Pacifists? Yes or No

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Are we called, by Christ God, to be pacifists?

The day may come when we are measured?

Have you decided what you would do if confronted.

Forgive me....

[InnerPhyre]

Yep. Still haven't figured out how to both love and shoot an enemy. Until I figure out how....pacifism.

[InnerPhyre]

From www.oca.org (http://www.oca.org)


QUESTION:

What about the Orthodox relation to war? The fact that the Orthodox have blessed the military seems to contradict your entire position, not to mention the teaching of Jesus about non-violence.



ANSWER:

"On the contrary, we would hope that the Orthodox position relative to the military supports what we have already discussed.

Christ taught that perfection requires the love of enemies and the absolute renunciation of resisting evil by evil. Thus if a man will be perfect he will renounce the relative values of this world totally and will not participate in any act which is morally ambiguous. In this way, for example, the Church forbids the bearing of arms to its clergy and does not allow a man to continue in the ministry who has shed blood, theoretically even in an accidental way!

However, the Orthodox Church follows Christ and the apostles in teaching that the relative and morally ambiguous life of this world requires the existence of some form of human government which has the right and even the duty to "wield the sword" for the punishment of evil.

In the Gospels, for example, we do not find Christ or John the Baptist of the apostles commanding the soldiers which they met to cease being soldiers. Even the early Christians bore the arms of the pagan Roman state for the welfare of society in this world.

But still, if a man will be perfect and give his life totally to Christ, he will of necessity renounce military service as well as any political service which always and of necessity is involved with relativistic values and greater and lesser evils and goods. Such a man will also renounce his possessions and follow Christ totally and in everything.

Thus total pacifism is not only possible, it is the sign of greatest perfection, the perfection of the Kingdom of God. According to the Orthodox understanding, however, pacifism can never be a social or political philosophy for this world; although once again, a non-violent means to an end is always to be preferred in every case to a violent means.

When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.

Also, one final point of great importance is that Christians who are involved in the relativistic life of this world must resist military conscription when the state is evil. But when doing so they must not yield to anarchy, but must submit to whatever punishment is given so that their witness will be fruitful."



So....for society, no pacifism....and for the individual...pacifism?

[InnerPhyre]

Though that article from the OCA website is accurate in that technically Jesus and John never told soldiers to stop being sodliers, John the Baptist did tell soldiers to renounce violence


"And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, 'And what shall we do?' And he said unto them, 'Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."

[choirfiend]

I voted No. And just for the record, I'm someone who avoids stepping on ants when walking on sidewalks. There are few things I hate and avoid more than needless death.

As someone who is bound up in the society that rules the nation I have to recognize that total pacifism is not possible for the society. If someone was coming to kill my family, would I smash them in the head with a hammer? Yes. Would I hope to avoid killing them? Yes. Total pacifism as a whole (humanity) just aint possible in this fallen world, and passing off the responsibility to someone else in pursuit of being holy while making them less holy is not showing love to my neighbor.

Edited because I felt like it:)

[Philip]

"And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, 'And what shall we do?' And he said unto them, 'Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."

'Do violence' probably means 'misuse your position to extort or rob'. Since the Forerunner told the soldiers to be content with their wages, it is doubtful that he intended them to go UA.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Does anything like this exist in The Orthodox Church?

From the Catechism: (Catholic)

Since respect for life includes an obligation to respect one's own life and the lives of people under one's protection, it is legitimate to use force -- even fatal force -- against the threats of an aggressor who cannot be stopped any other way. While Catholic teaching recognizes the right of states to execute criminals when necessary to preserve the safety of citizens, the Church argues that other methods of protecting society (incarceration, rehabilitation) are increasingly available in the modern world; thus, there are now few if any cases that really necessitate capital punishment.

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65 (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#65)


2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66 (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#66)
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.


2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67 (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#67)

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."



Forgive me.........

[Dust and Ashes]

I voted yes, though I wouldn't argue or try to impose that on anyone or judge anyone who disagrees. If assaulted, I would offer no resistance other than try to flee.

But truth be told, if my wife or family was threatened, I'd most likely do whatever was necessary to protect my family with no regard to the safety of the perpetrators.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I voted yes, though I wouldn't argue or try to impose that on anyone or judge anyone who disagrees. If assaulted, I would offer no resistance other than try to flee.

But truth be told, if my wife or family was threatened, I'd most likely do whatever was necessary to protect my family with no regard to the safety of the perpetrators.

And ask forgiveness as soon as you got rid of the bodies...;) (j/k)

We men of southern (US) tradition will find it hard to stand by and let the world have it's way.... We act before thinking in situations like these.

Lord have mercy on our souls.

When I joined the USMC, I thought that it would be preparing me to fight for Christ in the final days. :doh:

How very foolish of me.

Forgive me..... :liturgy:

[Michael the Iconographer]

No, we are not called to be pacifists.

[jckstraw72]

I voted no, but theres no one answer for every situation as some have noted.

[Jebediah]

I voted no.

There is always some "practical" reason to pursue evil. There is no rationalizing away the Gospel, I don't even understand why people try. Of course it's hard to not be violent in a violent world, or choose against materialism in a capitalist world. That doesn't change anything.

[nutroll]

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'" "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two."

My pacifist views are based on these words. First of all, the teaching about 'an eye for an eye' is not permission, it is limitation. The harm that you do is to never exceed the harm that was done to you.

This is counter to how most people read this verse to begin with, and then Jesus says that it doesn't even go far enough. When we are wronged in any way, our answer is not to retaliate or to seek vengeance, indeed Jesus says not to even resist the evil person. It is about ending a cycle of violence. When we harm someone in return, then violence will never end.

As an example, if someone kills my child, and in return I kill that person, or if I kill that person before they are able to harm my child, then I have just killed someone else's child. Each person in this world is potentially the mother, father, child, brother, or sister of someone. And we all mourn for those we lose no matter their failings. I think when we look at war-torn places, this plays out constantly. People feel wronged when violence touches their lives. It doesn't matter to them if someone they know started the violence, they just know that they were wronged, and when they seek revenge, they merely add to the misery and heartache in the world.

All that being said, there are times when we act out of impulse, there are times when we act violently to protect those we love. I would never suggest that to do so is an absolute evil. I do think, however, that we should always intend to not return violence with violence. When we decide beforehand that retaliation is acceptable, we remove the likelihood that we will react peacably. If we intend to always turn the other cheek, we can always seek forgiveness if we fail.

Anyway, I'll get off my soap box now.

[OrthoTauf]

"We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war upon our enemies."--Justin Martyr, 2nd cent.

"Nowhere does he teach that it is right for his own disciples to offer violence to anyone, however wicked."--Origen, 2nd-3rd cent.

"Can it be lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that 'he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword'?"--Tertullian, 2nd-3rd cent.

"We have learned from his teaching and his laws that evil should not be repaid with evil. That it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it. And that our own blood should be shed rather than to stain our hands and our conscience with that of another."--Arnobius, 3rd cent.

See also Cyprian, To Donatus, sec. 6.

[Eusebios]

My answer is no, though it hinges on the word "pacifists". Coming from an Anabaptist background, at least immeadiately prior to conversion to Orthodoxy, I would have answered yes. Though my general eschewing of violence towards others has not changed, I've come to realize that Christ calls us to be "peacemakers" as opposed to pacifists. The difference? In my mind the word pacifist implies either an inability or unwillingness to act in the face of evil.Chirst callls us to be peacemakers, which implies that one must work towards peace, to actively pursue it. We are clearly called to the latter, though I do believe that it also requires the eschewing of violence towards others.
Christ is risen!
Eusebios.
:bow:

[Eusebios]

hmmm, double post. sorry!

[choirfiend]

I agree nutroll, when you say we should not intend violence--it's one of the reasons I hate guns. They have no purpose except killing. Having them means you intend to make violence on your part possible.

But Christ is talking about personal wrong-doing. He doesn't speak of someone attempting to take your life (outside of the threat of doing so because of Christ) in the immediate. Slapping on the face, robbery, forced movement...It may not indicate taking this farther to mean acts that would take your life. The sort of retaliation is different from absolute pacificism, I believe. Personal offense (slapping), attachment to goods (theft), being taken in slavery maybe?, these are evils--but they do not take your life.

We have no just war theory-but I think the RCC has a point when they say that you are precious and should defend attempts to kill you. My opinion is that historically Orthodoxy has supported defensive action (in war and privately) as necessary and as the better option than pacisfism. I do disagree with an offensive defense (like keeping guns in anticipation of using them or threatening others with war in order to get what we want.)

Eusebios, wonderful statement pacifist implies either an inability or unwillingness to act in the face of evil.Chirst callls us to be peacemakers, which implies that one must work towards peace, to actively pursue it

[Dust and Ashes]

I agree nutroll, when you say we should not intend violence--it's one of the reasons I hate guns. They have no purpose except killing. Having them means you intend to make violence on your part possible.[/size][/color][/font]

Kind of like a baseball bat having no other purpose than to beat someone to death? :P

Guns are very dangerous when handled improperly and many people use them for violence but many other people use them for recreation or even to obtain food. Simply having a gun is no more indicative of malicious intent than having a knife, axe, hammer or even car. All can be deadly if used or misused.

[choirfiend]

(I know. I wasn't speaking of hunting purposes. IMO, though, owning guns [like hand guns] for the purpose of self-defense is owning something intending to do harm with it. There's no other purpose for a gun in the home. And like nutroll said, I think we should avoid ways in which we preemptively intend to do harm. Just my own opinion, though.]

[Dust and Ashes]

(I know. I wasn't speaking of hunting purposes. IMO, though, owning guns [like hand guns] for the purpose of self-defense is owning something intending to do harm with it. There's no other purpose for a gun in the home. And like nutroll said, I think we should avoid ways in which we preemptively intend to do harm. Just my own opinion, though.]

Yes, I agree. I'm kind of having some issues with that very thing right now. I have a pistol that I always kept for home defense and it bothers me that if a situation arises, I would use it. I don't think I could let myself allow harm to come to my wife but I could stop them with a bat with much less chance of killing them.

[If Not For Grace]

Yep. Still haven't figured out how to both love and shoot an enemy. Until I figure out how....pacifism.


There was this man named David..who would be King..
A man after God's own heart & a good Soldier..

There are several books about him worth reading.
This might give some understanding.

[choirfiend]

One of my friends who LOOOOOOOOOOVES guns and everything to do with them jokes that for home defense, you should get a pump action shotgun. His argument is that you will never have to use it (thus maybe the intent is gone) all you have to do is load it. Anyone and everyone knows the sound of a pump action shotgun, and would hopefully figure out they stand little chance against it since you dont have to aim and it is a devastating weapon, and would leave/surrender/whatnot.;)

[choirfiend]

I think tazers and tranquilizer guns would be nice alternatives. (but what if the bad guy has a gun? blah, blah, blah...) I hate guns:)

[Dust and Ashes]

I think tazers and tranquilizer guns would be nice alternatives. (but what if the bad guy has a gun? blah, blah, blah...) I hate guns:)

Just get a couple of Chihuahuas. Most burglars rely on stealth and with 2 Chi's yapping and squealing, the idea is to get lost. :D

[kamikat]

A couple years ago, we had a rape/murder in our neighborhood. The police hosted a safety talk. The officers said the number one thing you can do to keep your house is safe is to own a dog, of any size. Even a little yappy dog will deter most criminals than your average alarm system. That talk is one of the reasons we have collies. They bark at ANYTHING.
kamikat

[choirfiend]

My dog is a good guard dog. She barks at ppl at the door every time. She usually calms down in abotu 10 minutes, but I know she would bark like mad if anyone was trying to get in.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

A couple years ago, we had a rape/murder in our neighborhood. The police hosted a safety talk. The officers said the number one thing you can do to keep your house is safe is to own a dog, of any size. Even a little yappy dog will deter most criminals than your average alarm system. That talk is one of the reasons we have collies. They bark at ANYTHING.
kamikat

Not to mention, who better than Lassie to protect you??!! ;)

[nutroll]

Plus you can be a pacifist and have an extremely pugnacious dog without compromising moral principles of any kind.

[Khaleas]

A couple years ago, we had a rape/murder in our neighborhood. The police hosted a safety talk. The officers said the number one thing you can do to keep your house is safe is to own a dog, of any size. Even a little yappy dog will deter most criminals than your average alarm system. That talk is one of the reasons we have collies. They bark at ANYTHING.
kamikat

Our Dachshunds are better than any doorbell or alarm you can think of. Plus they don't sound like small dogs at all.
We had ADT installed at our house because we are gone so much and the guy said a dog is definitely the best deterrent. The next is the sign that you have an alarm system... and the following that you actually use the alarm system you have ;) .
Most burglars, not under the influence, will pick the house without the alarm system out of plain convenience. It's the drugged out ones we have to worry about because they don't think straight.

[InnerPhyre]

There was this man named David..who would be King..
A man after God's own heart & a good Soldier..

There are several books about him worth reading.
This might give some understanding.


Welcome to TAW. Kindly leave condescension at the door. David lived in a time before humanity was enlightened by the Gospel...before Christ corrected us from our old ways of hating our enemies and taught us to love. Thanks for your opinion though :wave:

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Matthew 5:38-48

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

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.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.


And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Forgive me......

[choirfiend]

It's impossible to love your enemy and to do good to them if you're dead...I'm still looking for where this passage travels over into discussing killing or death.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It's impossible to love your enemy and to do good to them if you're dead...I'm still looking for where this passage travels over into discussing killing or death.

Incorrect.

Death has been overcome.

Forgive me....

[choirfiend]

Practically speaking, it is. I have no doubt about what the Church in heaven is doing...but still, extending this passage so that the meaningn covers dying just because someone feels like killing you and not resisting at all (whether through lethal or non-lethal means) doesn''t fly with the Orthodox experience of killing, wars, and self-defense (especially when you look at the situations with Muslims.)

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Practically speaking, it is. I have no doubt about what the Church in heaven is doing...but still, extending this passage so that the meaningn covers dying just because someone feels like killing you and not resisting at all (whether through lethal or non-lethal means) doesn''t fly with the Orthodox experience of killing, wars, and self-defense (especially when you look at the situations with Muslims.)

I earnestly disagree. Christs message was clear, and the early Saints bear it out.

Show me an example of an early Christian (before Augustine) who acted this way without being rebuked.

I bet you can't find one.

There are multitude of examples of early Christians NEVER defending themselves...

I think whether we like it or not we are CALLED to be Pacifists. Righteous and Holy men are Pacifists, releying on Christ God for all their protection.


Forgive me...:liturgy:

[OrthodoxyUSA]

From www.oca.org (http://www.oca.org/)

The Holy Great Martyr George the Victory-Bearer, was a native of Cappadocia (a district in Asia Minor), and he grew up in a deeply believing Christian family. His father was martyred for Christ when George was still a child. His mother, owning lands in Palestine, moved there with her son and raised him in strict piety.

When he became a man, St George entered into the service of the Roman army. He was handsome, brave and valiant in battle, and he came to the notice of the emperor Diocletian (284-305) and joined the imperial guard with the rank of comites, or military commander.

The pagan emperor, who did much for the restoration of Roman might, was clearly concerned with the danger presented to pagan civilization by the triumph of the Crucified Savior, and intensified his persecution against the Christians in the final years of his reign. Following the advice of the Senate at Nicomedia, Diocletian gave all his governors full freedom in their court proceedings against Christians, and he promised them his full support.

St George, when he heard the decision of the emperor, distributed all his wealth to the poor, freed his servants, and then appeared in the Senate. The brave soldier of Christ spoke out openly against the emperor's designs. He confessed himself a Christian, and appealed to all to acknowledge Christ: "I am a servant of Christ, my God, and trusting in Him, I have come among you voluntarily, to bear witness concerning the Truth."

"What is Truth?" one of the dignitaries asked, echoing the question of Pontius Pilate. The saint replied, "Christ Himself, Whom you persecuted, is Truth."

Stunned by the bold speech of the valiant warrior, the emperor, who had loved and promoted George, attempted to persuade him not to throw away his youth and glory and honors, but rather to offer sacrifice to the gods as was the Roman custom. The confessor replied, "Nothing in this inconstant life can weaken my resolve to serve God."

Then by order of the enraged emperor the armed guards began to push St George out of the assembly hall with their spears, and they then led him off to prison. But the deadly steel became soft and it bent, just as the spears touched the saint's body, and it caused him no harm. In prison they put the martyr's feet in stocks and placed a heavy stone on his chest.

The next day at the interrogation, powerless but firm of spirit, St George again answered the emperor, "You will grow tired of tormenting me sooner than I will tire of being tormented by you." Then Diocletian gave orders to subject St George to some very intense tortures. They tied the Great Martyr to a wheel, beneath which were boards pierced with sharp pieces of iron. As the wheel turned, the sharp edges slashed the saint's naked body.

At first the sufferer loudly cried out to the Lord, but soon he quieted down, and did not utter even a single groan. Diocletian decided that the tortured one was already dead, and he gave orders to remove the battered body from the wheel, and then went to a pagan temple to offer thanks.

At this very moment it got dark, thunder boomed, and a voice was heard: "Fear not, George, for I am with you." Then a wondrous light shone, and at the wheel an angel of the Lord appeared in the form of a radiant youth. He placed his hand upon the martyr, saying to him, "Rejoice!" St George stood up healed.

When the soldiers led him to the pagan temple where the emperor was, the emperor could not believe his own eyes and he thought that he saw before him some other man or even a ghost. In confusion and in terror the pagans looked St George over carefully, and they became convinced that a miracle had occurred. Many then came to believe in the Life-Creating God of the Christians.

Two illustrious officials, Sts Anatolius and Protoleon, who were secretly Christians, openly confessed Christ. Immediately, without a trial, they were beheaded with the sword by order of the emperor. Also present in the pagan temple was Empress Alexandra, the wife of Diocletian, and she also knew the truth. She was on the point of glorifying Christ, but one of the servants of the emperor took her and led her off to the palace.

The emperor became even more furious. He had not lost all hope of influencing St George, so he gave him over to new and fiercesome torments. After throwing him into a deep pit, they covered it over with lime. Three days later they dug him out, but found him cheerful and unharmed. They shod the saint in iron sandals with red-hot nails, and then drove him back to the prison with whips. In the morning, when they led him back to the interrogation, cheerful and with healed feet, the emperor asked if he liked his shoes. The saint said that the sandals had been just his size. Then they beat him with ox thongs until pieces of his flesh came off and his blood soaked the ground, but the brave sufferer, strengthened by the power of God, remained unyielding.

The emperor concluded that the saint was being helped by magic, so he summoned the sorcerer Athanasius to deprive the saint of his miraculous powers, or else poison him. The sorcerer gave St George two goblets containing drugs. One of them would have quieted him, and the other would kill him. The drugs had no effect, and the saint continued to denounce the pagan superstitions and glorify God as before.

When the emperor asked what sort of power was helping him, St George said, "Do not imagine that it is any human learning which keeps me from being harmed by these torments. I am saved only by calling upon Christ and His Power. Whoever believes in Him has no regard for tortures and is able to do the things that Christ did" (John 14:12). Diocletian asked what sort of things Christ had done. The Martyr replied, "He gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers, healed the lame, gave hearing to the deaf, cast out demons, and raised the dead."

Knowing that they had never been able to resurrect the dead through sorcery, nor by any of the gods known to him, and wanting to test the saint, the emperor commanded him to raise up a dead person before his eyes. The saint retorted, "You wish to tempt me, but my God will work this sign for the salvation of the people who shall see the power of Christ."

When they led St George down to the graveyard, he cried out, "O Lord! Show to those here present, that You are the only God in all the world. Let them know You as the Almighty Lord." Then the earth quaked, a grave opened, the dead one emerged from it alive. Having seen with their own eyes the Power of Christ, the people wept and glorified the true God.

The sorcerer Athanasius, falling down at the feet of St George, confessed Christ as the All-Powerful God and asked forgiveness for his sins, committed in ignorance. The obdurate emperor in his impiety thought otherwise. In a rage he commanded both t Athanasius and the man raised from the dead to be beheaded, and he had St George again locked up in prison.

The people, weighed down with their infirmities, began to visit the prison and they there received healing and help from the saint. A certain farmer named Glycerius, whose ox had collapsed, also visited him. The saint consoled him and assured him that God would restore his ox to life. When he saw the ox alive, the farmer began to glorify the God of the Christians throughout all the city. By order of the emperor, St Glycerius was arrested and beheaded.

The exploits and the miracles of the Great Martyr George had increased the number of the Christians, therefore Diocletian made a final attempt to compel the saint to offer sacrifice to the idols. They set up a court at the pagan temple of Apollo. On the final night the holy martyr prayed fervently, and as he slept, he saw the Lord, Who raised him up with His hand, and embraced him. The Savior placed a crown on St George's head and said, "Fear not, but have courage, and you will soon come to Me and receive what has been prepared for you."

In the morning, the emperor offered to make St George his co-administrator, second only to himself. The holy martyr with a feigned willingness answered, "Caesar, you should have shown me this mercy from the very beginning, instead of torturing me. Let us go now to the temple and see the gods you worship."

Diocletian believed that the martyr was accepting his offer, and he followed him to the pagan temple with his retinue and all the people. Everyone was certain that St George would offer sacrifice to the gods. The saint went up to the idol, made the Sign of the Cross and addressed it as if it were alive: "Are you the one who wants to receive from me sacrifice befitting God?"

The demon inhabiting the idol cried out, "I am not a god and none of those like me is a god, either. The only God is He Whom you preach. We are fallen angels, and we deceive people because we are jealous."

St George cried out, "How dare you remain here, when I, the servant of the true God, have entered?" Then noises and wailing were heard from the idols, and they fell to the ground and were shattered.

There was general confusion. In a frenzy, pagan priests and many of the crowd seized the holy martyr, tied him up, and began to beat him. They also called for his immediate execution.

The holy empress Alexandra tried to reach him. Pushing her way through the crowd, she cried out, "O God of George, help me, for You Alone are All-Powerful." At the feet of the Great Martyr the holy empress confessed Christ, Who had humiliated the idols and those who worshipped them.

Diocletian immediately pronounced the death sentence on the Great Martyr George and the holy Empress Alexandra, who followed St George to execution without resisting. Along the way she felt faint and slumped against a wall. There she surrendered her soul to God.

St George gave thanks to God and prayed that he would also end his life in a worthy manner. At the place of execution the saint prayed that the Lord would forgive the torturers who acted in ignorance, and that He would lead them to the knowledge of Truth. Calmly and bravely, the holy Great Martyr George bent his neck beneath the sword, receiving the crown of martyrdom on April 23, 303.

The pagan era was coming to an end, and Christianity was about to triumph. Within ten years, St Constantine (May 21) would issue the Edict of Milan, granting religious freedom to Christians. Of the many miracles worked by the holy Great Martyr George, the most famous are depicted in iconography. In the saint's native city of Beirut were many idol-worshippers. Outside the city, near Mount Lebanon, was a large lake, inhabited by an enormous dragon-like serpent. Coming out of the lake, it devoured people, and there was nothing anyone could do, since the breath from its nostrils poisoned the very air.

On the advice of the demons inhabiting the idols, the local ruler came to a decision. Each day the people would draw lots to feed their own children to the serpent, and he promised to sacrifice his only daughter when his turn came. That time did come, and the ruler dressed her in her finest attire, then sent her off to the lake. The girl wept bitterly, awaiting her death. Unexpectedly for her, St George rode up on his horse with spear in hand. The girl implored him not to leave her, lest she perish.

The saint signed himself with the Sign of the Cross. He rushed at the serpent saying, "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." St George pierced the throat of the serpent with his spear and trampled it with his horse. Then he told the girl to bind the serpent with her sash, and lead it into the city like a dog on a leash.

The people fled in terror, but the saint halted them with the words: "Don't be afraid, but trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in Him, since it is He Who sent me to save you." Then the saint killed the serpent with a sword, and the people burned it outside the city. Twenty-five thousand men, not counting women and children, were then baptized. Later, a church was built and dedicated to the Most Holy Theotokos and the Great Martyr George.

St George went on to become a talented officer and to amaze the world by his military exploits. He died before he was thirty years old. He is known as Victory Bearer, not only for his military achievements, but for successfully enduring martyrdom. As we know, the martyrs are commemorated in the dismissal at the end of Church services as "the holy, right victorious martyr...."

St George was the patron saint and protector of several of the great builders of the Russian state. St Vladimir's son, Yaroslav the Wise (in holy Baptism George), advanced the veneration of the saint in the Russian Church. He built the city of Yuriev [i.e., "of Yurii." "Yurii" is the diminutive of "George", as "Ivan" is of "John"], he also founded the Yuriev monastery at Novgorod, and he built a church of St George the Victory Bearer at Kiev.

The day of the consecration of St George's Church in Kiev, November 26, 1051 by St Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus, has entered into the liturgical treasury of the Church as a special church feastday. Yuriev Day is beloved by the Russian people as an "autumn Feast of St George."

The name of St George was also borne by the founder of Moscow, Yurii Dolgoruky (+ 1157), who was the builder of many churches dedicated to St George, and the builder of the city of Yuriev-Polsk. In the year 1238 the heroic fight of the Russian nation against the Mongol Horde was led by the Great Prince Yurii (George) Vsevolodovich of Vladimir (February 4), who fell at the Battle at the Sita River. His memory, like that of Igor the Brave, and defender of his land, was celebrated in Russian spiritual poems and ballads.

The first Great Prince of Moscow, when Moscow had become the center of the Russian Land, was Yurii Danilovich (+ 1325), the son of St Daniel of Moscow, and grandson of St Alexander Nevsky. From that time St George the Victory Bearer, depicted as a horseman slaying the serpent, appeared on Moscow's coat of arms, and became an emblem of the Russian state. This has strengthened Russia's connections with Christian nations, and especially with Iberia (Georgia, the Land of St George).

We know that he served in the Roman Military, but did he ever kill anyone?

Forgive me.....:liturgy:

[choirfiend]

Who knows if he killed anyone in battle, but by becoming a soldier, one takes on the responsibility and possibility that one will kill. I dont know about your church, but our liturgy prays for those who serve in the military and armed forces. My own parish has several soliders in active duty, one of whom has been wounded.

St. George was killed because he was a Christian. Thus far, no one is discussing martyrdom for the name of Christ, but pacifism--and these are two very different things.

This St. George, the other St. George, St. Dimitrios, St. Sergius and Bacchus, St. Christopher, St. Andrew the General who "Because of his zealous ardour was deemed worthy of the work of almighty God and Jesus Christ Our Saviour, and he defeated in battle those who opposed him," St. Theodore the General whom St. Gregory of Nyssa evidently wrote a sermon praising, St. Menas, St. Marcellus, and so on, and so forth...all soliders who take up the sword on our behalf to enable us to live in safety. They were martyred for their faith--not because they ran from their duty as soliders.

The experience of Orthodoxy is that total pacifism is often made impossible because of the fallen actions of others. Therefore, it's not Orthodox doctrine as it is for the Mennonites, Quakers, and other such groups.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Who knows if he killed anyone in battle, but by becoming a soldier, one takes on the responsibility and possibility that one will kill. I dont know about your church, but our liturgy prays for those who serve in the military and armed forces. My own parish has several soliders in active duty, one of whom has been wounded.

St. George was killed because he was a Christian. Thus far, no one is discussing martyrdom for the name of Christ, but pacifism--and these are two very different things.

This St. George, the other St. George, St. Dimitrios, St. Sergius and Bacchus, St. Christopher, St. Andrew the General who "Because of his zealous ardour was deemed worthy of the work of almighty God and Jesus Christ Our Saviour, and he defeated in battle those who opposed him," St. Theodore the General whom St. Gregory of Nyssa evidently wrote a sermon praising, St. Menas, St. Marcellus, and so on, and so forth...all soliders who take up the sword on our behalf to enable us to live in safety. They were martyred for their faith--not because they ran from their duty as soliders.

The experience of Orthodoxy is that total pacifism is often made impossible because of the fallen actions of others. Therefore, it's not Orthodox doctrine as it is for the Mennonites, Quakers, and other such groups.

Do you not see STRONG evidence of Pacifism in his story?

No comment on post #31?

Just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?

Forgive me....:liturgy:

[choirfiend]

I see strong evidence of him willing to be killed for being a Christian rather than deny Christ. I do not see any pacifism, no.

[InnerPhyre]

What about St. Moses who was converted because he saw the faith of the monks he was about to murder? He was moved because they weren't afraid of him or death and didn't even try to defend themselves.


What about St. Seraphim of Sarov who was beaten so severely that he was crippled for life and didn't try to defend himself even though he was holding an axe from chopping wood earlier?


Should the monks have fought off St. Moses? Should St. Seraphim have killed his attackers with the axe?

[choirfiend]

Re: post 31, my OSB says,

"Jesus warned His disciples not to resist violence with more violence (contrary to Ex 21:2, Lev. 24:20, Deut 19:21). Evil and the evil person, can be overcome only by good. This keeps us free from anger--from being poisoned by the evil directed against us and its destructive forces--and instructs others through Christian forbearance. It brings botoh us and our enemy under the yoke of God's love. This teaching does not, however, contradict a state's right to protect its citizens and to punish criminals."


Since we are part of the state, and are mutually accountable for the well-being of each other, do the Orthodox remove ourselves from this right/heavy responsibility? The history, example, and Tradition of the Church would say no.

[OrthoCanuck]

I voted yes. Unfortunately, given the fallen state of our lives, just because we are called to peace does not mean it will always end up that way. Yes, I would defend my family at all costs, but not necessarily myself.

The way I look at it is that Jesus called us to things that are pretty much out of our reach in this life. Yet to be "perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect" is an ideal but not realistic. Pacifism is an ideal but not often attainable. I believe many of the ideals that Jesus asks us to achieve are unreachable, but that does not mean we shouldn't try. We should strive for peace, love, righteousness, etc. as we are called to do, but expect that we probably will fall short.


To make a long story short (...too late:)) I believe we are called to be pacifists, but we are not expected to necessarily fulfill that calling given our state in this world.


Peace.

[jckstraw72]

Maybe its just me but I think theres a difference btwn turning the other cheek and sitting back while someone kills your family.

[nutroll]

I said nothing about sitting back and letting someone kill your family. And I also think that people are being very narrow in their reading of that passage. Do you think that Jesus was literally talking about how you should react in a slap-fight? Both 'an eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek' are about violence in general. You can take it as far as you like, I am just saying that in my interpretation it includes all violence.

[jckstraw72]

You can take it as far as you like, I am just saying that in my interpretation it includes all violence.


i wasnt responding specifically to you, but rather to the general idea I was getting from the thread. However, doesnt this statement include not responding while violence is done to your family?

[choirfiend]

Well, if you wouldnt sit back and let someone kill your family, then complete pacifism is not for you. A strict view of pacifism necessitates this.
from Websters
: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

Nonresistance= sitting back

[jckstraw72]

also, what about St. Constantine conquering by the symbol of the Cross?

[nutroll]

not true. One can be a peacemaker. One can do everything short of violence to convince another person to change in his mind and heart. This is not sitting back and allowing something to happen. It is being proactive in a non-violent way. You could attack the other person violently and still lose your family, or you could reason with them and still lose your family. It is a fallacy to think that violent means work better than non-violent means.

[jckstraw72]

It is a fallacy to think that violent means work better than non-violent means.

true, there is no answer for every situation. but i find it hard to believe that anyone could see violence being done to their loved ones and they would do nothing more than try to talk to the person. should we have talked hitler out of his plans? would that really work with a nutjob? its sometimes necessary to use force for the greater good.

[nutroll]

I don't want anyone to think that I am pardonning Hitler in any way, but a big part of the reason why Hitler was able to seize power and do what he did is that World War I left many Germans longing for a strong national party. And the lasting effects of World War II have rippled through history leading to more violence even afterward. I don't really know how Hitler could have been stopped once he seized power, as I am not a historian and don't pretend to be, but I do know that the US did sit by for a long time and let Hitler do what he did. It was only once we were attacked that going to war was able to gain any traction in the US. Should Hitler have been allowed to do what he did? No. Am I glad that he was stopped? Yes. Was there another way he could have been stopped? I simply don't know. Personally had I been there, I would have hid Jews in my attic and lied to protect them. I would have died myself to keep others from dying, but I don't think that I could ever take up arms and take another's life. That being said, I could never ask that someone do something that I would not do myself. Again I am not trying to change anyone's way of thinking, I am just trying to explain mine. I think people like myself get cast as nutjobs for being pacifists, and I just want people to know that there is a reason I believe what I believe.

[choirfiend]

not true. One can be a peacemaker. One can do everything short of violence to convince another person to change in his mind and heart. This is not sitting back and allowing something to happen. It is being proactive in a non-violent way. You could attack the other person violently and still lose your family, or you could reason with them and still lose your family. It is a fallacy to think that violent means work better than non-violent means.

I agree. But what you have said isn't true pacifism. And, if in the end, all non-violent means were exhausted, what would happen then?

[choirfiend]

Well, saying that one personally would not take up arms is one thing...but we have a military system set up that prevents the average citizen from having to take up arms. Do you not feel that the people who are soldiering out there for us are an extension of ourselves? If the solider Stephen from my parish kills on the field of battle in the defense of MY freedom, am I not responsible just as he is? It is my view that I am, and that we are interconnected. I cannot claim to be a true pacifist as long as there are people out there who will do the fighting for me. And the Church doesn't kick soliders out, but prays for them, so I will do the same.

[nutroll]

what I said is true pacifism. Non-resistance doesn't mean doing absolutely nothing. If I talk to someone, I am not resisting. If I jump in front of a bullet I am not resisting. I am accepting fully any violence that may come my way, I am merely drawing a line at doing anything violent. Pacifists aren't wimps we are not just sitting by letting bad things happen, we just won't add to the bloodshed. And if all non-violent means are exhausted, then we die if necessary. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

[nutroll]

I do believe that we share the burden of those who kill in our name. That is why I would never ask anyone to do that. That is why when I vote I vote for those who I think would not choose war over peace. I still grieve for those who are hurt, and those who die. I still pray for the armed forces with everyone else. Not because I support war and violence, but because I want peace.

[SteelDisciple]

Read the old testament...and some of the new testament..and then tell me we are suppose to be pacifists :P

To me..reading the bible...it's the opposite of that. WE are to be humble and fight when neccessary.

We are warriors.

[nutroll]

The Old Testament was violent. Jesus taught us that there was a better way. I can't off-hand think of an instance in the NT when Christians took up arms. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[choirfiend]

I dont support war and violence either. But sometimes it may be necessary, in this fallen world. Not ever just--but necessary. There's a difference in what you discuss, nutroll, and what pacifism in the strict sense means (as the Mennonites/Quakers practice it.)

[nutroll]

I can't speak for Mennonites and Quakers, to me true pacifism simply means no violence under any circumstances. And I do want to make it clear that I appreciate your point of view. If the best this world ever got was having countries that only went to war when it was 'necessary' it would still be a much better world than it is now.

[choirfiend]

Nutroll,

Thats the definition of pacifism that I am using--but it sounds very different from what you are talking about in your posts.

Rather than speak in generalities, the full extention of this practice must either be affirmed for the practice qualified. So, in the given circumstance that someone has entered your house and has told you that they are going to kill you and your family. Would you be willing to take lethal force against that person, if lethal force was going to be the only thing that would stop said person?

[nutroll]

no I would not

[choirfiend]

Ok. I have no problem with that answer (unless, perhaps, I was one of your family) but I do not think the Church asks all people in all situations to make the same answer. His will may be to continue to live, even if someone else desires my death. I lack the discernment to be able to claim which situations warrant which response--but the Church as a whole does allow both to occur and supports both equally (with either a funeral or the loving penitence required for the taking of a life.)

[nutroll]

I guess part of the problem is that the question was: "Are we called by Christ God to be pacifists." to me the answer is yes regardless of the Church's official position. I reject violence, but understand that the Church may make exceptions.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I am sorry, but my view of God is hardly one of a pacifist. A good read of the book Wild At Heart by John Eldredge would explain why I have this view of God. I am not saying to go wage war at all times, but God definitely does not call us to be pacifists.

[nutroll]

You are welcome to feel that way, but I disagree. And I think there is ample evidence to support my view, just as you feel there is evidence to support yours.

[Jebediah]

I am sorry, but my view of God is hardly one of a pacifist. A good read of the book Wild At Heart by John Eldredge would explain why I have this view of God. I am not saying to go wage war at all times, but God definitely does not call us to be pacifists.

And a good read of the Gospels might disagree with your protestant, quasi-New Age, feel good about being dangerous book selection. Your "view of God" is not the Gospel's or the witness of the Church's view of God. The Church was built on the blood of martyrs, not the conquests of warriors. Where in the Gospels does Christ tell us to be anything other than loving, non-judgmental, and non-violent? You are rather dangerously modeling God in your image.

Book Description
God designed men to be dangerous, says John Eldredge. Simply look at the dreams and desires written in the heart of every boy: To be a hero, to be a warrior, to live a life of adventure and risk. Sadly, most men abandon those dreams and desires-aided by a Christianity that feels like nothing more than pressure to be a "nice guy." It is no wonder that many men avoid church, and those who go are often passive and bored to death. In this provocative book, Eldredge gives women a look inside the true heart of a man and gives men permission to be what God designed them to be-dangerous, passionate, alive, and free.

[gzt]

some of those martyrs were soldiers. what got them in trouble was refusing to worship the emperor as a god or to make other pagan sacrifices. the accounts of their martyrdom are quite silent about whether they failed to perform other soldierly duties.

[Jebediah]

some of those martyrs were soldiers. what got them in trouble was refusing to worship the emperor as a god or to make other pagan sacrifices. the accounts of their martyrdom are quite silent about whether they failed to perform other soldierly duties.

Arguments from silence are baaaaad.

And...would those martyrs be saints without their martyrdom? What they did other than their martyrdom was not what made them holy...by that logic one could say that since St. Mary of Egypt was a harlot as well as a saint, then being a harlot is part of being saintly. Sorry, doesn't wash.

[nutroll]

I have to say that most of the lives of martyred soldiers I read said that at the very least they refused to fight after becoming Christian. I have never read a story of someone becoming a soldier after becoming Christian, or indees of any soldier saint who killed after coming to Christ.

[Dust and Ashes]

I have to say that most of the lives of martyred soldiers I read said that at the very least they refused to fight after becoming Christian. I have never read a story of someone becoming a soldier after becoming Christian, or indees of any soldier saint who killed after coming to Christ.

I remember reading recently in the Prologue about a group of soldiers who converted and they earned their martyrdom by trashing a pagan temple and smashing all the idols. Now I could get into some of that kind of "action."

[nutroll]

Don't get yourself arrested for breaking and entering or vandalism. Also, are there a lot of pagan temples in your area?

[Michael the Iconographer]

And a good read of the Gospels might disagree with your protestant, quasi-New Age, feel good about being dangerous book selection. Your "view of God" is not the Gospel's or the witness of the Church's view of God. The Church was built on the blood of martyrs, not the conquests of warriors. Where in the Gospels does Christ tell us to be anything other than loving, non-judgmental, and non-violent? You are rather dangerously modeling God in your image.

Book Description
God designed men to be dangerous, says John Eldredge. Simply look at the dreams and desires written in the heart of every boy: To be a hero, to be a warrior, to live a life of adventure and risk. Sadly, most men abandon those dreams and desires-aided by a Christianity that feels like nothing more than pressure to be a "nice guy." It is no wonder that many men avoid church, and those who go are often passive and bored to death. In this provocative book, Eldredge gives women a look inside the true heart of a man and gives men permission to be what God designed them to be-dangerous, passionate, alive, and free.

If you have read the book, or studied it at all you would realize you are wrong. My priest would tell you to it to your face. I love how you just label, label things without having any knowledge of what they say. Have you read any of the book at all, or studied what it says with an Orthodox priest who has a PhD in Theology? Or did you gleem that from a quick look up on Amazon.com? How educated is that? That sure wins any points with me! LOL! The fact is God is not some wimp who rolls over dead when the enemy faces him. He is a very strong God and one who wants us to fight for what we know to be right. Pacifists don't fight for anything, but rather roll over dead when the opponent says boo. That is hardly the God I know.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Oh, how I wish there were still negative reps that I could pass out! LOL!

[Dust and Ashes]

Don't get yourself arrested for breaking and entering or vandalism. Also, are there a lot of pagan temples in your area?

Well, there is the yoga parlor in the conference room across the hall from the one where we meet to pray Small Compline on Wednesdays and Saturdays. OrthodoxyUSA and I have looked at the Hindu idols through the window and thrown around the idea. ;) :D

[nutroll]

The fact is God is not some wimp who rolls over dead when the enemy faces him.

Actually, I think the crucifixion goes against this statement. There are better ways to fight than with our fists. Jesus knew better than any of us that the evil of this world cannot be defeated by means of violence. He could have been a political messiah, but he adamantly refused this. His power was not the power of this world, but the power of God. The God that I see in the NT is one of inner strength, not outer strength. Pacifism is not about letting people walk all over you. It is not about curling up in a corner and weeping, and people that characterize pacifists this way are liars. We fight for truth, we fight for what is right, but we do it through words, we do it by trying to reach the hearts and souls of others. I feel sad for anyone who sees that as weakness. It takes far more courage to witness to your faith no matter what the cost than to go around bullying others.

[InnerPhyre]

It takes more courage to face death because you love your enemies than it does to fight to save your life.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Actually, I think the crucifixion goes against this statement. There are better ways to fight than with our fists. Jesus knew better than any of us that the evil of this world cannot be defeated by means of violence. He could have been a political messiah, but he adamantly refused this. His power was not the power of this world, but the power of God. The God that I see in the NT is one of inner strength, not outer strength. Pacifism is not about letting people walk all over you. It is not about curling up in a corner and weeping, and people that characterize pacifists this way are liars. We fight for truth, we fight for what is right, but we do it through words, we do it by trying to reach the hearts and souls of others. I feel sad for anyone who sees that as weakness. It takes far more courage to witness to your faith no matter what the cost than to go around bullying others.

Really? Is that what the crucfixion tells you? The crucifixion tells me that Christ was not affraid to confront death with death, and in doing so he destroyed death. Destruction of something is hardly the act of a pacifist.

[Michael the Iconographer]

It takes more courage to face death because you love your enemies than it does to fight to save your life.

Facing death like Christ did is hardly the work of a pacifist.

[InnerPhyre]

Facing death like Christ did is hardly the work of a pacifist.


Then you and I disagree about the definition of the word :)

[nutroll]

It is precisely the work of a pacifist. If Jesus were a non-pacifist, he would have rightly taken what belonged to him, rulership of the world. He could have destroyed those who put him to death, but He did not. He did not because His victory was not of this world. His victory was to be achieved in death. Just as the victory of the martyrs was to be achieved in death. Maybe the problem is that you can't see strength in anything you see as weak. At the risk of repeating myself, pacifism is not weakness, it is not a moral failing, and it is not a lesser choice. Weakness is knowing that violence is wrong and resorting to it anyway.

[Dust and Ashes]

"Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law! " -- A.S. LaVey

[nutroll]

"Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law! " -- A.S. LaVey
I hope to God you are kidding with that last one.

[Dust and Ashes]

I hope to God you are kidding with that last one.

I just posted it for a little contrast. If the enemy teaches that then I'll take the position that contradicts it.

[nutroll]

I'm glad to hear that

[OrthoCanuck]

"Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law! " -- A.S. LaVey


For interested readers:

Anton Szandor LaVey is the founder of the Church of Satan and the author of the Satanic Bible (which I unfortunately read in my teens).


Just thought I'd add some context to the quote.

Peace.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

13 to 11 at this point..

I can't believe we are so divided on this issue.

Forgive me....

[nutroll]

To be honest, I am glad to see that so many people believe in pacifism, even with the caveat that there are exceptions to the rule. It makes me feel pretty good about the company I keep.

[Jebediah]

If you have read the book, or studied it at all you would realize you are wrong. My priest would tell you to it to your face. I love how you just label, label things without having any knowledge of what they say. Have you read any of the book at all, or studied what it says with an Orthodox priest who has a PhD in Theology? Or did you gleem that from a quick look up on Amazon.com? How educated is that? That sure wins any points with me! LOL! The fact is God is not some wimp who rolls over dead when the enemy faces him. He is a very strong God and one who wants us to fight for what we know to be right. Pacifists don't fight for anything, but rather roll over dead when the opponent says boo. That is hardly the God I know.

Oh noes! You loled at me! Whatever will I do!

I don't care who you studied the book with, and being in the midst of academia, PhDs don't impress me at all; some levels of stupidity and self-opinion only come with higher learning. The book is protestant, new agey, and feel good. The quote is from the description the book has of itself. God calls men to be dangerous and passionate? The word passionate should be a dead give-away for any Orthodox.

Define God as you want, all you want. The Bible and the teaching of the Church Fathers disagrees with you. You might want to reconsider your opinions when you use a modernist, protestant book and your own opinions as your source rather than the Desert Fathers or Church Fathers or saints...you think?

Oh, and btw: ROFL LOL ROFLCOPTER LOLLERSKATES CRY MORE NOOB

Look I can use moronic net-jargon, too! And it really helps my credibility!

As to the Gospel on violence:

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (5:9), “You have heard that it was said by them of old time: You shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” (5:21-22). “You have heard that it had been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (5:38), and “You have heard that it had been said: You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44), and he commanded his disciples saying: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (10:16)

“Recompense to no man evil for evil” (Rom 12:17)

Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not” (Rom 12:14)

“If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peacefully with all men” (Rom 12:18)

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal 5:22, 23)

“And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said: Lord, do you wish that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said: You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village” (Luke 9:54-56)

“And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again your sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:51-52)

As to the Fathers on violence:

Abba Anthony the Great of Egypt (http://www.monachos.net/monasticism/antony_spirituality.shtml):
'Our life and our death is with our neighbour. If we gain our brother, we have gained God, but if we scandalize our brother, we have sinned against Christ.'

Abba Isaiah:
He also said, 'When someone wishes to repay evil for evil, he can injure his brother's soul even by a single nod of the head.'

Abba Sisoes:
A brother who had been wronged by another brother came to see Abba Sisoes. He said to him, 'My brother has hurt me and I want to avenge myself.' The old man begged him, saying, 'No, my child, leave vengeance to God.' The brother said, 'I shall not rest until I have avenged myself.' The old man said, 'Brother, let us pray.' Then he stood up and said, 'God, we no longer need You to care for us, since we do justice for ourselves.' When he heard these words, the brother prostrated himself before the old man's feet and said, 'I will not longer seek justice from my brother. Forgive me, abba.'

So when modern protestant books and people with PhDs condlict with the scriptures and the Fathers, who are we to believe? This really should be a no-brainer. And again:

LOL ROFL LOLLERSKATES PWNED!

[nutroll]

couldn't have said it better myself, and didn't.

[InnerPhyre]

Abba Sisoes:
A brother who had been wronged by another brother came to see Abba Sisoes. He said to him, 'My brother has hurt me and I want to avenge myself.' The old man begged him, saying, 'No, my child, leave vengeance to God.' The brother said, 'I shall not rest until I have avenged myself.' The old man said, 'Brother, let us pray.' Then he stood up and said, 'God, we no longer need You to care for us, since we do justice for ourselves.' When he heard these words, the brother prostrated himself before the old man's feet and said, 'I will not longer seek justice from my brother. Forgive me, abba.'




I have never heard such wisdom.

[jckstraw72]

13 to 11 at this point..

I can't believe we are so divided on this issue.

Forgive me....

i think we are really pretty much in agreement. none of us are in support of just going out and doing violence, obviously. we seem to differ over using force to protect others, but at the core we all abhor violence.

[Vasya Davidovich]

The question is too loaded.

What is pacifism?

The avoidance of all violence, at all times, and a resolute opposition to all violence, no matter who perpetrates it?

Or a simple avoidance of war, where possible?

Or something else?

[Kolya]

The question is too loaded.

What is pacifism?

The avoidance of all violence, at all times, and a resolute opposition to all violence, no matter who perpetrates it?

Or a simple avoidance of war, where possible?

Or something else?

Good question!!! I think defending your country and family from evil aggressors is just, though Christ did say "Turn the other cheek".
I just hope I never have to find myself in the position of having to make that choice again. I did when I was a teen, and I refused the 'sword'.

[nutroll]

The question is too loaded.

What is pacifism?

The avoidance of all violence, at all times, and a resolute opposition to all violence, no matter who perpetrates it?

Or a simple avoidance of war, where possible?

Or something else?

I do think it is a loaded question, especially after participating in this thread. I think everyone has a different idea of what it means to be a pacifist. People even have very different ideas of how to interpret specific passages in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers. It goes to show that there is an extent to which we take away from the Scripture what we bring to it. I do think that it is a good question though in that it gets people talking about what they believe. I have enjoyed reading what others have to say, even when I didn't agree.

[Vasya Davidovich]

I do think it is a loaded question, especially after participating in this thread. I think everyone has a different idea of what it means to be a pacifist. People even have very different ideas of how to interpret specific passages in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers. It goes to show that there is an extent to which we take away from the Scripture what we bring to it. I do think that it is a good question though in that it gets people talking about what they believe. I have enjoyed reading what others have to say, even when I didn't agree.
I didn't bother reading the thread. The question was too loaded, too vague ... it was obvious that no resolution was going to be found, from the outset.

I was just hoping to have a chance to answer a poll. I love polls.

Though now I am intrigued. On what page did you express your opinion, Nutroll?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So, some obviously feel that Pacifism is ambiguous.

1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.

2.
a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.

b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

1: the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable

2: the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration


I don't see the ambiguity... I do see people claiming that self defense is justifiable, which honestly is secular and not Christian in origin. ~ IMHO

Forgive me...

[Vasya Davidovich]

So, some obviously feel that Pacifism is ambiguous.

I don't see the ambiguity... I do see people claiming that self defense is justifiable, which honestly is secular and not Christian in origin. ~ IMHO

Forgive me...
Whose definition, OrthodoxyUSA?

Citing Webster's or the OED's definition of pacifism does not change the fact that I may define it differently, or that our Serbian brother may define it differently, or that our Lebanese brother may define it differently.

The poll should have included such a definition.

[Jebediah]

Whose definition, OrthodoxyUSA?

Citing Webster's or the OED's definition of pacifism does not change the fact that I may define it differently, or that our Serbian brother may define it differently, or that our Lebanese brother may define it differently.

The poll should have included such a definition.

Well, I can define blue as red, doesn't mean it's true. A word can have as many definitions as there are people by this kind of reasoning. A word is defined by contemporary usage over the majority of people, which means Websters or OED is the proper source, not you or me or a person here or there. This stinks of multicultural pluralism...sorry, there is an objective reality out there, and it is the teaching of scripture and the Church, not practical worldliness.

As I said elsewhere: Get consistent or be hypocrites, but don't claim that God somehow makes exceptions because (boohoo) non-violence and poverty and such are not "workable". You might as well say humility isn't workable...after all, it's a modern corporate world, one has to compete and "play the game"...you just want to support your family, right? And how about that not lying thing? After all, maybe in billion to one odds you might have to lie to save your family's life! And after all, it's just not workable to be honest all the time...all the dishonest people would victimize you and take advantage of you!

:sick:

Of course playing by the rules gives the people who don't play by the rules an advantage...that's part of what makes evil so appealing. But that doesn't excuse it. Get consistent.

[Vasya Davidovich]

Well, I can define blue as red, doesn't mean it's true. A word can have as many definitions as there are people by this kind of reasoning. A word is defined by contemporary usage over the majority of people, which means Websters or OED is the proper source, not you or me or a person here or there. This stinks of multicultural pluralism...sorry, there is an objective reality out there, and it is the teaching of scripture and the Church, not practical worldliness.
While I grant you the reality of objective truth, Jebediah, there yet remains problems when one makes references to a large concept like "pacifism".

The point I was attempting to make is that some people interpret these concepts differently. And experience has taught me to avoid big issues where the concepts haven't been precisely defined from the outset.

Let us take your position, for example. Your definition of pacifism differs a little from mine, and frankly, while I would describe myself as a pacifist, I reject your brand of pacifism.

... You go on to talk of consistency vs. hypocrisy, with a tangential bit on lying ...

Obviously, you feel deeply about pacifism (or about hypocritical quasi-pacifists), and probably with good cause. However, I have a funny feeling that you stopped addressing my quote within the first few sentences of your response, and started haranguing a separate audience - perhaps those who had written earlier? I don't know... I didn't read those posts.

In any case, Jebediah, I feel your excitement and zeal has been a trifle misplaced.

Cordially yours,
Vasya.