War and Peace

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 9, 2021

Paidiske said:
That killing is evil entails that we should avoid war.

Except for the times you permit it. Except for when it comes to the state executing people (which Saint Paul tells us is their prerogative). Except when it comes to defending your home from the cruelty of others.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
This is not something I can understand from a Christian. If some lives are worth less, or some people deserve to die, that is the sort of attitude that fuels killing, violence and warfare. The narrative that some are "less" as human beings is what is used to justify killing. This is what we should stand against.

Except I’m not devaluing the lives of the Turks. I suggesting that they forfeited their lives when they decided a policy of extermination against an entire people. I am not suggesting Turks lives weigh less intrinsically, what I am suggesting is that if they commit an atrocity then yes, I prefer the lives of their victims more than the lives of the perpetrators.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
... a fairly mainstream Christian position. We're just arguing about whether doing it at huge volumes in the name of an ideology or state can somehow justify it.

Except it isn’t mainstream, at least not historically. It’s a novel position that reflects a time wherein people like us haven’t had to deal with these problems and can put off the burden to someone else. You’re comfortable with Australia having an Army and defending you, even though you decry their very existence as sinful. Likewise you have to decry most Christians throughout history who participated in this experiment we call civil society.

I’m not prepared to do that, to completely uproot and disregard what Christians before us did.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
I might hope that Christians would be called to lead a country because they should be convicted by their conscience that the use of a military is evil... and thus avoid it.

Hence, no Christian can righteously lead a country in your view. There should have been no Christian Kings. No Christian Prime ministers and certainly no Christian Presidents.

That’s a suicidal strategy and it ignores past precedent, that yes, good Christians can be those things.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
If it was justifiable then, why is it not justifiable now?

Because Western democracies have abandoned Christianity and want to institute secular regimes. I would also point out that pragmatically the invasions of the Middle East have not worked and only caused massive amounts of illegal immigration into Europe by displacing people in those countries. It would be better if all the Middle Eastern countries were ruled by dictators than the hell-holes they’ve devolved into now.

So it’s wrong for two reasons. Namely I don’t see how forcing western Democracy on Islamic countries is going to help when it hasn’t helped thus far. Secondly it causes all sorts of pragmatic problems.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
One could make a case for Cyprus, actually, although that did involve the sort of international pressure I've been arguing for. (And the peace has been sporadic, but at the moment membership of the EU seems to be helping).

Considering Cyprus was started by a military coup on the Island which involved the Turks responding in kind with only British military authority enforcing peace, this is hardly a case wherein pacifism has triumphed. The only reason there was not a prolonged conflict is due to a partial military occupation the border between the two sides of the Island. Were the British to remove themselves, you think the the Turks and Cypriots would get along?

I suppose if Turkey invaded the other half you would tell the Cypriots to leave it all to the Turks.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
I have allowed the state to kill in order to interrupt killing. I have specified that if at all possible the state ought to resort to something short of killing.

You still allow it. Is it evil? Is it a sin?

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
I refuse to engage in pointless speculative fiction. Nor do I need to, because this is not an argument about history, it's an argument about morality. And history is not the criterion for whether or not something is moral.

I’ve brought history into this from the very beginning as a crucial point of why I think certain conflicts have been justified. You keep insisting we don’t know and that there could have been a better path forward yet you refuse to provide examples or even ideas which seem reasonable.

I do have in mind a pragmatism here, not a complete indifference to real world concerns in the aspiration of a higher morality to the exclusion of everything else.

Still, it says something that you cannot even contest me on this point. Only refuse to respond.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
As an Anglican I can say that the history of Establishment (in England at least) provides us with some problematic history. I don't have to say we've been right or what we've done has been good, and can quite comfortably critique it. It probably helps that where I live, we're not Established (not a state church) and don't have that relationship to navigate, and that seems to me to be healthier for the church.

Yet your Church owes it’s fealty and existence to the Mother Church of England. Historically the Anglicans have participated in a lot of conflict. I don’t believe your Church existed in the time of the crusades but King Richard took part and did a pretty good job for the time he spent in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Even the Anglican Church honours warrior saints in its liturgical calender. Would you support removing them? Forbidding Anglican Anzac services which honour the fallen Australian New Zealand dead who launched an offensive against the Turks?

The only thing I regret about the Anzacs is that they didn’t succeed.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
As Yes, exactly. Claiming "God with us" while killing, or blessing instruments of death on behalf of the state is profound blasphemy, and we have been guilty of us.

I would say God was with the Armenians as they were being slaughtered, as they were defending their lives with the little they had. If you take God away from them and tell them that for killing their aggressor they are no better than the Turks and are likely doomed to hell, then we have two very different ideas of what Christianity actually is.

I do not believe Christianity has been a force for unremitted evil for its entire history only to be purified in the 21st century with talks of a pacifism and submissive Church.

Paidiske said:
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$
Irrelevant. We are not called to seek to establish a global ideology. We are called to love our neighbours, and we cannot do that while killing them.

We aren’t called to spread the Gospel to all corners of the world? News to me. That was Jesus’ first commandment after his resurrection and if the Church you belong to was spread by evil means what does that say about all the subsequent history of it? Anglo-Saxon Kings who converted to Christianity were sinning in retaining their position as King. King Alfred the Great sinned when he didn’t simply submit to pagan rule.

Now I would argue you can’t love your neighbour if you are dead and the very message of Christ about forgiveness and love would have been forgotten, had your Gospel been preached.

Paidiske · Jan 9, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Except for the times you permit it.

I have noted that there are times when it is a necessary evil, but it is still an evil.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Except I’m not devaluing the lives of the Turks. I suggesting that they forfeited their lives when they decided a policy of extermination against an entire people. I am not suggesting Turks lives weigh less intrinsically, what I am suggesting is that if they commit an atrocity then yes, I prefer the lives of their victims more than the lives of the perpetrators.

I think that's a very problematic position. Because the minute we allow that one life is more deserving than another, we devalue all of us, and provide the rationale for the evils against those seen as "lesser."

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Except it isn’t mainstream, at least not historically.

Of course it is. That's why promotion of abortion isn't allowed on this forum, for example; because it's been a mainstream Christian view that life is sacred and to kill it is wrong. We're just quibbling about particular applications of that principle.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
You’re comfortable with Australia having an Army and defending you, even though you decry their very existence as sinful.

"Comfortable" isn't the word I'd use. I accept it, but take every opportunity to point out that it is wrong, and vote for parties which have more pacifist policies, for example.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Hence, no Christian can righteously lead a country in your view. There should have been no Christian Kings. No Christian Prime ministers and certainly no Christian Presidents.

That's not the conclusion I draw from my premises. Christians can righteously lead a country, as long as they work for peace.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Considering Cyprus was started by a military coup on the Island

I read that it was started due to a treaty between England and the Ottoman Empire.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
this is hardly a case wherein pacifism has triumphed.

I did say it wasn't perfect, but simply that it was a territory which had been peacefully allowed to devolve from Muslim rule.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Were the British to remove themselves, you think the the Turks and Cypriots would get along?

Probably not, but that wasn't my point.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
You still allow it. Is it evil? Is it a sin?

Of course.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Yet your Church owes it’s fealty and existence to the Mother Church of England. Historically the Anglicans have participated in a lot of conflict.

Yes, I just acknowledged all of that. And pointed out that it was wrong.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Even the Anglican Church honours warrior saints in its liturgical calender. Would you support removing them?

Interesting question. Probably not. We have all sorts of problematic figures in the calendar, and it's probably better to receive their legacy critically than to ignore their history.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Forbidding Anglican Anzac services which honour the fallen Australian New Zealand dead who launched an offensive against the Turks?

I don't take ANZAC services, for this very reason. Very conveniently, I work in a parish church dedicated to St. Mark, and his day falls on ANZAC day in the western calendar, so I can give our patronal festival priority.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I do not believe Christianity has been a force for unremitted evil for its entire history

Nor is this what I have said. It's been a very mixed economy.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
We aren’t called to spread the Gospel to all corners of the world?

We're called to proclaim the gospel, to nurture faith, to baptise, to teach and so on. That's not the same as establishing a global ideology by force. I don't believe in gunpoint evangelism.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 9, 2021

Paidiske said:
I have noted that there are times when it is a necessary evil, but it is still an evil.

Yet you’re willing to justify a necessary evil in the case of a private individual being accosted, but when it comes to a people defending themselves from another people them defending themselves is out of the question and cannot be tolerated.

There is of course a different option, it isn’t a necessary evil because it isn’t evil in of itself.

Paidiske said:
I think that's a very problematic position. Because the minute we allow that one life is more deserving than another, we devalue all of us, and provide the rationale for the evils against those seen as "lesser."

In the case of an aggressor who is willing to kill for malign reasons which cannot be justified how is it problematic exactly? We aren’t devaluing life, but making a judgement based on circumstances of how to respond to a conflict. You’re content to demand Christians surrender everything they have and run away and rely on economic sanctions. I and most others are not, hence why we live in nations which big armies.

It’s your position which doesn’t allow for distinguishing between parties and conflating of all value. The Armenians are just as evil as the Turks in resisting their genocide, per this opinion.

Paidiske said:
Of course it is. That's why promotion of abortion isn't allowed on this forum, for example; because it's been a mainstream Christian view that life is sacred and to kill it is wrong. We're just quibbling about particular applications of that principle.

It’s the mainstream position that killing or taking innocent life is wrong. Or are you going to deny the Apostle? Are you going to deny centuries of Christians states enforcing the death penalty? My position is pretty Orthodox with what has come before. I would suggest the innovator between us is the one who is trying to suggest that it was never justified for Christians to take up arms.

I would be very hesitant to compare the life of the unborn to someone like Brenton Tarrant who deserves the death penalty.

Paidiske said:
"Comfortable" isn't the word I'd use. I accept it, but take every opportunity to point out that it is wrong, and vote for parties which have more pacifist policies, for example.

I think that’s a dangerous position, to deliberately undermine your own country and her defences. But then again, you argue that Christian Kings shouldn’t have had armies or use them, so why am I surprised.

Paidiske said:
That's not the conclusion I draw from my premises. Christians can righteously lead a country, as long as they work for peace.

Except they must do everything in their power to dismantle their nation’s military per your understanding or risk committing sin by building it up. Imagine if a Christian of your persuasion became President of the USA. China might be very happy but I think Europe and other countries would feel understandably nervous.

Paidiske said:
I read that it was started due to a treaty between England and the Ottoman Empire.

Turkish invasion of Cyprus - Wikipedia

Read the figures of the deaths and how the conflict was stopped. It wasn’t stopped because of a search for peace, it was stopped by brute force of the British occupying the border between the Turks and Cypriots. To this day there is an active military presence by Britain there, determined to keep both sides from fighting each other.

So it’s actually the opposite of what you’re suggesting. Military action has lead to peace in Cyprus. A tenuous peace I grant you, but still a peace that’s lasted since the 70s. Would you recommend the British disarm and leave?

Paidiske said:
I did say it wasn't perfect, but simply that it was a territory which had been peacefully allowed to devolve from Muslim rule.

It didn’t peacefully leave Ottoman rule. It was done contra to the desire of the Turks and thus they invaded Cyprus with the express aim of taking the whole of it for their own people.

Paidiske said:
I don't take ANZAC services, for this very reason. Very conveniently, I work in a parish church dedicated to St. Mark, and his day falls on ANZAC day in the western calendar, so I can give our patronal festival priority.

That’s a shame. I feel it a good thing to honour those men whose lives the Generals and Leaders of Australia/New Zealand and Britain threw away with a combination of bad tactics and entering a war they probably should have ignored.

Paidiske said:
Nor is this what I have said. It's been a very mixed economy.

Based on the standards you’ve upheld throughout this thread how is Christianity not guilty of horrendous evil? I remember hearing these sorts of arguments years ago from edgy internet Atheists who said Christianity was responsible for the majority of the world’s wars. I am them were idiots in our/their assessment of the actual history. I would deny any connection between Christianity and warfare and they would insist that every conflict had it’s root in religion.

If however we are attacking the idea of war itself as intrinsically evil, never justified, no matter the circumstances, no matter the results, no matter what happens then Christianity has a lot to answer for. In encouraging Kings to become Christians and bring with them their peoples into the faith. For defending Christian Europe from Islamic invasion for thousand plus years. For the crusades and many other conflicts.

That is a simplistic narrative that ignores specific details. Yet how could you say it’s merely a mixed bag?

Paidiske said:
We're called to proclaim the gospel, to nurture faith, to baptise, to teach and so on. That's not the same as establishing a global ideology by force. I don't believe in gunpoint evangelism.

Neither do, hence why when Kings became Christian and established empires they sent missionaries to convert the people they ruled. Much in the same way we are compelled by our secular authorities today to act and behave a certain way it’s no different from Christian authorities expecting their subjects to think and behave a certain way.

All I’ve argued is that your method, if it had been practiced would have meant death for Christian communities at large. To which you have no response other than to deny the hypothetical. That’s fine, you can do that, but it’s not like we don’t have historical examples of communities ruled by foreign religions.

The Zoroastrians in Persia did not flourish. The Samaritans have not flourished. Confucianism has not flourished. Greco-Roman Paganism has not flourished. You’ve brought up the example of Rome, but the key part of that was toleration. Rome mostly tolerated Christians. Mass purges like Diocletian’s were rare and were limited in the time they were implemented.

So it actually does matter who rules you. You can pretend otherwise, but we are the inheritors of a tradition that understood the world and lived in it. Our forebears were not idealists.

Paidiske · Jan 9, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Yet you’re willing to justify a necessary evil in the case of a private individual being accosted, but when it comes to a people defending themselves from another people them defending themselves is out of the question and cannot be tolerated.

At all times, what I have argued for is minimising the number of deaths. If you have an alternative to killing, always take the alternative.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
In the case of an aggressor who is willing to kill for malign reasons which cannot be justified how is it problematic exactly? We aren’t devaluing life, but making a judgement based on circumstances of how to respond to a conflict.

It's problematic because any time we indulge in ways of thinking which devalue, dehumanise, or in any way downplay the value and dignity of human beings, any human beings, we play into exactly the narratives which underpin justifications for violence and war (and many other evils, such as racism and eugenics) in the first place. This is something we should not be willing to do.

If our response to a conflict is not grounded in our very high regard for those engaged in that conflict, we are far more likely to end up perpetrating evil against them.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The Armenians are just as evil as the Turks in resisting their genocide, per this opinion.

That is the exact opposite of what I have said in this thread. I have said that all killing is wrong, but that the initiator of a conflict may be more culpable.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It’s the mainstream position that killing or taking innocent life is wrong.

That's not my understanding. I do not believe the apostle wrote approving of the death penalty, but simply noting its existence. I do not believe it was right for Christian states to enforce the death penalty. History is not justification for our actions. Innovation is not an issue if it has a sound ethical basis.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I would be very hesitant to compare the life of the unborn to someone like Brenton Tarrant who deserves the death penalty.

It's the same principle. Either life is sacred, humanity has intrinsic value and dignity, or it doesn't. We don't get to decide that only applies to people we like or approve of.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Turkish invasion of Cyprus - Wikipedia

I'm talking about before that, in the late 19th century.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Would you recommend the British disarm and leave?

I would recommend working towards a situation where it is safe to do that.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
That’s a shame. I feel it a good thing to honour those men whose lives the Generals and Leaders of Australia/New Zealand and Britain threw away with a combination of bad tactics and entering a war they probably should have ignored.

The problem is that too often ANZAC day services devolve into "war is good, the cause was righteous, the sacrifice was noble," type rhetoric. If we could have a service of mourning which in no way glorified war or military service, but lamented human foolishness and violence, I might consider that.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Based on the standards you’ve upheld throughout this thread how is Christianity not guilty of horrendous evil?

It is. It most patently and obviously is (or Christians are, at least, and they have been in the name of Christianity). All I'm saying is that that is not the whole story. There is good as well, which ought also to be acknowledged.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Our forebears were not idealists.

Some were, but too many weren't, hence the mess we've inherited. I hope coming generations can do better.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 11, 2021

Paidiske said:
At all times, what I have argued for is minimising the number of deaths. If you have an alternative to killing, always take the alternative.

Sometimes there is no alternative. Minimizing death in the extreme way you suggest only ensures that good people die.

Paidiske said:
It's problematic because any time we indulge in ways of thinking which devalue, dehumanise, or in any way downplay the value and dignity of human beings, any human beings, we play into exactly the narratives which underpin justifications for violence and war (and many other evils, such as racism and eugenics) in the first place. This is something we should not be willing to do.

If our response to a conflict is not grounded in our very high regard for those engaged in that conflict, we are far more likely to end up perpetrating evil against them.

What high regard do you think the Armenians should have had for the Turks who were slaughtering them?

Paidiske said:
That is the exact opposite of what I have said in this thread. I have said that all killing is wrong, but that the initiator of a conflict may be more culpable.

All killing/violence is wrong for any reason and there can be no justification for it (per your standard). Yet the Turks are somehow more culpable than the Armenians who retaliated with violent force? How do you reach this conclusion?

Paidiske said:
That's not my understanding. I do not believe the apostle wrote approving of the death penalty, but simply noting its existence. I do not believe it was right for Christian states to enforce the death penalty. History is not justification for our actions. Innovation is not an issue if it has a sound ethical basis.

For our benefit the state has the sword the Apostle says and he is quite correct. In fact they are God’s agent in handing out punishment to wrongdoers per Paul’s teaching. Hence why it’s good to distinguish between killing and murder. The former may be justified on reasonable grounds, the latter cannot be justified on any grounds.

It was not wrong for Christian states to enforce the death penalty in the case of real crimes. I would be willing to concede that when it was purely political, such as the execution of Sir Thomas More. That’s when Christian governments overstepped and committed egregious sin.

Paidiske said:
It's the same principle. Either life is sacred, humanity has intrinsic value and dignity, or it doesn't. We don't get to decide that only applies to people we like or approve of.

Except it’s not a strict binary. You’ve admitted yourself that it is justified to kill someone in defense of another person. If your binary is true why make an exception and how is it you can’t then expand that exception to certain mass human conflicts?

I mean, you’re willing to condemn the Armenians for fighting back against their own Genocide and say they were sinning. Surely you must see how absurd this is getting.

Paidiske said:
I'm talking about before that, in the late 19th century.

What specific incident? I asked for an example of a peaceful transition of power away from Islamic overlordship to independence. Cyprus is not an example of an Islamic nation willingly and peacefully giving up their pretended authority to a certain area or land. The Turks invaded and captured half of the Island during the coup. British intervention stopped further bloodshed through a strong miltary presence to keep both sides in check.

You will find that most of the Balkan countries achieved their independence through war and thsoe communities of Christians in Islamic countries will never get political power or their own national identity through peaceful means.

Paidiske said:
I would recommend working towards a situation where it is safe to do that.

Are you at all aware how aggressive Turkey is of late? Supporting Azerbaijan in the most recent conflict between them and Armenia. Allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to pass through their country to enter the European Union through Greece/Bulgaria. Making the Hagia Sophia a Mosque again. Still claiming to this day that they did nothing wrong with regards to the Armenians and claiming many Island that Greece owns?

What peaceful means would you recommend to counteract all of that? The only thing that keeps Turkey at bay today is the threat that if they go too hard and too fast they just might have war declared on them, by a coalition of European countries, Russia nd the like. I think the only thing that defends Turkey is NATO and they should absolutely be removed from that defensive pact. Would you recommend in the effort of peace that the British leave Cyprus? I hope the British remain there forever as far as the Cypriots are concerned.

Paidiske said:
The problem is that too often ANZAC day services devolve into "war is good, the cause was righteous, the sacrifice was noble," type rhetoric. If we could have a service of mourning which in no way glorified war or military service, but lamented human foolishness and violence, I might consider that.

I think it was a good thing to try and capture Gallipoli (and then maybe move on towards Constantinople). The only problem is that we failed and it was a wasted effort. Hence I’m inclined to honour their sacrifice and reason for fighting. This was during the same time the genocide was happening, though that was not the explicit or implicit reason our Anzacs helping to invade Gallipoli.

If we had won, for Turkey to capitulate, maybe we could have restored the Armenians and given other ethnics their independence within the Empire. Given Constantinople to Greece and left a world better. Instead we failed, sadly. The world is worse off for it.

Paidiske said:
It is. It most patently and obviously is (or Christians are, at least, and they have been in the name of Christianity). All I'm saying is that that is not the whole story. There is good as well, which ought also to be acknowledged.

But that good was not worth the cost right? Part of the foundation of Christendom rests on this foundation of the use of war. Not the entirety of it but certainly a significant part of. Hence why I've brought up so many historical examples. I don't see how pacifism would have made Christianity stronger, more moral or better off.

Paidiske said:
Some were, but too many weren't, hence the mess we've inherited. I hope coming generations can do better.

It’s thanks to the King Alfreds, Queen Isabellas, Basil IIs and various other non-idealist pacifists that we’ve inherited anything at all.

There’s room for personal pacifists and celibates within the Church. They keep the rest of us in check and tell us when something is truly abhorrent. But if every Christian were to do those things, there would be nothing within a single generation.

Paidiske · Jan 11, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What high regard do you think the Armenians should have had for the Turks who were slaughtering them?

They should have seen each one as a precious person for whom Christ willingly died.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Yet the Turks are somehow more culpable than the Armenians who retaliated with violent force? How do you reach this conclusion?

While participating in war is wrong, we may well lay more blame on the people who initiate the conflict.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Except it’s not a strict binary. You’ve admitted yourself that it is justified to kill someone in defense of another person. If your binary is true why make an exception and how is it you can’t then expand that exception to certain mass human conflicts?

Because a situation where one person who is a threat is being removed is containing the killing. But engaging in mass conflict will only increase the number of deaths.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I mean, you’re willing to condemn the Armenians for fighting back against their own Genocide and say they were sinning. Surely you must see how absurd this is getting.

I don't think it's absurd to insist that Christians cannot only value life when we feel like it.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What specific incident?

The Cyprus Convention in 1878 gave administrative control of Cyprus to Britain, in exchange for various supports that Britain gave the Ottoman Empire. It was not, strictly speaking, Cypriot independence, but it was a move away from Islamic rule to (nominally) Christian rule which occurred willingly and peacefully.

That that peace didn't hold completely during the 20th century doesn't undermine the example.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What peaceful means would you recommend to counteract all of that?

I am neither a diplomat nor an expert in local relations in that area, but I'm aware that there are various possibilities. Turkey still has an application for EU membership that has stalled. Turkey relies heavily on neighbouring countries economically. I'm quite certain our only option isn't war and the threat of war.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
But that good was not worth the cost right?

It's not that simple. The good things stand, and we can be grateful for them without finding them tainted. The evil things also stand, and we need to be able to be honest with ourselves in reckoning with them.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I don't see how pacifism would have made Christianity stronger, more moral or better off.

I can't see how an attitude that "It's right to kill to make ourselves stronger or better off," can possibly be moral.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
But if every Christian were to do those things, there would be nothing within a single generation.

This reminds me of the story - perhaps apocryphal - that St. Francis at one point managed to convert an entire village to his message of radical poverty, so that they all left off their farms and businesses and became travelling mendicants. Whereupon the saint is supposed to have exclaimed that the only thing worse than a village where no one repents is one where everyone does. (Or something to that effect, I'm going from memory).

The problem, though, with the St. Francis story as with your comment, is the acceptance of the status quo, the system within which the individual either repents or doesn't, as the only possible way for things to be; rather than seeing that radical repentance and change might be possible for the whole system.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 12, 2021

Paidiske said:
They should have seen each one as a precious person for whom Christ willingly died.

When someone is threatening your life and your entire people’s lives such detached discernment is nearly impossible at the moment, unless you’re a saint. Few are saints in their reaction to people, nor can we expect people facing death to think so highly of their persecutor and accept their persecutor’s actions.

Seeing value someone whose attempting to murder your entire family is not a bad thing. It just doesn’t take precedence over actually defending your family or neighbour. It doesn’t take precedence over justly defending oneself or country against an aggressor.

Paidiske said:
While participating in war is wrong, we may well lay more blame on the people who initiate the conflict.

You’re argument since the beginning has been that to retaliate is bad. What is the justification for saying that there is more blame on the aggressor than there is the defender?

Paidiske said:
Because a situation where one person who is a threat is being removed is containing the killing. But engaging in mass conflict will only increase the number of deaths.

Which in the case of the Armenian Genocide was an attempt to prolong mass death. What you effectively argue for, is that for mass death to be prevented as much as possible the aggressor must always be given into. Since his life is just as valuable as the person he wants to wrong, the victim in order to spare the life of his aggressor must not cause more death even if him retaliating offers a small chance at survival. While both options to the victim mean only death on a mass scale.

Am I reading your argument right? Because I find it abhorrent.

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75670194, member: 386627”] I don't think it's absurd to insist that Christians cannot only value life when we feel like it. [/QUOTE]

It’s absurd to value life in itself above all other considerations. Life has value in part because of how we choose to live our lives.

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75670194, member: 386627”] The Cyprus Convention in 1878 gave administrative control of Cyprus to Britain, in exchange for various supports that Britain gave the Ottoman Empire. It was not, strictly speaking, Cypriot independence, but it was a move away from Islamic rule to (nominally) Christian rule which occurred willingly and peacefully. That that peace didn't hold completely during the 20th century doesn't undermine the example. [/QUOTE]

You think the Ottomans would have given the British Cyprus if not for the military might of the Empire? Or that the British had not helped the Turks before this in beating Russia?

How does this count as a victory for pacifism when the forces of Empire and military are plainly at work in the background? The Sultan did not give up Cyprus of his own good will and nature and respect for Orthodox Christian Greeks.

Do you have any other example of pacifism’s victory in the Islamic world?

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75670194, member: 386627”] I am neither a diplomat nor an expert in local relations in that area, but I'm aware that there are various possibilities. Turkey still has an application for EU membership that has stalled. Turkey relies heavily on neighbouring countries economically. I'm quite certain our only option isn't war and the threat of war. [/QUOTE]

Aside from the notion of giving Turkey membership into the EU (they are neither European nor do they deserve to be constituted as part of Europe), tell me of a better way to keep Turkey in it’s place given how aggressive it has become? Maybe if secularism continued in Turkey you might have an argument, yet the recent shift towards Islamism makes me think you don’t understand the threat. Islam is an inherently militaristic religion. Jihad is part of the foundation and you don’t just wipe that instinct out with western notions of pacifism.

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75670194, member: 386627”] It's not that simple. The good things stand, and we can be grateful for them without finding them tainted. The evil things also stand, and we need to be able to be honest with ourselves in reckoning with them. [/QUOTE]

Throughout this thread you have argued that death is not worth the cost of the results it brought about. The Reconquista you say is not worth the cost of ten million lives despite the good it accomplished. I presume you would consider these goods – liberation of Christians under Islamic rule in Al-Andulus, the expulsion of Islamic law/government from Spain.

The good that resulted from the actions of Christians, Kings, Princes, Bishops and whomever, that was the result of fighting can never be worth the cost in your worldview. Hence why you find yourself having to say Alfred was wrong to resist Pagan invasion and defends his realm. Every example I’ve brought up of Christians using military force justly you have turned around and denied it’s goodness.

Why? Because it cost lives. Because there were other options (you never seem to identify these other options) . How then can you turn around and say the Kingdom of England wasn’t built on a foundation of blood? That the Church to which you belong can dissociate itself from that wickedness to a certain degree but also associate with it’s good history? The foundation, per your words must be regarded as rotten.

I think the solution is simple. There are good and bad aspects to war. We can identify when people went too far or didn’t have a good reason to fight. The Armenians had a good reason to resist Turkish attempts to exterminate them. Mussolini had bad reasons to invade Ethiopia.

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75670194, member: 386627”] I can't see how an attitude that "It's right to kill to make ourselves stronger or better off," can possibly be moral. [/QUOTE]

If you have a duty or charge, especially as a political leader it is your duty to do your best to leave it in a better state than it was before. A person who maintains the status quo is not regarded highly because problems go unsolved.

I’ve listed my reasons beforehand for why I think Pacifism would have doomed Christianity. You have no reply other than a vague hope that there would have been some other way. Given that God used the Church the way he did I’m inclined to think there was no other way. That the moment Christians came into political power it was necessary, no matter how much we might find it repellent to take on duties that are necessary to the functioning of society. Part of that meant enforcing justice and it also meant the use of military arms.

Hence why I said pacifism would not make us stronger. It could only serve to diminish Christians in a scenario like Christians found themselves living under in the Islamic world.

God’s strength is made in our weakness and when that happens it is far better than brute force. Hence why I find a religion like Islam utterly repellent. Christians and hence Christianity never resigned themselves to becoming only slaves or servants. God calls all sorts of people to himself. Philosophers, Kings and even Soldiers and Police.

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75670194, member: 386627”] This reminds me of the story - perhaps apocryphal - that St. Francis at one point managed to convert an entire village to his message of radical poverty, so that they all left off their farms and businesses and became travelling mendicants. Whereupon the saint is supposed to have exclaimed that the only thing worse than a village where no one repents is one where everyone does. (Or something to that effect, I'm going from memory).

The problem, though, with the St. Francis story as with your comment, is the acceptance of the status quo, the system within which the individual either repents or doesn't, as the only possible way for things to be; rather than seeing that radical repentance and change might be possible for the whole system. [/QUOTE]

The status quo is sometimes not as bad as it is made out to be. I can’t say that of the current liberal world order, but my point remains solid.

I don’t believe we are capable of radically repenting and changing the world. Things will get worse before Christ returns.

Paidiske · Jan 12, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
You’re argument since the beginning has been that to retaliate is bad. What is the justification for saying that there is more blame on the aggressor than there is the defender?

Not all bad things are equally bad, or to put that another way, not everyone caught up in evil is equally culpable.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What you effectively argue for, is that for mass death to be prevented as much as possible the aggressor must always be given into.

No. That is your extrapolation of my argument, but it is not my position.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
How does this count as a victory for pacifism when the forces of Empire and military are plainly at work in the background?

I never claimed it counted as a victory for pacifism. You asked for an example of a formerly Muslim-ruled territory which had been allowed to peaceably leave Muslim rule. I gave you one. I did not claim there were no forces of Empire etc. in the background; such would likely be impossible, since human history has always been shaped by the forces of various empires.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Maybe if secularism continued in Turkey you might have an argument, yet the recent shift towards Islamism makes me think you don’t understand the threat.

I understand that the realities which fuel Islamism are something which the west has the means to address, should we choose to do so.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Throughout this thread you have argued that death is not worth the cost of the results it brought about. The Reconquista you say is not worth the cost of ten million lives despite the good it accomplished. I presume you would consider these goods – liberation of Christians under Islamic rule in Al-Andulus, the expulsion of Islamic law/government from Spain.

Ah, then we have misunderstood one another. You said something about Christianity not having been a force for unremitted evil, and I agreed. Christianity (or Christians) have done many good things, which are not negated by the evil Christians have also done. I was not, there, talking about things which were the direct outcome of war, but simply things which were good in and of themselves. We have both, good and evil actions, interwoven through our history. It's not all one or the other.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Every example I’ve brought up of Christians using military force justly you have turned around and denied it’s goodness.

Yes. Because you cannot kill your neighbour and call that good. There is no goodness in dealing death.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
How then can you turn around and say the Kingdom of England wasn’t built on a foundation of blood?

I never made such a claim.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
That the Church to which you belong can dissociate itself from that wickedness to a certain degree but also associate with it’s good history? The foundation, per your words must be regarded as rotten.

I have no problem accepting that the Church - as basically a bunch of humans, with all our sin, frailty, fallenness, and fallibility - has been wicked and done wicked things. In fact, it's one of my basic premises of the Church; it is (in an adaptation of Luther's famous phrase), simultaneously justified and a sinner. Our task is to be faithful to what Christ and the Spirit work in and through the Church, while always being ready to repent of the evil which is also there.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
There are good and bad aspects to war.

No. This I can never agree with. There is no "good" in mass killing, maiming, terrorising and destruction.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If you have a duty or charge, especially as a political leader it is your duty to do your best to leave it in a better state than it was before.

Sure. Can't do that by killing people. By definition, lots of dead people is not a "better state" than those people being able to live.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
God’s strength is made in our weakness and when that happens it is far better than brute force.

That would seem to be an argument against war, the use of "brute force."

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I don’t believe we are capable of radically repenting and changing the world.

And I believe that the Church exists in order to demonstrate exactly this possibility. We are meant to be sign, instrument and foretaste of the reign of God, in which the status quo is completely upended and radical change is possible. We are meant to be the living proof, the community which shows the world what Christ offers. This is why radical commitment to the values of the gospel is necessary, because otherwise, we aren't that living sign at all; we become (how did one poet put it?) a scarecrow pointing nowhere.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 12, 2021

Paidiske said:
Not all bad things are equally bad, or to put that another way, not everyone caught up in evil is equally culpable.

I actually agree that not every action is equal.

Paidiske said:
No. That is your extrapolation of my argument, but it is not my position.

It follows from the proposition that mass death is always bad. If the Armenians can limit the mass death of people by surrendering and dying themselves it means a better outcome right? Since they have no right to attack back on the basis that it would cause even more death.

It follows logically.

Paidiske said:
I never claimed it counted as a victory for pacifism. You asked for an example of a formerly Muslim-ruled territory which had been allowed to peaceably leave Muslim rule. I gave you one. I did not claim there were no forces of Empire etc. in the background; such would likely be impossible, since human history has always been shaped by the forces of various empires.

Except it wasn’t peaceful. It was built on the foundation of Crimean war and British military interests in the Mediterranean.

Paidiske said:
I understand that the realities which fuel Islamism are something which the west has the means to address, should we choose to do so.

Address how exactly? Economic sanctions? I suppose you would like the Greeks and Bulgarians to disarm themselves and give up a military presence at the border with Turkey but that wouldn’t be good or wise now would it?

Paidiske said:
Ah, then we have misunderstood one another. You said something about Christianity not having been a force for unremitted evil, and I agreed. Christianity (or Christians) have done many good things, which are not negated by the evil Christians have also done. I was not, there, talking about things which were the direct outcome of war, but simply things which were good in and of themselves. We have both, good and evil actions, interwoven through our history. It's not all one or the other.

My point is that the Christianity you belong to was built ona foundation which was not worth the cost. The death of Guthred’s men was not worth the cost of Alfred the great winning. Hence all subsequent foundations built on that victory, the Church of England, the Kingdom of England and etc. were built on an evil foundation. You can try to distinguish between the good and bad yet you are comfortable with the results of Alfred winning and the Church England eventually coming into existence.

Paidiske said:
Yes. Because you cannot kill your neighbour and call that good. There is no goodness in dealing death.

If it is to defend your brother and sisters in the faith from slaughter, yes it is good.

Paidiske said:
No. This I can never agree with. There is no "good" in mass killing, maiming, terrorising and destruction.

Then you allow the slaughter of innocents since you forbid Christians to defend themselves. That’s all there is to it.

Paidiske said:
Sure. Can't do that by killing people. By definition, lots of dead people is not a "better state" than those people being able to live.

Spain was probably better off with Franco than it was under the Republicans. Unless you think Communism and slaughtering clergy and nuns is a good thing.

Paidiske said:
That would seem to be an argument against war, the use of "brute force."

I’m not for war unconditionally. Never have been. I’ve always admired Christian resistance to Rome and most things it stood for. I cannot say that attitude would have benefitted Christians in other later scenarios. Like the onslaught of Islam or the Viking invasions. Had Christians given up their duty to fight for themselves and rested merely on meekness we would not have a Christian Europe.

Also before you suggest we don’t know that. Try producing an accurate scenario of a Pagan King converting to Christianity and then being told he cannot fight for any reason whatsoever. Christianity never outright forbade fighting, but it did impose limits. People could no longer just war with another tribe to show who was strongest. You needed a good reason to go to war. That’s how we know most conflicts have been unjustified. But not all conflicts have been.

Paidiske said:
And I believe that the Church exists in order to demonstrate exactly this possibility. We are meant to be sign, instrument and foretaste of the reign of God, in which the status quo is completely upended and radical change is possible. We are meant to be the living proof, the community which shows the world what Christ offers. This is why radical commitment to the values of the gospel is necessary, because otherwise, we aren't that living sign at all; we become (how did one poet put it?) a scarecrow pointing nowhere.

In which case the Christianity you argue for would have no influence on the minds of men. It would never have been the zeitgeist by which Christian Europe flourished.

What is a radical commitment to the Gospel? Is it for there to be no Christians in power? Is it for no Christians to be in banking or to seek to earn a better life through investment? Is it that everyone should be a monastic since celibacy is a higher and better calling than sexual release? This attitude forgets the laity,that they have their role in the status quo of society and part of that role means defending the institutions which they come into.

The status quo will only change when Christ returns. We might seek to make heaven on Earth but it must be done with the recognition that things will get worse before the end than they will get better.

Paidiske · Jan 12, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It follows from the proposition that mass death is always bad. If the Armenians can limit the mass death of people by surrendering and dying themselves it means a better outcome right? Since they have no right to attack back on the basis that it would cause even more death.

It follows logically.

Only if we're locked into a binary of kill or surrender. I reject the binary as false.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Except it wasn’t peaceful. It was built on the foundation of Crimean war and British military interests in the Mediterranean.

It didn't involve the Cypriots having to fight their way free of the Ottomon Empire, though. Yes, those other things were in the background; but it could just as well have been other persuasive forms of pressure.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Address how exactly?

There are a tonne of resources out there on counter-radicalisation, if you're interested.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
My point is that the Christianity you belong to was built ona foundation which was not worth the cost. The death of Guthred’s men was not worth the cost of Alfred the great winning. Hence all subsequent foundations built on that victory, the Church of England, the Kingdom of England and etc. were built on an evil foundation. You can try to distinguish between the good and bad yet you are comfortable with the results of Alfred winning and the Church England eventually coming into existence.

History is past. It's not a question of being "comfortable" or not, but what happened, happened and can't be changed. Our interest is with the present and the future.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If it is to defend your brother and sisters in the faith from slaughter, yes it is good.

No. Sorry. You cannot justify evil deeds by good ends. At best you might try to claim it was the least-worst, necessary-evil option, (always a questionable claim), but it is still evil.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Then you allow the slaughter of innocents since you forbid Christians to defend themselves. That’s all there is to it.

Again, I reject this as a false binary.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
People could no longer just war with another tribe to show who was strongest.

Oh please. Of course that went on; just people found flimsy excuses to justify their warring (and mostly ignored the required penances afterwards).

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
In which case the Christianity you argue for would have no influence on the minds of men. It would never have been the zeitgeist by which Christian Europe flourished.

Or it might have been found even more compelling than it was.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What is a radical commitment to the Gospel?

It is creating communities of Christians who live their life radically by the values of the reign of God. That will look different in different situations and I can't dictate, from here, what it should look like, but some basic contours are clear; a radically Christian community will not treat life cheaply, and will not honour killing. It will value the contribution and uniqueness of each person, and seek the flourishing of all. It will not repress or exploit anyone, but nurture, encourage, and allow each a degree of freedom in following their vocations. (For a start).

That is not directly to do with power, or economics, or celibacy or marriage, or secular citizenship but will indirectly shape the ways we engage with all of those things.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The status quo will only change when Christ returns.

Here we bump up against our basic disagreement about eschatology. My experience of an already-inaugurated eschatology says that the status quo is already changing where the reign of God is breaking into the world (which is meant to be first and foremost the Church). We are not waiting for a future event, but we are meant to be participating in a present process.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 14, 2021

Paidiske said:
Only if we're locked into a binary of kill or surrender. I reject the binary as false.

Reject it all you like, but it is a real binary that has occurred many times throughout history. In the Armenian Genocide but elsewhere as well. That you cannot deal with this scenario per your pacifism shows me the quality of your thoughts here.

What would you have anyone in this scenario do, per your standard that mass death is unacceptable? Faced with a foe who wants nothing more than your destruction are you then not forced to sacrifice the lives of the defenders rather than lose a single of the attackers lives?

Paidiske said:
It didn't involve the Cypriots having to fight their way free of the Ottomon Empire, though. Yes, those other things were in the background; but it could just as well have been other persuasive forms of pressure.

When the Cypriots got true independence the Turks rejected it and invaded. They didn’t want an independent Cyprus which could join with it’s enemy Greece. You cannot ignore the military foundations or forces at play that lead to the British acquiring Cyprus for a brief time. If the British Empire were a pacifist empire they would never have acquired Cyprus. In fact they wouldn’t have an empire or a Kingdom at all.

Paidiske said:
There are a tonne of resources out there on counter-radicalisation, if you're interested.

Plenty of Muslims willing to kill for Allah and burn all of that material. Handing a pamphlet to an ISIS Jihadi probably isn’t going to convince him.

Paidiske said:
History is past. It's not a question of being "comfortable" or not, but what happened, happened and can't be changed. Our interest is with the present and the future.

This would be like saying the New Testament was in the past. What matters is the future and the present. I presume you would not be comfortable with indicting the Apostles or ignoring their history, along with the history of Israel and our Lord. Why then should we neglect the history post that? Regard it of no-importance in defining Christianity as it stands today?

This divide in our opinions goes merely beyond pacifism and non-pacifism it seems, to the very Idea of what Christianity itself is.

Paidiske said:
No. Sorry. You cannot justify evil deeds by good ends. At best you might try to claim it was the least-worst, necessary-evil option, (always a questionable claim), but it is still evil.

Demonstrate how defending your family and neighbour (for what else is a nation?) is evil. You keep saying it’s evil, but you’ve never demonstrated it.

Paidiske said:
Oh please. Of course that went on; just people found flimsy excuses to justify their warring (and mostly ignored the required penances afterwards).

You could look at it that way. Or you could look at it is a necessary development within the understanding of how warfare was to be conducted. A new standard instead of the older pagan standard of rule entirely by strength.

I won’t deny that Christians also ruled by strength and often had bad reasons for launching war. Yet it wasn’t as if any Christian could simply claim the right of conquest like Ghenghis Khan. That development of law, that expectation that Christian monarchs should not fight each other, was essential to the world we have today. It was a moderating influence.

If you don’t believe even that of Christianity, that it provided a moderating force, rules and limitations of what is and what is not acceptable (even if they weren’t always obeyed), what good did Christianity accomplish? Is the secular critique of our religion that it was the cause of most wars true? That only secular enlightenment dissolved conflict where Christianity was powerless too?

I don’t buy that and I don’t think you do either.

Paidiske said:
Or it might have been found even more compelling than it was.

I doubt it. Part of the reason Christianity was compelling was because of the legacy of Rome. By transforming Rome and making it Christian by the end of both Eastern and Western Empires we forever tied the Idea of Rome to Christianity, for good and ill.

How would Christianity possibly appeal to a Germanic tribe surrounded by enemies in the 8th century if they were told it was impermissible for them to fight in all circumstances? A few might convert, but no more than that. Kings would not risk their territory to such an ideology. And rightfully so, because that is to abandon the duty of a King to defend his people.

Paidiske said:
It is creating communities of Christians who live their life radically by the values of the reign of God. That will look different in different situations and I can't dictate, from here, what it should look like, but some basic contours are clear; a radically Christian community will not treat life cheaply, and will not honour killing. It will value the contribution and uniqueness of each person, and seek the flourishing of all. It will not repress or exploit anyone, but nurture, encourage, and allow each a degree of freedom in following their vocations. (For a start).

That is not directly to do with power, or economics, or celibacy or marriage, or secular citizenship but will indirectly shape the ways we engage with all of those things.

We have communities within Christendom who live lives radically dedicated to Christ. They’re called the Amish and Monastics. They’re not called pacifists who participate in secular society and surrender every value to it. I would not call yours a radical commitment to Christ or God’s reign, as much as I would a surrender to the secular society around you.

But that’s a topic for another thread I suspect and gets us away from the main topic of violence and warfare.

Paidiske said:
Here we bump up against our basic disagreement about eschatology. My experience of an already-inaugurated eschatology says that the status quo is already changing where the reign of God is breaking into the world (which is meant to be first and foremost the Church). We are not waiting for a future event, but we are meant to be participating in a present process.

If the current year is what you think the reign of God looks like I almost shudder. People continue to loose faith or their Christianity has been turned into a bastardized version thereof. Governments are implementing systems like the Chinese are to control their citizen’s behaviour from birth. Christian morality is being abandoned in favour of a secular morality that at it’s core is more ruthless and less forgiving that anything Christians have done.

As humanity advances, are we really inaugurating God’s Kingdom ourselves? Or are we just piling sin upon sin?

Paidiske · Jan 14, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What would you have anyone in this scenario do, per your standard that mass death is unacceptable? Faced with a foe who wants nothing more than your destruction are you then not forced to sacrifice the lives of the defenders rather than lose a single of the attackers lives?

As I keep saying, a truly pacifist system would have been working on the situation, and the relationships, long before it got to that point.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Plenty of Muslims willing to kill for Allah and burn all of that material. Handing a pamphlet to an ISIS Jihadi probably isn’t going to convince him.

I was suggesting the material for you, not them. While I am not an expert in counter-radicalisation, I know that it rests on building authentic relationships, not propaganda material.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
This would be like saying the New Testament was in the past. What matters is the future and the present. I presume you would not be comfortable with indicting the Apostles or ignoring their history, along with the history of Israel and our Lord. Why then should we neglect the history post that? Regard it of no-importance in defining Christianity as it stands today?

Even the New Testament reflects some things that, while we might acknowledge as part of our history, we might find inappropriate to repeat. It's not a matter of neglecting history - in fact we ought know our history well as a source of wisdom - but that we don't need to be locked into repeating the mistakes of the past.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Demonstrate how defending your family and neighbour (for what else is a nation?) is evil. You keep saying it’s evil, but you’ve never demonstrated it.

If every human being, as a divine image-bearer, as a locus of potential for God's presence and grace, is precious beyond measure, then killing that person is an act of destruction and despair of God that goes against absolutely everything the gospel is on about, everything Christ came to accomplish. It is a denial and defacement of God's good creation. It is absolutely evil.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If you don’t believe even that of Christianity, that it provided a moderating force, rules and limitations of what is and what is not acceptable (even if they weren’t always obeyed), what good did Christianity accomplish?

Well, it did inspire a pacifist movement...

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Is the secular critique of our religion that it was the cause of most wars true? That only secular enlightenment dissolved conflict where Christianity was powerless too?

No, I don't think so. I don't think Christianity caused most wars, but I think most wars conducted by Christians were in situations where Christianity was paid lip service, at best, while those Christians prostrated themselves at the altars of political and economic power and dominance.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
We have communities within Christendom who live lives radically dedicated to Christ. They’re called the Amish and Monastics. They’re not called pacifists who participate in secular society and surrender every value to it. I would not call yours a radical commitment to Christ or God’s reign, as much as I would a surrender to the secular society around you.

Modern-day Friends might come closer to being both radical communities who are integrated into secular society to some degree (and they are also committed pacifists). But that is neither here nor there. I see my value system as being entirely at odds with the materialistic, consumeristic, society around us in which we are encouraged to value people only insofar as it benefits ourselves. The values of the gospel hardly align with that either.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If the current year is what you think the reign of God looks like I almost shudder. People continue to loose faith or their Christianity has been turned into a bastardized version thereof. Governments are implementing systems like the Chinese are to control their citizen’s behaviour from birth. Christian morality is being abandoned in favour of a secular morality that at it’s core is more ruthless and less forgiving that anything Christians have done.

As humanity advances, are we really inaugurating God’s Kingdom ourselves? Or are we just piling sin upon sin?

We are not inaugurating God's kingdom ourselves. But it is impacting the world around us in and through us. Positive change is possible, and does happen. One of the important formative events of my life was when apartheid ended and I realised that the evil systems within which we live are not fixed.

No, it's not all good news, but within the chaos of human sin and foolishness, the Kingdom of God continues to impact so many for good. And that's the side of things where I choose to invest my energies and talents.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 15, 2021

Paidiske said:
As I keep saying, a truly pacifist system would have been working on the situation, and the relationships, long before it got to that point.

Your hypothetical utopian system doesn’t address past instances where people have had no other choice but to fight. Nor can it address future instances where people might run into the same scenario. Hence, you can reject the binary, but your system cannot deal with it adequately. You must in order to carry it through to it’s ultimate conclusion, as the defenders to die to preserve the lives of the aggressors. Since more death = bad.

Paidiske said:
I was suggesting the material for you, not them. While I am not an expert in counter-radicalisation, I know that it rests on building authentic relationships, not propaganda material.

The thing about Islamic radicals is that they have reinforcing relationships as well. Brotherhood, families, wives, children, Imams. This is especially so in that Islamic context. You are still hard pressed to actually deal with them as a problem since killing them is not an option. You might be friendly to them, you might even convince a few, but not all of them. What then is the solution to someone who has committed themselves to die for Allah?

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75677842, member: 386627’] Even the New Testament reflects some things that, while we might acknowledge as part of our history, we might find inappropriate to repeat. It's not a matter of neglecting history - in fact we ought know our history well as a source of wisdom - but that we don't need to be locked into repeating the mistakes of the past. [/QUOTE]

I could understand why you might think this way given the denomination you belong to. But here’s the thing. It was not a mistake to resist Islamic invasion. It was not a mistake for missionaries to seek to convert Pagan Kings. It was not a mistake for there to be Christian Kings and people who would use power.

If part of the reasoning you are using involves a progressive revelation. That somethings of our past need not be followed anymore because we have received a better teaching, then what is the basis for your inditement on the Christian past? That they were guilty of some sort of serious sin? It seems to me they had more a biblical basis for killing than you do for a complete pacifism.

Were our Christian forebears actually guilty of a sin at the time of the Reconquista? Or The Byzantines resisting Islamic invasion into Greece and Asia Minor? On what basis might you say they were being un-Christian? Since truth and morality develop over centuries? Since ethics evil with time, per your understanding, how can you indict them?

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75677842, member: 386627”] If every human being, as a divine image-bearer, as a locus of potential for God's presence and grace, is precious beyond measure, then killing that person is an act of destruction and despair of God that goes against absolutely everything the gospel is on about, everything Christ came to accomplish. It is a denial and defacement of God's good creation. It is absolutely evil. [/QUOTE]

We being in the image of God does not make us immune to consequences for our actions. Men being in the image of God did not spare them the death penalty in the Old Testament. Paul accepted the death penalty for certain crimes and likewise the one who violates peace and aggresses can no longer rely on their God given image to give them immunity to the consequences of their actions. It is not evil to be concerned with one’s immediate family, especially if you have a duty to protect them against an aggressor.

It is one thing to go beyond the moment and torture the aggressor. Quite another to deal with him quickly and prevent him from shedding innocent blood. It’s the same problem I’ve had throughout this thread with your approach. You only protect the wrongdoer, never the victim.

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75677842, member: 386627”] Well, it did inspire a pacifist movement...

$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

[/QUOTE]

A movement which has and will continue to fail because it doesn’t understand how fallen humanity is. You can limit excesses but never do away with the basic actions. This is why Christianity doesn’t forbid sex outright despite its misuse.

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75677842, member: 386627”] No, I don't think so. I don't think Christianity caused most wars, but I think most wars conducted by Christians were in situations where Christianity was paid lip service, at best, while those Christians prostrated themselves at the altars of political and economic power and dominance.

$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

[/QUOTE]

This is true. But what constrained them? What lead to the rules of warfare within Europe? What is the basis upon which we critique so many historical conflicts to begin with? Because we have a positive view of what is right and wrong and sometimes we can know there were justified reasons for going to war. We can also know when there have been excesses, when one side has gone too far.

Christianity allowed a basic framework with which to actually critique the actions of monarchs. Instead of an older Idea of simple domination.

[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75677842, member: 386627”] We are not inaugurating God's kingdom ourselves. But it is impacting the world around us in and through us. Positive change is possible, and does happen. One of the important formative events of my life was when apartheid ended and I realised that the evil systems within which we live are not fixed.

No, it's not all good news, but within the chaos of human sin and foolishness, the Kingdom of God continues to impact so many for good. And that's the side of things where I choose to invest my energies and talents.

$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

[/QUOTE]

I sympathize with the bold. South Africa is not a paradise, especially for white people and it is now a country which tolerates politicians calling for the deaths of whites. Instead of reconciliation there just seems to be a call for vengeance. It’s just traded one bad system for another and I don’t blame you and your family leaving South Africa. (if I read you earlier right).

Yet that doesn’t exactly go against my Idea of the world. There’s a quote from Tolkien that I think encapsulates my view of things:

"I am a Christian," Tolkien wrote, "and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a 'long defeat' - though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory."

Minus the Roman Catholic part. I don’t expect us to do better in the long run.

Paidiske · Jan 15, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Your hypothetical utopian system doesn’t address past instances where people have had no other choice but to fight.

Nor is it intended to. As I keep saying, I am not particularly concerned with the past.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Nor can it address future instances where people might run into the same scenario.

What it can do is act as an aspirational vision towards which all people of goodwill can work together. If they are at least willing to acknowledge the possibility.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The thing about Islamic radicals is that they have reinforcing relationships as well.

Sure. I didn't say that deradicalisation work was easy, simple or an overnight fix. Simply that it was possible.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If part of the reasoning you are using involves a progressive revelation. That somethings of our past need not be followed anymore because we have received a better teaching, then what is the basis for your inditement on the Christian past? That they were guilty of some sort of serious sin?

No, not exactly a progressive revelation, but more perhaps a progression in our understanding and living out of that revelation. I'm sure many of the people who killed in the name of Christianity thought they were doing good. I am, however, free to disagree with them.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Were our Christian forebears actually guilty of a sin at the time of the Reconquista? Or The Byzantines resisting Islamic invasion into Greece and Asia Minor? On what basis might you say they were being un-Christian? Since truth and morality develop over centuries? Since ethics evil with time, per your understanding, how can you indict them?

It's a sin to wilfully kill another human being. There's just no way around that. I don't think that's a development over centuries, I think our faith has always borne witness to that to some degree. It's just that we've often ignored that witness in our Scriptures and tradition.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It is not evil to be concerned with one’s immediate family,

Of course not. But how one acts on that concern is another matter. "Concern" does not give moral carte blanche.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
You only protect the wrongdoer, never the victim.

I would protect both. It is you who is insisting that's impossible.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
A movement which has and will continue to fail because it doesn’t understand how fallen humanity is.

It's had some wins, too. Hope is preferable to despair.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
"I am a Christian," Tolkien wrote, "and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a 'long defeat' - though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory."

And I would argue that our refusal to kill ought to be such a sample or glimpse. We are defeated when we decide we can hope for nothing better, so might as well participate in the world's frenzied depravity and killing.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 17, 2021

Paidiske said:
Nor is it intended to. As I keep saying, I am not particularly concerned with the past.

Hence the novelty of your Ideas. If you are unconcerned about the past and how Christians of the past dealt with these problems, why should any Christian take you seriously when you are willing to condemn the Armenians of sin for taking lives in the defence of their people?

Christianity didn’t begin in the 21st century, it’s been around for two centuries and this is why I’ve argued from the beginning we need to be reconciled to the Christian past. If not, why expect future Anglicans take anything you say seriously? To hold on to what you pass on to them? Mind you, I don’t think Anglicanism will survive the century.

Paidiske said:
What it can do is act as an aspirational vision towards which all people of goodwill can work together. If they are at least willing to acknowledge the possibility.

It’s an essentially useless vision. We can all have aspirations and prefer peace, but sometimes that it is not possible, especially when two sides are in irreconcilable differences. I prefer to live in the world of real possibility, instead of what I hope will be true.

Paidiske said:
Sure. I didn't say that deradicalisation work was easy, simple or an overnight fix. Simply that it was possible.

Anything is possible, what matters is if it’s likely. Islamic Radicals are not going to be convinced on mass to abandon their ideology.

Paidiske said:
No, not exactly a progressive revelation, but more perhaps a progression in our understanding and living out of that revelation. I'm sure many of the people who killed in the name of Christianity thought they were doing good. I am, however, free to disagree with them.

You are free to disagree with them, but you live as a result of their decisions. You have your Christian faith today as a result of their decision. The decision to fight back against the Scandanavian Pagans and kill them was in effort to protect a future inheritance of Christianity. Yet, you would condemn Alfred for his actions, say they were evil.

I would call this ungrateful.

Paidiske said:
It's a sin to wilfully kill another human being. There's just no way around that. I don't think that's a development over centuries, I think our faith has always borne witness to that to some degree. It's just that we've often ignored that witness in our Scriptures and tradition.

Except it isn’t. Biblically you cannot make the case that to kill another human being is a sin. That’s just your perspective of today. Let me ask you, was it a sin when David killed Goliath?

Paidiske said:
Of course not. But how one acts on that concern is another matter. "Concern" does not give moral carte blanche.

Sometimes that involves killing. Thus we place more value on the innocent than the wrongdoer.

Paidiske said:
I would protect both. It is you who is insisting that's impossible.

Most of the time it is impossible. The bottom line is that if your advice would only ever let one’s enemies continually deprive Christians of stable existence. Hence why you cannot support the Armenians fighting for their lives and must ask that they sacrifice their lives in order that the Turks (who are geocoding them) might live.

Paidiske said:
It's had some wins, too. Hope is preferable to despair.

Now it’s my turn to reject your binary. There is a third choice, that war or conflict is sometimes justified. However if you maintain your course, the only option left for you is despair. Since pacifism will never be an option that works in a fallen world.

Paidiske · Jan 17, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If you are unconcerned about the past and how Christians of the past dealt with these problems,

That's not what I said. In fact, I said knowing our own history was an important source of wisdom. I just don't think we are bound to agree with everything Christians did in the past. We can note, learn and grow from their mistakes.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Mind you, I don’t think Anglicanism will survive the century.

This sort of derogatory comment doesn't help your argument, but just communicates contempt.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It’s an essentially useless vision.

Says you, but not the people who actually live and work by it.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Anything is possible, what matters is if it’s likely. Islamic Radicals are not going to be convinced on mass to abandon their ideology.

Not overnight, but over time... we know any movement can go through massive paradigm shifts.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
You are free to disagree with them, but you live as a result of their decisions. You have your Christian faith today as a result of their decision.

Again, you cannot possibly know what an alternative history might have looked like.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I would call this ungrateful.

I'm sure all the dead Christian warmongers are heartbroken at my apparent ingratitude.

I owe my loyalty far more to those who live today, than those who died millennia ago.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Biblically you cannot make the case that to kill another human being is a sin.

Of course I can. From the story of Cain and Abel to the apocalyptic visions of Revelation, humans killing humans is presented as a grave evil.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Let me ask you, was it a sin when David killed Goliath?

Yes.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The bottom line is that if your advice would only ever let one’s enemies continually deprive Christians of stable existence.

That's your take on it, but it's not mine. Even if that were true, we are not promised a "stable existence" on this earth; far from it.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
However if you maintain your course, the only option left for you is despair. Since pacifism will never be an option that works in a fallen world.

And yet I - and all the rest of the world's pacifists - are not despairing, but brimming with hope.

War doesn't "work." And it cannot be claimed to, when the human cost is so high.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 18, 2021

Paidiske said:
That's not what I said. In fact, I said knowing our own history was an important source of wisdom. I just don't think we are bound to agree with everything Christians did in the past. We can note, learn and grow from their mistakes.

You keep avoiding my crucial question, the initial argument I made that your ideology would have Christians sacrifice their lives to anyone who demands it. You denied that there was such a binary but when confronted with an example in the Armenian Genocide (where entire towns of people were destroyed) you deflected and refuse to address the valid binary decision.

Answer, once and for all, how your ideology of reducing mass casualties doesn’t demand that the defender give up their lives to the offender who seeks only their destruction? How your ideology doesn’t protect the defender and the one targeted for destruction but instead only ensures victory for the aggressor?

If your pacifism cannot deal with these problems it is not worth considering by anyone who wants to live. By anyone who wants a stake in the future and their children to receive an inheritance worth keeping.

Paidiske said:
This sort of derogatory comment doesn't help your argument, but just communicates contempt.

I would consider it more a comment of the actual future, that a derogatory remark, but I can admit it was a side comment and a distraction.

Paidiske said:
Says you, but not the people who actually live and work by it.

The people like you who live by it are in the comfort of a country like Australia. That has law, stability, a police force and an army to defend you. I already established the principle of the state as being backed by violence and despite you denying this reality. It’s not even as if I’m against personal pacifism, but to expand that to all others but yourself and convict them of a sin is an extreme position which is unjustified. Especially given how we cannot conflate all conflict or violence and say it’s equal in either the cause or the results.

Paidiske said:
Not overnight, but over time... we know any movement can go through massive paradigm shifts.

And when it fails, what then? What if Utopia does not get achieved? What then?

Paidiske said:
Again, you cannot possibly know what an alternative history might have looked like.

I can have a reasonable guess. I can think about the historic context Christianity grew in and what happened after the death of Western side of the Empire. I can use historical examples and ask necessary questions like how would Islam be repelled in Europe if not by force?

Your response is to deny that these thoughts have no merit. That we cannot know. If that’s the case I will make only this suggestion, that I have more reasons to think that pacifism would not have benefitted Christianity more than the traditional Christian position on war did.

Paidiske said:
I'm sure all the dead Christian warmongers are heartbroken at my apparent ingratitude.
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

When you reduce all of our Christian leaders of the past to warmongers, I must ask, do you really have any knowledge into their character? Could Alfred be called a warmonger? He paid the dangald twice and the Vikings continued to violate their oaths and when lost his Kingdom he used arms to force his opponent to terms.

Paidiske said:
I owe my loyalty far more to those who live today, than those who died millennia ago.
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

This is perhaps the heart of our disagreement. For me the Christian faith is not a matter of merely the now. It’s about the entire history of God’s people and that includes the last two thousand years as messy and sinful as they were. If we are so willing to condemn them for the most basic of things, like defending their people from foreign attackers, then why even be a Christian? When they handed down a bloodsoaked legacy which no one can justify? The Church was an accomplice to that history and thus worthy of condemnation. I cannot go that far because that would be to abandon Christianity.

Paidiske said:
Of course I can. From the story of Cain and Abel to the apocalyptic visions of Revelation, humans killing humans is presented as a grave evil.
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

Murder is presented as a grave evil. Killing is not. Lest we forget the conquest of Israel or death penalty as a punishment for breaking many Old Testament laws. I’ll continue to bring up Paul because I think you have no way to get around what Paul says concerning the rightful use of the sword by civil authorities.

Paidiske said:
Yes
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

Should David had surrendered or wilfully allow Goliath to kill him instead of sinning?

Paidiske said:
That's your take on it, but it's not mine. Even if that were true, we are not promised a "stable existence" on this earth; far from it.
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

No we aren’t, but that doesn’t mean we should willingly seek danger and live in a suicidal mode of living in which everything is expected from us and nothing is given back. That is the path to serfdom and one wherein Christianity becomes a religion unable to be preached.

Not everyone is called to the serious life of complete self-denial. Not you, not me. Some Christians are weak in their faith, but God has mercy on them to not allow them to fall into ordeals which will destroy them. It is not a sin to provide stability for your people, your friends or your family. It would be a sin to sell them into slavery, to neglect your duty to protect them, all because you wouldn’t fight back.

Paidiske said:
And yet I - and all the rest of the world's pacifists - are not despairing, but brimming with hope.

War doesn't "work." And it cannot be claimed to, when the human cost is so high.
$C:\Users\Kyle\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png$

War has worked quite often. I’ve given multiple examples of it being effective. Lest you think the Japanese purge of Christians didn’t work because there was still a minority of secret Christians within Japan. The effect of the initial burst of persecution was successful for the Shinto regime.

If you’re brimming with hope at the moment that peace will last I will have to respectfully disagree. Tensions are mounting up at an alarming rate, especially in the USA.

Paidiske · Jan 18, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
You keep avoiding my crucial question, the initial argument I made that your ideology would have Christians sacrifice their lives to anyone who demands it. You denied that there was such a binary but when confronted with an example in the Armenian Genocide (where entire towns of people were destroyed) you deflected and refuse to address the valid binary decision.

Because I don't believe it is a binary decision. You present it as a binary, but life is seldom that simple. Our decisions are open-ended and we have many options and many ways to shape our relationships and situations.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Answer, once and for all, how your ideology of reducing mass casualties doesn’t demand that the defender give up their lives to the offender who seeks only their destruction?

My ideology would deal with the offender before it got to that point. War doesn't just come out of nowhere. Conflicts have causes and flashpoints and underlying tensions. Those need to be tended to long before we get to the destruction of entire towns.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The people like you who live by it are in the comfort of a country like Australia.

Not all. There are pacifist groups and movements in places where they are not pampered and sheltered. Consider the work of Christian Peacemaker Teams as an example.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
And when it fails, what then? What if Utopia does not get achieved? What then?

We continue to live and work and pray as communities which are sign, instrument and foretaste of the reign of God.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
When you reduce all of our Christian leaders of the past to warmongers

Not all of them. Just the ones who actually were.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
This is perhaps the heart of our disagreement. For me the Christian faith is not a matter of merely the now. It’s about the entire history of God’s people and that includes the last two thousand years as messy and sinful as they were. If we are so willing to condemn them for the most basic of things, like defending their people from foreign attackers, then why even be a Christian? When they handed down a bloodsoaked legacy which no one can justify? The Church was an accomplice to that history and thus worthy of condemnation. I cannot go that far because that would be to abandon Christianity.

Why be a Christian? Because Christianity is the community of people who, in turning to Christ, are indwelt by the Spirit, and are empowered to experience and in turn to enable others to experience the reign of God. There is nothing else which offers not only such intimacy with God, but also such participation in God's mission, God's transformation of all that is death-dealing into what is life-giving.

I've probably phrased that badly, but I've tried to put into words the sense that here we have something in which humans are best able to know and realise their fullest potential for transfomative relationship with God.

None of that is about history. I'm not a Christian because my parents were (in fact, they're very lapsed), or my ancestors, or my community. I'm not a Christian because Christian history is so compelling that I cannot bear not to be part of it. In fact, taken as a whole, Christian history offers plenty of reason to be wary of the faith. I'm a Christian because the Christian future is so compelling that I cannot bear not to be part of it.

It's that future to which I am fundamentally committed. The past is incidental to my motivation.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I’ll continue to bring up Paul because I think you have no way to get around what Paul says concerning the rightful use of the sword by civil authorities.

I think it's a metaphor. Not for one second do I think Paul was saying that it was good for the state to kill people.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Should David had surrendered or wilfully allow Goliath to kill him instead of sinning?

I'm not sure what David "should" have done, or even that the text gives us enough context to be aware of the options at the time. But I'm quite happy to say that killing Goliath cannot be called "good."

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
No we aren’t, but that doesn’t mean we should willingly seek danger and live in a suicidal mode of living in which everything is expected from us and nothing is given back.

Again, not what I'm advocating...

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
War has worked quite often.

This is like saying, "the operation was a success," when the surgery was completed but the patient died. You might have achieved some desired end, but when the path to it is so grotesque, so evil, it cannot be claimed to have "worked."

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If you’re brimming with hope at the moment that peace will last I will have to respectfully disagree.

I am brimming with hope that God will continue to work all things together for good.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Tensions are mounting up at an alarming rate, especially in the USA

Well, here you and I can shake our heads in mournful agreement about our strange neighbours. But tempting as it might occasionally be, I still can't advocate warfare as a solution to American craziness.

War and Peace

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Similar threads