Amish Pacifism

[Sucoyant]

Namaste!

Could someone please explain why the Amish are pacifist? What excerpt within the bible are they following?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

I don't know, but I do know they are very nice, and they upholster funiture.

 

[Norea]

Namaste!

Could someone please explain why the Amish are pacifist? What excerpt within the bible are they following?

Thanks in advance.

It has to do with Jesus being a pacifist himself. He never resisted his arrest by the Romans and similar situations. Thus they regard war un-christ-like. Same with the Quakers and a few other groups.

-- Bridget

 

[sinner/SAVED]

The Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7. The Amish are not the only Christians who believe violence is wrong.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

"Turn the other cheek."

The Amish are doing something that most Christians don't do in this regard...following Jesus' words.

 

[Sucoyant]

Electric Sceptic - That's what I was confused on. I don't understand why some Christians believe violence is fine, when others don't. Could it be that those who think violence is okay are referencing the Old Testament?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Electric Sceptic - That's what I was confused on. I don't understand why some Christians believe violence is fine, when others don't. Could it be that those who think violence is okay are referencing the Old Testament?

I believe it is because most christians aren't really interested in what Jesus preached. They are interested in what they believe, and search christianity for support for their own position. It's known as 'cafeteria christianity', in that you take what you like and leave the rest.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Nonviolence is much easier to reconcile with Jesus' teachings than the use of violence.

When we studied the issue in my theology class recently, I came to realize that nonviolent direct action is more in line with what Jesus said than things like just war theory.

 

[Sucoyant]

I believe it is because most christians aren't really interested in what Jesus preached. They are interested in what they believe, and search christianity for support for their own position. It's known as 'cafeteria christianity', in that you take what you like and leave the rest.

Ugh, that's what I was afraid of. Even though I'm Buddhist, it hurts to see a good religion soured by selfishness.

Thanks again!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I believe it is because most christians aren't really interested in what Jesus preached. They are interested in what they believe, and search christianity for support for their own position. It's known as 'cafeteria christianity', in that you take what you like and leave the rest.

To be charitable, nonviolence goes completely against the way of the world. Most Christians don't realize the true meaning of grace (I know I'm still working at it). While I agree that nonviolence is the Christian option, I wouldn't denigrate them for not understanding that. Some may not care about what Jesus said, but many probably have never even had to think much about the issue.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

To be charitable, nonviolence goes completely against the way of the world. Most Christians don't realize the true meaning of grace (I know I'm still working at it). While I agree that nonviolence is the Christian option, I wouldn't denigrate them for not understanding that. Some may not care about what Jesus said, but many probably have never even had to think much about the issue.

I disagree. I have had discussions on this issue with many christians, and they quite happily justify their use of violence in certain circumstances.

 

[Gizmo_likes_Rambo]

I just recently started agreeing with the idea of pacifism. I used to think that if someone's doing something wrong, it should be punished. For instance, how would Hitler have been stopped without violence? (perhaps a convincing argument) But now I realize it's not my job to judge Hitler (despite how horrible his actions were... Paul persecuted christains. I'm glad no one killed HIM.)

The bottom line for me is, since I'm a christian, I can't kill a non-christian thus sending them to hell. If I have to die, so be it. At least they still have a chance to find God.

 

[The Seeker]

I just recently started agreeing with the idea of pacifism. I used to think that if someone's doing something wrong, it should be punished. For instance, how would Hitler have been stopped without violence? (perhaps a convincing argument) But now I realize it's not my job to judge Hitler (despite how horrible his actions were... Paul persecuted christains. I'm glad no one killed HIM.)

So you'd rather Hitler was allowed to carry on ordering genocide than somebody (horror of horrors) formed an opinion about somebody else and took action based on it? Pacifism=bourgeois wibble.

 

[Nevin]

I'm a Pacifist myself, although I'm not Amish (I'm Mennonite). I believe that Jesus did teach Pacifism, and that we as Christians are called to be non-violent.

So you'd rather Hitler was allowed to carry on ordering genocide than somebody (horror of horrors) formed an opinion about somebody else and took action based on it? Pacifism=bourgeois wibble.

It is true that Pacifism is not practical. But then, was Jesus ever concerned with practicality? It seems to me that he was always more concerned with whether or not something was right than whether it was practical.

 

[The Seeker]

I'm a Pacifist myself, although I'm not Amish (I'm Mennonite). I believe that Jesus did teach Pacifism, and that we as Christians are called to be non-violent.

It is true that Pacifism is not practical. But then, was Jesus ever concerned with practicality? It seems to me that he was always more concerned with whether or not something was right than whether it was practical.

How is it "right" to allow genocide but not right to kill one man? Surely in such a case inaction is far worse than action?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I grew up in Pennsylvania, about an hour from Lancaster county where many Amish live. I was also raised as a Moravian in Bethlehem, PA. They also were pacifists--much to George Washington's chagrin. They refused to fight in the revolutionary war, and they would treat anyone--American, British, French, or Native American, in their hospital. Their gravestones are also flat and the same size for everyone because they believed everyone was equal under God. When someone died, they were put into the next available grave, so a Native American might be right next to a prominent community leader.

Even though I eventually rejected Christianity, I still hold those values as very important and special.

Also, my understanding of pacifism isn't that one never fights, but only uses it as a last resort. Which verse has Jesus saying something like, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"?

As for Hitler, what do you think about the American soldier who had him a bayonet point in a foxhole in WWI, but let him live? Just throwing it out.

 

[The Seeker]

As for Hitler, what do you think about the American soldier who had him a bayonet point in a foxhole in WWI, but let him live? Just throwing it out.

Hardly his fault, he couldn't have known. On the other hand, knowing what I know, if I was in that situation I would have quite happily stabbed him to death, given the consequences of him living on.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On the other hand, knowing what I know, if I was in that situation I would have quite happily stabbed him to death, given the consequences of him living on.

I tend to agree. The only problem is there is always a vacuum for murderous dictators waiting to be filled. Unfortunately, it usually is.

 

[Mustaphile]

I'm a pacifist myself. I do know of many christians that would disagree with my stance. I've always held the Amish, Mennonites and Quakers in high regard for their pacifist stance. They cop a lot of flak over it. I hope to one day find a group of similarly minded believers in my area.

 

[Nevin]

How is it "right" to allow genocide but not right to kill one man? Surely in such a case inaction is far worse than action?

You are looking at the result of the action, rather than the action itself. I believe that actions in and of themselves are right and wrong. All killing is wrong, even if it may have a good result. How can you say that the ends justify the means if you don't know all possible ends? As flawed and imperfect beings, we do not know what the consequences of our actions will be. We cannot see the big picture. For instance, if you had killed Hitler in the scenario you suggested, perhaps the Bolshevists would have taken over Europe. We can't justify our actions by saying that they'll bring about a good result, because we don't know what the result will be. Only God is able to see all ends, and so only he is justified in killing.