Monks/Monastics vs Military Might: Is Self-Defense against Perversion Right?

[Gxg (G²)]

Had a recent conversation with priest today when we came back from helping to clear another member's yard of wood - and we were talking on the issue of where we should stand in regards to the decisions going on today politically.

We've had many discussions over the years on what our stance should be when it comes to culture but today, when talking on homosexuality and the rise of gay marriages/gay advocacy, it came up that it seems our culture is at a unique point in time to potentially open the door for an "Anything Goes!!!" mindset - one where children will not grow up with the option of being able to disagree with the same-sex lifestyle without being told they/their families are either bigoted or needing to adapt....and he noted that it seems to be getting beyond they point where others are simply allowed to disagree with others choosing to be gay - and instead be FORCED to say that being gay is right....or being punished for it.

In his view, it could easily go back to the days of Sodom/Gomorah in Genesis 18-20 or Judges 18 when men felt there was nothing wrong with demanding that others be sexually abused for the pleasure of others...and yet he felt that it was necessary for believers to be willing to die for their faith even if it came down to be forced to deny Christ or suffer.

Truthfully, part of me has wrestled with this for some time - for although I understand the concept of dying for one's faith, I also understand the concept that being prepared to be a martyr rather than fighting back is a blessing other Saints have lived out within the Church - and yet I have never really seen it to be the case that it's always a negative if/when believers chose to FIGHT Back if the laws allowed for others to physically harm believers/have their way. From what I've seen in history repeatedly, there are many examples where believers have never truly felt that they should do nothing when harm comes - for if that was the case, they'd not fight for children to not be legally subject to rape/molestation nor would they fight for others to be restrained in jail rather than allowed to go free.

The Church seems to have an astonishing history of people from varied backgrounds/differing responses to situations - with the military saints/warrior saints, such as of Alexander Peresvet (Russian Orthodox Christian monk who fought in a single combat with the Tatar champion Temir-murza ), Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki (more here) or Saint Mercurius and how he (as a soldier) chose to die for Christ. and later St. Alexander Nevsky in the Russian world...their lives differ radically from what occurred with Fr. Zosima and St. Mary of Egypt (her account being a touching story of a woman who finds God in the desert. . The Life of Saint Irene Chrysovalantou - amazing as it was - would not be the same in experience of walking out holiness as with what occurred in Perpetua, who lived during the time of a great persecution of Christianity at the turn of the third century in Carthage, Northern Africa (now Tunisia) and who truly encouraged the saints by her testimony, noted in "The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity", written before she was martyred in the time of Emperor Septimius Severus.

And how they acted differed vastly from the lifestyle of the monastics - from St.Anthony to St.Moses the Black and many others who seemed to not be in favor of utilizing the sword ...although if others have difference of thought, I'd love to hear sometime.

Part of me has been processing often whether or not the example of Warrior Monks was the more Biblical concept (i.e. others willing to fight when necessary even though they were devout monks/saints..from soldiers to guards/other things) - or if the other example of being willing to die/not resist is what to go with. Those for the latter have often noted that one should wonder what's so special about their lives that they have to fight to preserve it/that of others at all costs - but I also understand those of the former view who note that many godly freedoms came at the cost of being willing to protect others/promote justice.

And in reading Acts 16:16-40 with Paul demanding that he/Silas be treated properly after they were unjustly beaten (with the punishment to those violating that law being DEATH) so that others would not experience the same mistreatment, I cannot understand where it is the case that it's ungodly for others to fight back to protect themselves when they see their lives or loved ones threatened. You also have Luke 3:13-15 showing how soldiers seeking to serve the Lord were never condemned for being soldiers/charged to protect lives - in addition to Cornelius in Acts 10-11 and the Roman Centurion who was noted by Christ for having greater faith than all in Israel in Matthew 8/Luke 7:1-9...and the soldier from Acts 16 who got saved alongside the rest of his family...

Granted, where I currently struggle is in regards to passages of scripture where it seems others have often used to say a believer should NOT resist the government physically when it comes to wrong-doing.

1 Peter 2:21-23 is one passage that comes to mind...

Some have noted that nowhere [FONT=&quot]in scripture did Jesus, or His followers, the apostles, or the early Church joined the military, caused physical harm to any man, or used physical self-defence - and when I study the rest of God's Holy War and the examples of the Early Church, it seems that those issues were often debated strongly. For reference:[/FONT]

• CPF - War and the Early Church
• The Early Christian View of War and Military Service
• "Were the Church Fathers Pacifists? » First Thoughts | A First Things …" ( )

When reading I Peter 2 and what it says on submission to government - and considering how Peter noted that in a time of persecution against the Church - something I've had to consider is that the point about Peter’s discussion on Church Government may allow for one to see it as both being true while also not being for the mindset of supporting oppression of others.

For if the Law of God itself already discussed how INJUSTICES—-opressing the poor, ignoring the plight of the fatherless/widows, practicing sexual immorality, bribery, etc—-were all EVILS that God condemned in government and commanded his people to speak on....and it'd be silly to think that any Jew would take what Peter was saying to mean that all actions of a government should be submitted to. I Peter 2:13-25 may have a different context in mind that many may be missing when its discussing submitting to every institution.

Perhaps it was in the sense of when accused of wrong-doing—as that’s what Peter mentioned later on with the example of Christ and Him speaking out against evils, yet trusting in the Lord when He was put on trial for it/crucified by Divine Order…and likewise, as many believers were being blamed for the wrongs in their day, they were to trust the Lord when they were put on trial…knowing that God would vindicate them against slander.

For there’s something about reacting to accusation with defense that often makes one look more “guilty”..and acting with dignity seems to go far many times since people will trip on you. Peter did seem to make clear that God would give justice upon those who did wrong====and I do wonder if perhaps he had the mindset that many slaves had when they felt as if remaining as “slaves with good attitutes” was their only real option to make it to tommorrow……….instead of fighting back all the time, knowing that it would not be forever (just as it wasn’t forever for Christ when he was mistreated).

The audience he was speaking is in no way seen to be the one for ALL ages/situations—-as Paul already said in I Corinthians 7 that if one is a slave, they should SEEK their freedom..and in II Peter 3, Peter told the audience that they needed to listen to Paul in the scriptures he had written….so there is a degree of progression of thought. I've just never been able to read through the scriptures on what Paul/Peter noted - and assume that they were somehow for the thought that it was NEVER just for a slave or someone to fight back at ANY point ...even in times when they discussed things such as submission/changing corruption by godly examples Part of it automatically thinks back to how much mess occurred in times of slavery within the Americas - when others used the words of Paul and Peter to suggest that blacks were not allowed to either seek out freedom...or resist in any kind of way to the perversions of humanity they experienced (i.e. kidnapping, brutality, sexual exploitation, starvation, murder, etc.) daily - and often promoted IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.



Even as I am reading through the book Unbroken Circle: Linking Ancient African Christianity to the African-American Experience and remembering how the example of slaves connected with the Eastern Christian theme of suffering for the Faith despite their circumstances (more in #229 ), I am also reminded of how many chose to fight back - and because they fought back for their freedoms in the same way men fought in the American Revolution for independence (with many blacks fighting in that war ), I am able to be here today. They seemed to have more of a Warrior Monk mindset in being willing to fight for their freedom - . Although I can understand others saying believers should submit to injustices, part of me also sees why many felt it was necessary for them to resist in the name of righteousness/justice - even if it meant blood being shed at some point to end it. There are reasons why so many slave rebellions began at one point/others were fearful of what would happen if slaves woke up - and realized that they didn't HAVE to tolerate slavery (more shared in #34 / #47 ).....even though others (like Douglas Wilson) have advocated that the slaves themselves were wrong to promote resistance of abuse via resorting to violence/action (more shared in #64/#62 ) since it didn't promote the Gospel in His view. Same goes for what occurred with Native Americans harmed (#108 )...

I've seen others who go against the concept of self-defense against evil go to what Jesus says in Matthew 26:52…to Peter when saying, ”Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” But of course, Jesus was specifically stilling Peter and the others from preventing his necessary trip to the cross. Just prior to his betrayal and this incident, Jesus had said to the disciples (Luke 22:35-36) to "carry a sword" with them when traveling.

Many interpreters take this to be a metaphorical statement commanding the disciples to be armed spiritually to fight spiritual foes...as seen in Ephesians 6:10-17. In favor of this view: (1) In Luke 22:38, the disciples misunderstand Jesus' command and produce literal swords....and on this view, Jesus' response that "it is enough" is a rebuke, saying essentially, "Enough of this talk about swords."....and of course, just a few minutes later Jesus will again prohibit the use of a literal sword in Luke 22:49-51, Matthew 26:51-52, John 18:10-11, etc).

Others, however, take this command to have a literal sword for self-defense and protection from robbers. In support of this view: (a) The moneybag and knapsack and cloak in this same verse are literal, and so the sword must be taken literally as well...and Jesus disciples that "it is enough" actually approves the swords the disciples have as being enough...and Jesus's later rebuke in verses 49-51 only prohibits them from blocking his arrest and suffering in John 18:11, that is, from seeking to advance the Kingdom of God by force.

The very fact that the disciples possess swords suggests that Jesus has not prohibited them from carrying swords up till to this point....and Jesus never prohibited self defense.

For further review, one can investigate Mike Anderson's Ancient History Blog: Was Jesus a Militant ..

For anyone willing to share thought, Do you feel a believer is called to be prepared to die for their faith as the ONLY option when it comes to times where persecution arises - and injustice/violence flourishes - or do you feel believers are to also be prepared to defend their Faith via being willing to use the sword to protect other believers...and stop the massacre of lives/exploitation wherever they may see it?

Blessings....

​

 

[inconsequential]

Physically resisting rape would probably be ok.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

..it could easily go back to the days of Sodom/Gomorah in Genesis 18-20 or Judges 18 when men felt there was nothing wrong with demanding that others be sexually abused for the pleasure of others...

For clarification on where I was coming from when talking about willingness to resist and perversion...

​

Acts 19:19-30

23 And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. 24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana,[d] brought no small profit to the craftsmen. 25 He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: “Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. 26 Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. 27 So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed,[e] whom all Asia and the world worship.” 28 Now when they heard this, they were full of wrath and cried out, saying, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”

​

Reading this recently reminded me of things I studied/saw on the mission field with Migrant Farms where people were abused for the sake of profit in growing food...how others have gotten in trouble when talking on those issues instead of popular ones (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc.) as a focus. Notable examples are folks such as Dr. Martin Luther King and what he endured - as it was difficult enough when he was combating the systems of segregation/Jim Crow and other issues....but on some level, he was tolerated even by those opposed to him - and yet when he was quickly addressed when he switched to the economic aspects.... as in the last year of his life, King planned the Poor People's March, uniting poor blacks, whites, Latinos and native Americans in a multiracial coalition that sought to challenge the unfair distribution of wealth, employment and education - and that, combined with the denouncing of the Vietnam War/its injustice in ignoring the plight of the poor in the U.S, lost him much....but he was willing to endure it.

Faith impacts what's practical as a reflection of the spiritual - and believers often forget that some of the greatest persecutions/riots started when those who loved the Lord changed the way they used their resources/money ...doing things that no longer supported whatever system of economics was promoted by the world.

And that often seems to be the basis behind whatever ethical/moral issues come up in politics...just like it was with Demetrius in his protests against the prosperity of the Gospel/its implications for the ethics (and finance attached to it) that he promoted - (more discussed in the excellent book entitled World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age ). For the incident - probably near the end of Paul's ministry at Ephesus (see 20:1) and already following on the heels of other times where great disturbances occurred concerning the Way (Acts 12:18; Acts 17:6-8, 13) - shows how the gospel's continued spread throughout Asia was a threat that led others to violence eventually....for Christianity is a way of life, a new belief system with a new Lord at the center, and a new set of mores/ behavior patterns....a new culture...and because every culture survives through the dynamic of coercive conformity, the presence of a new way, which claims to be "the Way," will by definition create a disturbance.

I say that in light of the fact that the aggression that has been seeming to develop amongst those who are militant gays pushing the gay agenda (even as it concerns trying to get all churches to condone gay relationships as "normal" rather than something to condemn) have been shocking a lot of people....with others feeling that this current presidential administration has been actively using a bully pulpit to further a global GLBT agenda (even though other political figures have stood against it).

And others have noted bewilderment with seeing how they've never seen a President devote 2 entire terms to a cause the way President Obama has thrown himself whole heartedly into the GLBT activist cause

And yet for me, many of the things that the President has done are NOT SURPRISING TO ME - for he is a Coporatist (more shared here, here, here, and here ) - One needs to look no further with the corporatism issue than with what happened with MONSANTO (large agribusiness) - which the president promised to be against with GMOs not labeled...and then switched to having them now in charge of the FOOD supply despite their bad record/harming the environment. The same can be seen in his bailing out WallStreet. Again, the President is one who has proven himself to be owned/operated by the Corporations/those with the money (be it banks or big businesses) or funding him....and it was political to switch to supporting gays/lesbians as he did BEFORE the 2nd term election. As he did so and got support, they are his base - and thus, he's forced to go the WHOLE way with it - in many ways continuing an agenda that had zero to do with whether you're LEFT or Right since there are folks on both sides of the street supporting him on what he does. And any other thing done for other groups is political and benefits are secondary for other minority groups who helped him.

And when I see that, part of me had to stop/consider this: Seeing that the President is well-known for Corporatism, has it ever occurred to others that the entire issue of aggressively supporting the gay-rights movement - past the point of not allowing for violence on them or discrimination/mistreatment in the workplace and to the level of saying all HAVE to agree that same-sex relationships are seen as normal as heterosexual - isn't really even about being passionate for gays being treated equally as much as it is about ECONOMICS/support of big business/those who ensured he would come on top?

Again, the example of Acts 19:23-41 came to mind with Demetrius the silversmith in Ephesus and the Temple of Artemis..one of the 7 wonders of the world and a BIG attraction in Ephesus that made EXTREME amounts of money for all coming to visit. ..and interestingly enough, those idols were all celebrating sexuality since the Diana of the Ephesians was a combination of Artemis and the Semitic goddess Ashtoreth, patroness of the sexual instinct. Artemis was the goddess of the moon, and also the patron goddess of sexual desire - usually depicted as a lewd, many-breasted warrior-maiden. And thus, one can imagine how extensively sex was a BIG deal and how much it influenced the economics of the day....

Within that comes something interesting to consider - as Paul later wanted to address the issue but was kept from going into the riot - and yet those who opposed Paul recognized something very significant about his work and ministry: He was not “sacrilegious” (“a stealer of sacred things&#8221 nor was he denouncing their goddess exclusively. Specifically, Paul had not been preaching against the evils of Artemis-worship, nor trying to enact laws to get certain practices banned, nor call for boycotts against the craftsmen. He simply preached Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2)...and that simplicity of the Gospel/Christ at the center was enough to so impact people that they chose to cease worshipping a goddess of sexual immorality/foolish actions


Within that comes a lesson as we seek to win the lost and impact our cities/homes in the times we live in: “Taking a stand against sin” or “legislating morality” isn’t very effective for inspiring life-change in lost people…but living and sharing the Good News IS. And while morality will be something believers talk on, what often seems to do more damage than preaching against a sin is simply introducing people to Jesus as He was…and letting Him change them.

But with that comes knowing that preaching Christ will lead to challenging the economics based on sin by default. Again, it was an ECONOMIC issue that was the bedrock for anything he said about the equivalent of honoring spiritual desire for "Worship"/being treated properly - and in the same way, not many keep track of that.

Many have noted that all of the focus on the Gay Movement gaining ground by the president will always go back to supporting BIG business - for although churches are not universally required to marry any wanted such (including gays), the reality is that the BUSINESSES for VENDING are being impacted...for if they don't do wedding pictures or flower design/parties for gay -marriages, they can be sued and others push for more political power WHILE GIVING room for more wanting gay marriages to fill pockets. And big corporations will always want to find ways to get more influence for their businesses (and the other ones they fund) - with morality on sexuality being but one more way to do that. And when you're supported by the corporations, you HAVE to act in way that would help the corporations/businesses get more influence or power.

And for those seeking to preach the Gospel/change lives by showing Christ as He is, that will always be a signficant threat to the agendas of others in our times. Just follow the money trail like Hansel/Gretel did with bread-crumbs...for it ALWAYS lines up...for truly, the "love of money is the root of all kinds of evils" (I Timothy 6)..

For more:

• Big Business Increasingly Supports Gay Rights
• Same-Sex Marriage: Which Businesses Will Benefit?
• Gay marriages create wedding industry bliss- MSN Money
• Finding new business opportunities with same-sex marriage
• Gay marriage means big business for the wedding market | Money, Markets and Media ...
• The Economic Benefits of Gay Marriage | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour | PBS

That said, I do wonder how far many believers would be willing to go if realizing that the entire political system has shifted against them for economic gain and given ground to a morally corrupt stance (which supports others in power anyhow) - and if they would choose the path of peaceful submission unto perishing for the faith...or if they would actively choose to fight back.

There've already been instances in history where believers felt like they were left no options of truly being able to live life since they were constantly threatened with death and confiscation of property ( #60 /#61 ) - with no option but to fight back when their means of survival were taken out....and whereas many have romanticized it in saying from afar how proud they are of those believers suffering for the faith, many of the believers suffering have said that they need others to help them out establishing laws to protect them - while also being understanding of why others resort in equal aggression if/when it's shown to them.


If believers were no longer receiving protection or others who choose not to support the gay activist agenda have violence done against their businesses and their property harmed because they didn't agree with the system, would it be more biblical to choose the monastic way of handling things - or choose the warrior way of addressing it?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Physically resisting rape would probably be ok.

Why would that one be the one you'd say that being aggressive would be justified?

Also, I was planning on responding earlier after I got done with the last post - and yet I noticed where you edited out what you originally said. Any specific reason? For I thought it tied it originally with the OP..

On a side note, if I was in times where I saw someone being physically raped (or saw it where entire groups experienced that and the system allowed for it), you can bet I'd probably be like Django from "Django Unchained" in how I'd react to those doing so. Just being real. And in the event you didn't know about the film, it was truly a brilliant piece of work in what it sought to tackle ( pre-Civil War western centered around slavery) when considering how often people choose not to tackle issues from the past that impact our present and forget the lengths others would go to defend themselves/those they are charged to protect from injustice...

​

Physically resisting rape would probably be ok

I go back and forth with it often when wondering how to go about things...and in light of where you brought up characters you compared yourself to, I've done the same before in trying to process the battle I've had with leaning toward being militant and being pacifist (#31 ) - some of it shared before elsewhere, as seen here:

Is it zeal or militancy? Which begs the question is one better than the other..?

Proverbs 19:2


It is not good to have zeal without knowledge —
nor to be hasty and miss the way!

​

From what I understand, militancy can be an aspect of zeal - although when militancy is confused to be the sole expression of true zeal...and I mean militancy in the sense of aggression toward anything disagreeing with oneself...then that can be problematic, IMHO, I've found myself having a lot of problems with that lately - as I do wonder if I'd be more so in the camp of a monastic/monk wanting to live a life of peace (like a Charles Xavier based on Martin Luther King/Fredrick Douglass)...or more so in the camp of someone who wants peace but is willing to be very aggressive about it/get it by any means necessary (like a Magneto/Malcolm X who at one point was willing to use violence to achieve things). Like soldiers and the Saints who were in that position - not wanting to use violence but being willing to do so if called to..and yet having regret on it.

Or if perhaps I'd want to be a militant pacifist -as others described King. Militancy was never something automatically divorced from the work done by Civil Rights leaders, as even Dr.King was described as a Militant Pacifist by others in his day and was well respected by other militants.

For King, it was about discovering which has more strength: fighting via violence self-defense or aggressive submission. And for anyone ever saying militant pacifists can never get anything accomplished, I simply say look at King..as he was willing to die for it to make a difference we live in today - and of course, for white militants trying to harm his life and that of his family, he made it a point to have a weapon in his earlier life.( more at Lesson 6 :: A Threat to Justice Anywhere: War" ( ).

Interestingly enough, both King and Malcom X had convergence in many of their views of militancy and peace/violence together - and IMHO, St.Moses the Black would be a good example from the past to bring to mind when it comes to militancy being beneficial - as the man could be violent if he needed to be - and yet it was used to make others changed. Everytime I look at what is happening in the Gang culture and the music scene, it reminds me of how the only way to get rid of pimps is to transform them into priests - turning thugs into theologians and gangsters into god-fearers...and one of the reasons why doing Urban ministry has had been a blessing when remembering St. Moses the African/Black, a 4th-century Ethiopian who went from being a thug and a gang leader to becoming a monk, a priest, and finally, a martyr. Even though Moses was committed to the monastic life, once when a band of robbers attacked the monastery, Moses fought them, overpowered them and dragged them to chapel where the other monks were in prayer. He told his brother monks that he did not think it Christian to hurt the robbers, but asked what they thought should do with them. The robbers repented, converted and joined the monastery....and if that's not a positive form of militancy in action - I don't know what is

.
But I digress.

With militancy, if it is called for and necessary to match the aggression done in the culture, it may be good - but it must be done with wisdom. A person planning a battle strategy to deal with their enemies is not the same kind of militant as one who throws bombs into their own camp because they want to "root out the spies" in it - and think they were successful in "protecting" their own because they may've killed some enemies even though they damaged others in the process. Friendly Fire is never good.

On the same token, even for others wishing to use militancy, it can be misapplied if simpler/more practical approaches have not been used - such as conversation/dialouge . or even choosing to change the conversation in the use of terms so that both sides can understand one another rather than getting lost in translation. And with the life of a believer, that seems to be the same dynamic.

Ten days before his death, King argued before the Rabbinical Assembly in March of 1968 that "temporary segregation" -- the maintenance of certain exclusively black schools and businesses, for example -- may be necessary to prevent the loss of economic power that could result from complete integration. And in the last year of his life, King planned the Poor People's March, uniting poor blacks, whites, Latinos and native Americans in a multiracial coalition that sought to challenge the unfair distribution of wealth, employment and education. He made very plain he was for seperatism at one point when it was apparent that whites would not help the black community - arguing that a temporary segregation was necessary for blacks to take care of themselves in the absence of help from the government/larger community. While he rejected seperatism as the ultimate goal, he was very concerned with being integrated out of power...
(more shared here and shared here on his views).

King in his actions is easier understood when contrasting/comparing him with others who were often on the opposite side - such as Malcom X. What is fascinating historically is that both Malcom and Martin experienced convergence on issues similar to what was present in the Star Wars universe when it came to people in the Republic - be it the Jedi or heros from the Republic - realizing the ways that they were being played by people outside of the politics/only concerned about ruling.

Prospects For Freedom In 1965- Malcolm X

..................
Malcolm X - 1965 - the final year - evolution of a revolutionary​

If most people were aware of the history behind how X-Men developed, they'd be shocked.....Growing up, everytime I saw it, it reminded me of issues of discrimination/racial injustice and the dangers of what happens when one becomes a reverse-racist as opposed to seeking peace. Their characters always seemed to have depth.......especially as it concerns the relationship between Eric and Charles.

What fascinated me more so than anything else was how much it seemed very much like a reflection between the struggle for being proud of one's ethnicity and knowing how to address that. Wasn't surprising to see that whenever the battles between Charles (Professor X) and Eric (Magneto)/their respective sides would come up, in light of how the background of X-Men developed during the Civil Rights era and the days of Martin Luther King and Malcom X---one side for integration and the other for segration, one side feeling like differing groups could work together and another side feeling as if it could never work ( more here, here , here , here and here )

Many are not aware of how comic book creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had indeed come up with the X-Men concept while following the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements of 1960s that unfolded daily on their television screens.

Moreover, it turns out that the authors of the X-Men series were Jewish men (more shared here and here and here)---originally hiding their Jewish heritage by changing their names so that they could introduce ideas into a populace that initially would not have cared/taken it easy if hearing from people that they already hated since ALOT of anti-semitism existed at the time. It made a difference for Stan Lee to change his original name of 'Stanley Martin Lieber'..and for Kirby to change his name from Kurtzberg. For Kirby, one of his reasons was that he wanted originally to be able to sell his work to a number of different publishers at once under different names.

For to make a series explicitly on the struggles of Blacks/Jews in the 1960-1970s would be no small task. They were two white men who decided to tackle the oft-neglected problems of racism in America through the pages of fiction and symbolism (being certain in the racially charged 1960s to even use all white characters).

For more, an excellent article on such can be found under the name of Black Politics, X-Men, White Minds 05/08/2003.

​

​

​

 

[inconsequential]

Honestly, I saw that you had edited the OP and added the second post and I was already thinking my response may have been a bit self-absorbed. Being autistic, it's very difficult to not be that way and I try to limit how much me, myself and I that I put into things. Not to mention my brain being out of gas at the time. So, without reading your edits, I just changed it.

Resisting the cultural pressure to accept it is much more difficult because I've always struggled to conform and be like normal people but we're living in a time when "normal" isn't so normal so I'm starting to resist. I try to monitor what my son is taught at school regarding things like this and have told him, in an age appropriate way, that homosexual behavior goes against the natural order as given by God. I always stress that we love them and that their sin is no worse than ours, asking him if it would OK to steal just because a lot of people said it was.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Honestly, I saw that you had edited the OP and added the second post and I was already thinking my response may have been a bit self-absorbed. .

I didn't think so at all - although I did think it was personal since you involved yourself. One of the goals of discussion is for others to be personal in sharing where they may lean - and as said before, I have often had some of the same battles you've noted. There are days I go back & forth - at times wanting to be like a MLK in Militant Pacifism/changing hearts...but other times, being ready to do Malcolm X in promoting self-defense.

Being autistic, it's very difficult to not be that way and I try to limit how much me, myself and I that I put into things.

Not to mention my brain being out of gas at the time. So, without reading your edits, I just changed it.

Understood..

Resisting the cultural pressure to accept it is much more difficult because I've always struggled to conform and be like normal people but we're living in a time when "normal" isn't so normal so I'm starting to resist. I try to monitor what my son is taught at school regarding things like this and have told him, in an age appropriate way, that homosexual behavior goes against the natural order as given by God. I always stress that we love them and that their sin is no worse than ours, asking him if it would OK to steal just because a lot of people said it was

I think it's noteworthy how you have chosen to train your son - especially when considering how much it has been emphasized that people for sexual perversion are truly after how your kids see things...and on the issue, although I want my kids to be educated on what is true or not, part of me has also processed that I wouldn't take too kindly to anyone trying to force a view onto my kids.

Going to public school at one point and having to deal with sex education classes/teachers that had issues, it was not big to note where they taught one perspective and you as a believer advocated another - as many parents trained their kids at home to know that others would disagree and yet they were to stand by their stances (i.e. sexual immorality is wrong, adultery/inappropriate contentography and is wrong, shaking up/"free love" is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, marriage WITHOUT Christ is wrong, etc.). There's enough problems with having the culture trying to seduce children - but thankfully, others have resisted (more shared in #230 ).

But when it comes to the point where kids are forced to accept a view they don't agree with......I can see why others have chosen to resort to separatism/going to private schools where such is not allowed - or going to public schools where kids have freedom to disagree.

And if/when it got to the point where sexual perversions of all kinds arose where others demanded for kids to become engaged, I don't think I'd take the monastic route 100% - for I'm called by the Lord to protect my family.

To me, it'd be no different than living in the times of slavery/segregation - seeing abuses of multiple kinds (especially sexual ones - like inappropriately touching the wife of a slave as a slaver driver and telling them to submit to it or die.....or being a police officer ogling your spouse and threatening you if you as a black man were to resist since they can use the law to their advantage). They were being told that you as a slave just had to "accept it" since you were marginalized.......and in that time, I can understand why many fought back to change the system while also resisting those trying to impose those things onto them/their families.

But if to do such actions is always biblically wrong, I wrestle as to why that is the case. Again, studying the example of many of the early Church Fathers and how the Early Church operated, I do see a lot of variations in thought - and in keeping up with what others have noted, I've been pondering a lot on where my stances would lay.

• Pacifism: The Early Church | One In Jesus
• Just War Theory and Orthodox Christianity
• Orthodox Christian Soldiers - OrthodoxChristianity.net
• The Politics of the Cross Resurrected: Was the Early Church Pacifist?
• The Politics of the Cross Resurrected: Can a Disciple of Jesus Be a Theoretical Pacifist?

Although I disagree with many of his conclusions, As David J. Dunn said best:

As I said before, I am not a pacifist. I probably would kill in order to defend the life of somebody else; just as I would kill to defend myself for the sake of those who depend on me. But I would also weep over it. .....I do not think a Christian who is a private citizen should walk out the door prepared to do battle with the bad guys. Every Christian is a martyr in training. “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against…spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12 )

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Resisting the cultural pressure to accept it is much more difficult because I've always struggled to conform and be like normal people but we're living in a time when "normal" isn't so normal so I'm starting to resist..

Conforming isn't always negative....

 

[MrJim]

I'm coming from an anabaptist background and held to the "nonresistant" teaching (a bit different than "pacifism") for a number of years...until children came along. That seemed to mark a change in thought and attitude. I deal with this issue a lot, and it comes up often on a mennonite forum I frequent elsewhere. Generally my view comes down as I will not be passive in defense of the innocent whether my family or my neighbor. I am licensed and carry a firearm regularly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, one of the reasons St Alexander Nevsky is a saint, is because he defended his homeland from invaders. St Davit the Builder as well.

 

[inconsequential]

I think it can vary greatly from person to person how they can or should handle such situations. Personally, I try to avoid conflict at all costs and generally can't be provoked to violence unless it is in self-defense and there is no route of escape. Right thing, wrong reason. I'm this way because violence inflames a darkness in me that I would almost rather die than experience. I've been told it's my Saxon/Scandinavian heritage. Think ulfhednar.

I've trained with/under people who are so balanced that they can engage in serious melees and I'm not even sure it's sinful because they feel no malice towards their enemies. Think Kwai Chang Caine.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think it can vary greatly from person to person how they can or should handle such situations. Personally, I try to avoid conflict at all costs and generally can't be provoked to violence unless it is in self-defense and there is no route of escape. .

Where I'm at in life, I'd tend toward trying to find ways to escape having to resort to violence - and if necessary, trying to find ways to defuse situations with non-violent forms of self-defense. But I can still be provoked on some things if pushed far enough..

In regards to self-defense, there are many who frame their desire for skills in such as a matter of just being gun happy or ready for VENGENCE at the drop of a hat...and I'd rather be one of those people who chooses to learn how to defend myself as a means of protecting others - not satisfying my own personal lusts. I don't want to be like those people who choose a martial arts skill with the intention of learning how to kill or cripple someone as opposed to learning how to have mastery of the mind....and subdue enemies in self-defense if necessary without loving violence. Many don't know how to use violence without falling in love with it - if recalling things discussed from before in threads such as OT: President Obama's press conference and executive decision on gun laws ( #103/ #104 / #108 ).

Everyone wants to act as if they're in "Kill Bill" (amazing as that saga was) and beating up as much people as possible is the truest way of showing honor or that one is a superior fighter....but that's not accurate.

Within Martial Arts, this is something that's discussed often - as seen when considering a list of some of the best known martial arts styles.

Judo: Judo was developed as a style in Japan and has slowly become popular world over. The word 'Judo' literally means 'gentleness' or 'suppleness', ironically. It is a style which involves a lot of throwing, grappling and striking maneuvers along with joint locking and chocking techniques that can subdue an opponent. It involves powerful kicks and punches along with the use of weapons.

Founded in the 19th century by Kanō Jigorō, a Japanese martial arts expert and polymath, the central philosophy behind the creation of Judo could be called 'Principle of Least Action'. That is, it's designed to derive maximum efficiency, through as little effort as possible. It teaches you, how to use an opponent's force against him. Judo is undoubtedly one of the most effective styles, which can give you the edge in any combat scenario.

Aikido: Aikido literally means 'Unifying life force'. This martial arts style is unique in its philosophy. It is developed with the thought of neutralizing one's opponent, while taking care that he is not injured, as far as possible. An Aikido fighter uses and directs the momentum of an opponent against him. It involves a lot of grappling and throwing styles as well as joint locks. Developed by Japanese martial arts great Morihei Ueshiba, Aikido is unique in many ways. All the moves taught as part of Aikido training are such that the opponent's momentum is made to work against him. It consists of a series of attack and defense techniques which provide a complete arsenal for the peaceful warrior.

Taekwondo: Taekwondo is a Korean martial arts style which literally means 'Way of leg and fist'. It is a holistic martial art style which integrates meditation, sport and combat as its essential principles. It is one of the most popular arts, practiced world over. It involves almost all the traditional techniques of kicking, punching as well as joint locking, along with throwing.

Like most martial arts, Taekwondo too, has an origin in the Orient, specifically in the South Korean army. Compared to other arts, Taekwondo places a higher emphasis on kicking techniques and they form a major part of training. Besides sparring, throwing and self defense techniques, learning to break tiles, ice slabs, bricks and wooden boards are part of training.

Kick Boxing: Kick boxing, as the name suggests, is boxing integrated with kicking techniques. It is a popular sport in USA and is a good technique for self defense which involves full body contact. This is a modern self defense technique, created out of an amalgamation of various martial arts styles with various different regional versions. It fuses the kicking techniques of various arts with the punching techniques of classical boxing, making it a highly potent style of self defense.

Jiu Jitsu: Jiu Jitsu or Jujutsu which literally translates as 'way of yielding', is the original ancient Japanese martial arts style, involving armed and unarmed combat that was mastered by the 'Samurai'. It is rather a huge family of styles that have evolved from the original Jiu Jitsu. It is the most complete warrior training program designed to create human lethal weapons...Jujutsu emerged to serve the fighting techniques of the Samurai. Immobilization, throwing, strangling, choking, pinning and locking of joints are some of the moves that form the core of Jujutsu moves. It's one of the toughest arts to master and practitioners invest many years of their life to master it.

Kung Fu: Kung Fu or Wu Shu in Chinese, is a family of Chinese martial arts styles which have evolved over thousands of years as one of the most effective combative styles. It is a holistic style, that is more of a way of life. It involves the training of mind and body to create harmony of thought and action. Immortalized by the 'Kung Fu Panda' series of movies, this Chinese martial arts form is the most complete set of techniques that enable you to defend yourself and connect with the world on a spiritual level.

Karate: One more classic Japanese martial art that involves rapid leg thrusts, punching and open handed combat. Karate is a very aggressive style. Owing its origin to the Ryukyu islands near Japan, it is one of the most popular martial arts forms, practiced all over the world.

Some of the other modern mixed martial arts techniques are Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Each of these styles have a set of moves and techniques which need to be mastered one at a time.
​

Many people are seeking style of intervention/self-defense similar to Karate whereas others are using one similar to Aikido where you subdue an opponent without any harm..

Everyone assumes that one must rely upon armed violence in self-defense in order to protect yourself. However, there seems to be wisdom in realizing that there needs to be understanding that there are forms of protecting oneself that don't involve using arms - or violence. There's the method of de-escalation. De-escalation refers to behavior that is intended to escape the escalation of commitment bias. Since escalation of commitment often has the tenets of escalation of conflict, it can also refer to approaches in conflict resolution. This often involves techniques such as taking a time-out, and...is the use of voice, tone, and body language to calm a potentially violent situation before violence actually ensues. Terms such as 'verbal judo' are used in reference to de-escalation, because the verbal tactics are similar to the physical tactics in the martial art of judo.
__________________

Right thing, wrong reason. I'm this way because violence inflames a darkness in me that I would almost rather die than experience. I've been told it's my Saxon/Scandinavian heritage. Think ulfhednar

Can understand that....

For many people, choosing to go into violence is something they cannot ever entertain due to their own struggles of knowing they'd not be able to keep themselves back once they unleashed themselves. One of my friends is very similar in that regards....

When I asked my best bud/bro how he saw me, he noted that I was like Thomas Jefferson who was known to be a "man of contrasts" - a person who had goals and was an idealist whose beliefs collided with his personal life....and at times, what he held to as ideal/something he felt should be played out was put aside to do what seemed necessary/realistic in the moment (or, as another said, being “certainly a character of flexible values" ). Of course, he didn't mean that I was just like Jefferson - but he did note similarity in having a desire for one thing/often seeking to live that out but not always being successful.

I've trained with/under people who are so balanced that they can engage in serious melees and I'm not even sure it's sinful because they feel no malice towards their enemies. Think Kwai Chang Caine

For many, it's a Samurai mindset - where the concepts of Honor/Shame were a BIG deal (as with many things in Eastern culture) - and it wasn't seen as honorable to have malice toward your enemy even as you seek to defeat or restrain him. On a side note, it is interesting to see how there were other saints who were Samurais (with Japan already having amazing believers in her history) - and I can relate to others seeing themselves as Christian Samurai's ...or who, in essence, consider themselves "Kurisuchan" (クリスチャン&#20365, or a samurai who has the mind of a Christian - or the mind of Christ. ..and serve the Lord.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

well, one of the reasons St Alexander Nevsky is a saint, is because he defended his homeland from invaders. St Davit the Builder as well.

So true - as St. Alexander Nevsky did what seemed right in protecting his people from being taken advantage of by those who'd seek to do wrong....


Thanks for bringing up St David the Builder (of the Georgian Orthodox Church ) since he is a wonderful example - in light of his being considered the greatest and most successful Georgian ruler in history, who succeeded in driving the Seljuk Turks out of the country/bringing the land together. It was very inspiring seeing how he was not against the use of violence in light of injustice - and yet he was well respected because his humane treatment of the Muslim population, as well as the representatives of other religions and cultures, set a standard for tolerance in his multiethnic kingdom...something still celebrated in Georgian culture alongside other things pertaining to the Orthodox world.

• Transcaucasian Banknotes - Page 65 - Google Books Result
• From the Cradle of Wine: David the Builder Defeats Turks, Ushers in Golden Age

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm coming from an anabaptist background and held to the "nonresistant" teaching (a bit different than "pacifism") for a number of years...until children came along. .

That seemed to mark a change in thought and attitude.

Cool to know your background. I have some friends who are within the Anabaptist background and it's always a trip discussing with them - although I'm not certain as to what exactly you mean when you say "nonresistant" teaching being different from "pacifism" teaching. Would love to hear more as to what the differences are..

As it concerns what you say, it is interesting to consider how certain teachings are held until children come into our lives - and then we know what it means to be protectors.

I deal with this issue a lot, and it comes up often on a mennonite forum I frequent elsewhere. Generally my view comes down as I will not be passive in defense of the innocent whether my family or my neighbor. I am licensed and carry a firearm regularly

Right there with ya - and on the issue, I cannot see why it is a matter of loving your own life above the Lord if willing to defend the innocent.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I've trained with/under people who are so balanced that they can engage in serious melees and I'm not even sure it's sinful because they feel no malice towards their enemies. Think Kwai Chang Caine.

What exactly were you trained in?

 

[inconsequential]

What exactly were you trained in?

Shotokan as a teen, then later Tang Soo Do, Wing Chun/JKD with a smattering of SCARS and Krav Maga that I picked up from fellow practitioners. I love kung fu but have become more dependent on SCARS and Krav Maga since my back has deteriorated and I'm not as flexible as I used to be.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Shotokan as a teen, then later Tang Soo Do, Wing Chun/JKD with a smattering of SCARS and Krav Maga that I picked up from fellow practitioners. I love kung fu but have become more dependent on SCARS and Krav Maga since my back has deteriorated and I'm not as flexible as I used to be.

How did your back get to the point where it was messed up? Sorry to hear on that, by the way - as that has to stink.

But on the other fighting styles, did they emphasize the need to not use violence to diffuse situations?

 

[inconsequential]

I wrecked it playing football in school. It didn't bother me much for a long time but the last 10 years it has really gone downhill.

Tang Soo Do was the only style I studied in a formal school, the rest were with individuals or small groups who met informally and tended to focus on technical effectiveness rather than anything else. My son's TSD school really stresses conflict resolution and character building and the owner goes to our Church.

 

[Thekla]

Great thread

not too much time, but wanted to comment on a few things you've touched on:

* the variety of 'reactions' among those revered as Saints:
in this, it seems always staying close to and growing in Christ is tantamount - to be in the appropriate condition to hear which course to take (as in Luke 12:12).

* corporatism:
yes, I think that's something at the heart of it (the country/secular society). My dad used to say that divorce was 'acceptable' (with less focus on problem solving a troubled marriage) because of the addition to the GNP in breaking up one and creating two households. Note also the economic distress among the early Christians (and Paul's collection). I recall a convo. with an EO deacon, who noted that every convert family in his parish had an 'economic disaster/downturn' after converting.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I wrecked it playing football in school. It didn't bother me much for a long time but the last 10 years it has really gone downhill..

Ouch...

Tang Soo Do was the only style I studied in a formal school, the rest were with individuals or small groups who met informally and tended to focus on technical effectiveness rather than anything else. My son's TSD school really stresses conflict resolution and character building and the owner goes to our Church

Sweet to know...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Great thread

not too much time, but wanted to comment on a few things you've touched on:

* the variety of 'reactions' among those revered as Saints:
in this, it seems always staying close to and growing in Christ is tantamount - to be in the appropriate condition to hear which course to take (as in Luke 12:12).
.

Good point and thanks for raising it - as I do think it makes a difference to know that there can never be a rule established for how the Lord will call all to act in ALL things since there were many things which never seemed to be formula in the lives of the Saints ....and hearing the Lord can only occur when one's close enough to see what He may say - even if it means going against something another's not advocating.

Part of me has had to consider this when it comes to how serving Christ may cause others to actually turn on one another if they have differing views on how to serve the Lord (Luke 12:50-52 /Luke 12, Matthew 10:20-22 / Matthew 10 )- and with pacifism/monasticism vs. militancy, part of me ahs considered that it could end up being the case that you'd have believers on one side wishing to fight (or do whatever it took to protect their loves ones) while those on the other side would feel that resisting would be sin - and thus, divorce themselves from those believers willing to do something

I hope it'd not come to that - and with those I may disagree with, I hope it'd not be an issue where there'd be bad blood between believers for disagreeing on how to respond as a believer in the times they live in. But as you already see believers dividing over politics, part of me wonders how they would not be able to divide over a response like what the OP focuses on.

* corporatism:
yes, I think that's something at the heart of it (the country/secular society). My dad used to say that divorce was 'acceptable' (with less focus on problem solving a troubled marriage) because of the addition to the GNP in breaking up one and creating two households. Note also the economic distress among the early Christians (and Paul's collection). I recall a convo. with an EO deacon, who noted that every convert family in his parish had an 'economic disaster/downturn' after converting

What your dad said is truly spot on - as I never considered till now how much divorce courts and divorce advisors benefit economically more so from encouraging it than by helping people stay together.

How was it the case, as the deacon noted, that every convert family in the parish had economic downturn after converting? I ask in light of many others who didn't experience it..