.  Even in self defense?  To protect others?

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

[dead0man]

Any religion that tells me I can't shoot a dude that is about to push your grandma off a cliff isn't a religion I want any part of.  It doesn't make any sense.  That's a pretty tough life decision to make, so I kinda have to respect it a little bit, but it don't make no sense to me.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Exodus 22:2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”

obviously, the bible explicitly allowed for killing in self-defense without guilt.  In fact, the very next verse says that if the thief is overpowered and captured and held until daylight (or, another interpretation is if the theif is breaking in during the day and his intentions are obviously just to steal), then his life is to be spared and he is to make restitution:

Exoduc 22:3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

So, the distinction is clearly made between the perception of danger, just as it is in our laws today - you have the right to use lethal force on an intruder if you perceive your life is in danger, and the law gives you much more leeway to kill if the intrusion happens at night.

But, the main biblical point is that the one who kills in valid self-defense is NOT guilty of bloodshed, and there was no sacrifce or religioius ritual required from him (obviously since he bore no guilt).  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

while you were checking with your religious authority, you didn't by any chance, ask your priest what he thought of your opinion regarding homosexuality, did you?

[dead0man]

<george takei>
oh my!
</takei>

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

while you were checking with your religious authority, you didn't by any chance, ask your priest what he thought of your opinion regarding homosexuality, did you?

No, I didn't have to; I've known that he agrees with me and with by far the vast majority of his flock on that for years.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

while you were checking with your religious authority, you didn't by any chance, ask your priest what he thought of your opinion regarding homosexuality, did you?

No, I didn't have to; I've known that he agrees with me and with by far the vast majority of his flock on that for years.

is this an RCC priest?  if so, you might want to add his view to the other thread I just created to measure acceptance of it within the RCC ranks.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

while you were checking with your religious authority, you didn't by any chance, ask your priest what he thought of your opinion regarding homosexuality, did you?

No, I didn't have to; I've known that he agrees with me and with by far the vast majority of his flock on that for years.

is this an RCC priest?  if so, you might want to add his view to the other thread I just created to measure acceptance of it within the RCC ranks.

No, Episcopalian. Sorry if my use of the word 'priest' confused you. Technically his title is 'rector', but that's a subvariety of a priest in the ECUSA.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why not use vicar? Seriously, what's the point in even playing at being Anglicans if you don't adopt that wonderful word?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We do use 'vicar', but we use it for missionary priests for some bizarre reason, or priests for parishes whose priests are directly appointed by the diocese (my parish has the right to elect our priests from a diocese-written shortlist, hence rector). Also, the Church of England uses 'rector' for parishes where the priest (used to) receives both the greater and lesser tithes, apparently.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also, the Church of England uses 'rector' for parishes where the priest (used to) receives both the greater and lesser tithes, apparently.

Yeah, but everyone calls them vicars.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also, the Church of England uses 'rector' for parishes where the priest (used to) receives both the greater and lesser tithes, apparently.

Yeah, but everyone calls them vicars.

To be fair, he wishes people would call him 'vicar'.